Hate Speech Laws Often Used To Target Left-Wing Viewpoints

Geoist said:

Observing what is occurring in countries with hate speech laws is a "knee jerk" reaction? I'm "blaming the left?" What silliness.

Click to expand...

What's silly is that post. Your ego is in the way, you're only bitching because it hurt your feelings.

You haven't even tried to demonstrate otherwise nor made a point other than a resentment over my words. Too much ego there.

But what's really "silly"?

A president with orange skin who' too stupid to be in the job. That's "silly"

Fearandloathing said:

Canada has anti-hate laws, and it is NOT impossible to have free speech and curtail it being used for evil purposes.

Click to expand...

There are two possibilities here.

You didn't understand his post, wherein he said there are certain rightful exceptions to free speech -- imminent incitement of lawless action being a good example of it "being used for evil purposes" -- and you actually agree with him, or . . .

More likely, you think saying hateful things is that "evil purpose," and thus should be outlawed . . . in which case, yes, it IS impossible to have free speech and curtail it being used for evil purposes. What you describe would not be free speech, but approved speech. I don't believe you grasp the difference.

But you already have laws protecting use of speech, like not yelling "fire" in a theatre

Click to expand...

No, actually, there is no law against that, and no, the Supreme Court did not, in fact, say it was illegal.

or "all XXXXXX are rapists and murderers..

Click to expand...

There's absolutely no exception to free speech for that.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, pretty much across the board here.

MrWonka said:

No, it does not. It means that one domino falling does not in anyway guarantee a second one will. Even if knocking over one domino in the past lead to another domino falling there is no reason to think that has to happen in the future.

Click to expand...

I did not say because it happened in the past it HAS to happen in the future. I am saying the fact it happened in the past tells us it is likely to happen again in the future.

It might happen, but the cause of it will not be us knocking over the first domino, it will be someone in the future chosing to take it too far. If there is nothing wrong with knocking over the first domino we should not let the possibility that some asshole in the future will take things to far prevent us from taking our actions.

Click to expand...

Taking the speech away from those you don't like is already taking it too far.

False choice. Again you don't know that passing hate speech laws will definately result in some people who shouldn't be targeted getting targetted. If the laws are written well the odds should be minimal.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it will definitely happen, I'm simply presenting two scenarios. There is no such thing as a "well-written" law if it violates the First Amendment.

Crovax said:

Not criminally no, the standard is "imminent lawless action"

Click to expand...

After reading further in the court cases I concede on that point. Wasn't aware of the '69 case.

Fearandloathing said:

What's silly is that post. Your ego is in the way, you're only bitching because it hurt your feelings.

You haven't even tried to demonstrate otherwise nor made a point other than a resentment over my words. Too much ego there.

But what's really "silly"?

A president with orange skin who' too stupid to be in the job. That's "silly"

Click to expand...

The one who is trying to derail the thread with posts about Trump is being silly.

If you do not wish to debate the topic then move along.