City bans calling someone an ‘illegal alien’ out of hate

[SDET]

Because the US Constitution is not like the Soviet Constitution that has a clause stating "except as provided by law".

The meaning below has been interpreted to mean state governments as well as Congress.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How can a law legally violate the first amendment?

 

[mike2810]

Your copying my language like this implies bad faith on your part.



Do you think you recovered here?

Your post shows you have no intention of proving honest answers to questions asked.

"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."
Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1413&context=facpubs
"Expression of hatred toward any group, and therefore speech or expression which incites others to such hatred, is protected in U.S. law by the freedom of speech despite the psychological and social harm such expression is widely believed to cause when directed toward minorities otherwise subjected to patterns of discrimination in the society. Only when hatred is actualized by violence or other unlawful action or an immediate threat thereof, directed toward others or reflexively from the victim toward the hater, does the latter encounter the limits of free speech. Even then, according to the R.A.V. majority, the suppression must be aimed at the violence and not at the particular viewpoint of the speaker. On the other hand when that limit is reached, the special harms of expressed hatred may be and are given special recognition in the form of more severe penalties for the wrongful acts resulting from such hatred. "

Maybe this will help you.

 

[Fledermaus]

Now begins the sealioning stage: Demanding a response to satisfy an impossibly high bar, all the while passing a pathetically low standard for "debate." We're beyond just a double standard at this point: The game he is playing is Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.

And another post that does not address the question.

Typical Phys251....

 

[Phys251]

Your post shows you have no intention of proving honest answers to questions asked.

"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."
Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1413&context=facpubs
"Expression of hatred toward any group, and therefore speech or expression which incites others to such hatred, is protected in U.S. law by the freedom of speech despite the psychological and social harm such expression is widely believed to cause when directed toward minorities otherwise subjected to patterns of discrimination in the society. Only when hatred is actualized by violence or other unlawful action or an immediate threat thereof, directed toward others or reflexively from the victim toward the hater, does the latter encounter the limits of free speech. Even then, according to the R.A.V. majority, the suppression must be aimed at the violence and not at the particular viewpoint of the speaker. On the other hand when that limit is reached, the special harms of expressed hatred may be and are given special recognition in the form of more severe penalties for the wrongful acts resulting from such hatred. "

Maybe this will help you.

And now that you have provided a definition, will you answer the question or not? Do you, mike2810, unconditionally condemn hate speech, yes or no?

 

[Fledermaus]

It's how exploitation in this matter works, and why Trump's businesses employed undocumented workers so frequently. Since they're here illegally then you (as the landlord, employer or some other authority figure) can compel them to live or work under sub-par conditions under the understood threat that you can call ICE on them if they get out of line. And historically, this country never punishes the employer or landlords; just the undocumented people.

"Undocumented" is really a misnomer.....

There are those with legitimate documents (ID's issued from home nation) that are not legally employed.

There are those with forged documents that are not legally employed.

There are those with stolen documents that are not legally employed.

There are those with borrowed documents that are not legally employed.

All. "documented". All illegally employed.

 

[Fledermaus]

And now that you have provided a definition, will you answer the question or not? Do you, mike2810, unconditionally condemn hate speech, yes or no?

Hate speech that is actually hate speech or hate speech that isn't?

 

[Cardinal]

"Undocumented" is really a misnomer.....

There are those with legitimate documents (ID's issued from home nation) that are not legally employed.

There are those with forged documents that are not legally employed.

There are those with stolen documents that are not legally employed.

There are those with borrowed documents that are not legally employed.

All. "documented". All illegally employed.

And employers hire them anyway because there's all reward and no risk. The government doesn't punish them (did anybody at Trump's businesses get so much as a slap on the wrist for hiring undocumented works and falsifying documents for them?) and the reward of getting cheap labor you can intimidate and threaten with exile is too great.

 

[mike2810]

And now that you have provided a definition, will you answer the question or not? Do you, mike2810, unconditionally condemn hate speech, yes or no?

I asked for your definition of "hate speech" You refuse to state what it is. So no, not playing your one sided game till you answer questions asked.

If you believe I support hate speech, prove it.

 

[Phys251]

Hate speech that is actually hate speech or hate speech that isn't?

Using the definition of hate speech that mike2810 provided in Post #77, do you, Fledermaus, unconditionally condemn hate speech or not?

 

[Phys251]

I asked for your definition of "hate speech" You refuse to state what it is. So no, not playing your one sided game till you answer questions asked.

If you believe I support hate speech, prove it.

Using the definition of hate speech that you provided in Post #77, do you, mike2810, unconditionally condemn hate speech or not?

