Why America needs a hate speech law

[Glitch]

America needs a substantive hate speech law so that Democrats can have a more solid basis for locking up people they disagree with politically.

That is why Democrats created "hate crimes," so they could specifically target all those they hate.

 

[Glitch]

It used to be there were objective and unbiased news sources, but they all adopted the Fox News model and took a side. Now it's a mostly question of whether I believe your side's spin or my own. The savvy person will read both (or more exactly a lot) and try to form an opinion from that. In a sense, that's what DP is for. If there is an example where the marketplace of ideas works, its here.

You've got that backwards actually. Fox News sprang into existence in 1996 because Americans had enough leftist bias and illegal election influencing by the Democrat propaganda team CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and NBC. After CBS and NBC's deliberate illegal attempts to defraud the American people during the 1992 election Fox News was created 4 years later. For 20 years prior to that the US was entirely under the control of the mentally-deranged habitually-lying leftist media. It was the marketplace that made the correction in 1996 by creating Fox News. Since then Fox News has had more viewers than MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC combined.

 

[Lovebug]

Those are just truths. There is nothing hateful about speaking the truth.

Can't legislate hatred. It comes from the heart, from within.

 

[AlegroLib]

Its not really about fear vs no fear. People who gin up hate just dont care and delight in bad faith. We dont actually have to keep letting neo nazis go unopposed to live in a free society. In fact the nazis took over by using the guise of “its just another opinion” and “free speech” to get into power.

Ehhh... Wouldn't agree with that. The Nazis may have used free speech to get into power, yes, although I think the main reason behind their rise was the shocking economic and social conditions in Weimar Germany as a result of the Great Depression. When suffering is common, that is when extremists start to become popular. Just because we allow bigots free speech doesn't mean we're going to suddenly turn into the Third Reich. There's also a slippery slope argument to be made. Once far-right views are banned, what's next? Nonetheless, I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument - just saying.

Anyway, by openly challenging these sorts of people, we can make them look idiotic. This is my argument. We do not have to let neo nazis go unopposed - this is true. But let us oppose them with debate and facts, rather than shutting down the opposition.

 

[eman623]

Free speech enables you to bring your own mic, not entitling you to someone else’s

Agreed.

 

[eman623]

There is no institutional barrier to getting a professorship just because one is a conservative. Perhaps conservatives should quit convincing themselves intellectuals are always wrong.

Perhaps progressives should do the same about conservatives.

 

[eman623]

Why would anyone support hate speech?

I don't support hate speech. I tolerate it. Because I want my own speech to be tolerated. It's a two-way street.

 

[eman623]

You've got that backwards actually. Fox News sprang into existence in 1996 because Americans had enough leftist bias and illegal election influencing by the Democrat propaganda team CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and NBC. After CBS and NBC's deliberate illegal attempts to defraud the American people during the 1992 election Fox News was created 4 years later. For 20 years prior to that the US was entirely under the control of the mentally-deranged habitually-lying leftist media. It was the marketplace that made the correction in 1996 by creating Fox News. Since then Fox News has had more viewers than MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC combined.

Fox is #1 in cable news but that's still minuscule viewership. Maybe 1-2 million people watch the biggest cable news shows. Even a medium-to-big market local morning radio show can generate several times that number.

And combined? Fox more than all the networks combined too? I kind of doubt that. Do you have a link to back that up?

 

[Harshaw]

They can speak inside their own homes.

So, any law restricting speech is OK if people are still allowed to speak inside their own homes?

 

[Ahlevah]

The ACLU is the only organization I have ever seen support hate speech solely because of their support for free speech.

Sometimes being on the right side of the Constitution is a lonely place.

 

[Ahlevah]

One should understand that free speech does not entitle anyone to a platform.

In that case, why not just cede control of the internet to the government, like they do in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc.? Just use it for selling dog chews and underwear.

 

[Phys251]

Sometimes being on the right side of the Constitution is a lonely place.

The ACLU supports the whole Constitution, not just a cherry-picked amendment or two.

 

[ludin]

People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.

the SCOTUS would love to have a word with you, because they even support hate speech.