 

[mike2810]

Using the definition of hate speech that Fledermaus provided in Post #77, do you, mike2810, unconditionally condemn hate speech or not?

You are a lost cause. Post 77 was my post not Fledermaus.

Quit playing word games. You do realize the definition provided in post 77 has conditions.

I condemn hate speech as defined by the US federal laws. Your turn. Do you condemn hate speech unconditionally? Yes or No.

You have yet to state what you consider "hate speech" Why is that?

 

[Phys251]

You are a lost cause. Post 77 was my post not Fledermaus.

Sorry, I get defenders of hate speech confused. That is very easy to do, you know.

Quit playing word games. You do realize the definition provided in post 77 has conditions.

I condemn hate speech as defined by the US federal laws. Your turn.

Which laws? Be specific.

 

[Fledermaus]

And employers hire them anyway because there's all reward and no risk. The government doesn't punish them (did anybody at Trump's businesses get so much as a slap on the wrist for hiring undocumented works and falsifying documents for them?) and the reward of getting cheap labor you can intimidate and threaten with exile is too great.

I agree. And I believe that all employers that KNOWINGLY employ those who cannot be legally employed be dealt with severely.

 

[AProudLefty]

Pure idiocy.


I’d like to know what these clowns define as “hate”.

The word burners are hard at work.

Can we have a Sieg Heil!!!

I'm sorry? What exactly do you have a problem with this?

 

[Fledermaus]

Using the definition of hate speech that mike2810 provided in Post #77, do you, Fledermaus, unconditionally condemn hate speech or not?

I condemn hate speech.

However, you still have not answered my question.

 

[mike2810]

Sorry, I get defenders of hate speech confused. That is very easy to do, you know.



Which laws? Be specific.

Prove that I support hate speech.
Refer to post 77

That said, provide the courtesy and answer my questions I have asked of you.
If you don't , have a good day. Your a lost cause on this thread.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Pure idiocy.


I’d like to know what these clowns define as “hate”.

The word burners are hard at work.

Can we have a Sieg Heil!!!

What do you think should happen to employers who are alleged to have hired illegal immigrants?

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, I get defenders of hate speech confused.

Who are you speaking of?

If you are suggesting I defend hate speech I suggest you provide examples of me defending hate speech.

In other words, support or retract.

 

[Phys251]

I condemn hate speech.

According to the definition in Post 77? Particularly the part about ethnicity and national origin? Good!

However, you still have not answered my question.

Now that you finally clarified, you've earned the privilege to hear that I condemn it too. :thumbs:

 

[Phys251]

Prove that I support hate speech.
Refer to post 77

That said, provide the courtesy and answer my questions I have asked of you.
If you don't , have a good day. Your a lost cause on this thread.

So you don't condemn hate speech.

Fledermaus, you were right. I should not have gotten you two confused. It turns out that the differences were a mirage.

It's "you're," BTW. If you're going to condemn people who's first language isn't English, learn to speak it yourself. :lol:

 

[Fledermaus]

According to the definition in Post 77? Particularly the part about ethnicity and national origin? Good!

You still have not answered my question.

Again.

Oh, and you inferred I was a hate speech defender.

Support or retract.

 

[Fledermaus]

So you don't condemn hate speech.

He didn't say that.

Stop the stupid games.

You still haven't answered how an accurate description is "hate".

 

[Phys251]

You still have not answered my question.

Again.

Oh, and you inferred I was a hate speech defender.

Support or retract.

I'm sorry, are you incapable of inferring anything except what is written in black and white? You clearly claim to hate hate speech. This is a good first step for you! But now comes the tougher test: Can you put those alleged beliefs into practice? For example, when people who don't talk like you or look like you commit the misdemeanor of entering the country without proper documentation? Is your outrage in proportion to the crime or the ones who commit the crime? Think carefully before you answer this question.

 

[zimmer]

What do you think should happen to employers who are alleged to have hired illegal immigrants?

We have laws for illegal aliens that would do just fine if enforced.

 

[Cardinal]

I agree. And I believe that all employers that KNOWINGLY employ those who cannot be legally employed be dealt with severely.

Yes, that's what conservatives say, but they don't walk the walk. When it came out that multiple trump businesses used undocumented workers, even where it was shown that they were forging documents for those workers, conservatives were completely silent. But then, to be fair, they're always silent about the employers every time undocumented workers are rounded up.

But if you ask conservatives on an anonymous debate site if they believe that employers should face penalties for hiring undocumented workers, they'll always say "yes."