 

[aociswundumho]

The ACLU supports the whole Constitution, not just a cherry-picked amendment or two.

They don't support the Second Amendment.

 

[Ahlevah]

The ACLU supports the whole Constitution, not just a cherry-picked amendment or two.

Now that you mentioned it, I wish they'd do more to support the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Ahlevah]

They don't support the Second Amendment.

I was thinking the same thing and wrote my response before I saw yours.

 

[Phys251]

They don't support the Second Amendment.

Post proof or retract.

 

[OlNate]

Wow. Where to begin. Is it from the hypocrisy of a former Time editor now championing censorship? Is it from the lack of faith in the marketplace of ideas? Is it from the hubris that hate speech can even be banned and if it could, then people would stop hating or something? Or is it from the sinister, "give us this power and, trust us, we'll never misuse it for our own political ends." No one gets to define what I think, or what I say. If that bothers you, then those other countries that have don't have free speech beckon.

I always find it fascinating how some conservatives assume that those who don't agree with them are the ones that should leave.

If your country decides to have standards around what constitutes free speech, then it will have standards around what constitutes free speech. :shrug: Bawling about "love it or leave it" might end in receiving an invitation to seek greener pastures yourself.

 

[Glitch]

I always find it fascinating how some conservatives assume that those who don't agree with them are the ones that should leave.

If your country decides to have standards around what constitutes free speech, then it will have standards around what constitutes free speech. :shrug: Bawling about "love it or leave it" might end in receiving an invitation to seek greener pastures yourself.

You are mistaken. If the government decides to violate our constitutionally protected rights, then we will have a new government. No bawling, no discussion, they will simply be replaced. Unlike Canadians, we don't tolerate politicians violating our individual rights in the US. We remove them from office. Meanwhile, enjoy your censorship and forced government speech in Canada.

I always find it humorous to see hypocrites in less free nations give Americans, who live in the freest country on the planet, advice about individual rights that they don't have.

 

[aociswundumho]

Post proof or retract.

First of all, the burden's on you, not me. You made this claim:

The ACLU supports the whole Constitution, not just a cherry-picked amendment or two.

It's up to you to back it up with evidence when questioned. However I will provide some evidence for my side.

From the ACLU's Deputy Legal Director:

When analyzing gun control measures from a civil liberties perspective, we place them into one of three categories. First are laws that regulate or restrict particular types of guns or ammunition, regardless of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations generally raise few, if any, civil liberties issues. Second are proposals that regulate how people acquire guns, again regardless of the identity of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations may raise due process and privacy concerns, but can, if carefully crafted, respect civil liberties. Third are measures that restrict categories of purchasers — such as immigrants or people with mental disabilities — from owning or buying a gun. These sorts of provisions too often are not evidence-based, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues.

As you can see, they don't consider second amendment violations even as civil liberty issues per se, they are only concerned that the violations are equal and non-discriminatory. Here are the three categories broken down separately:

First are laws that regulate or restrict particular types of guns or ammunition, regardless of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations generally raise few, if any, civil liberties issues.

So pretty much any regulation or restriction on guns or ammo is fine by them.

Second are proposals that regulate how people acquire guns, again regardless of the identity of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations may raise due process and privacy concerns, but can, if carefully crafted, respect civil liberties.

Again, the ACLU has no problem with restrictions on how people may buy guns.

Third are measures that restrict categories of purchasers — such as immigrants or people with mental disabilities — from owning or buying a gun. These sorts of provisions too often are not evidence-based, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues.

Once again, their concerns are only about privacy and discrimination.

So that's it. Nothing about protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms, and that's because they don't now and never have. Here's a page from the ACLU from 2013

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

Second Amendment | American Civil Liberties Union

There can't be a "collective right" that simultaneously does not apply to individuals. The ACLU does not support the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[OlNate]

You are mistaken. If the government decides to violate our constitutionally protected rights, then we will have a new government. No bawling, no discussion, they will simply be replaced. Unlike Canadians, we don't tolerate politicians violating our individual rights in the US. We remove them from office. Meanwhile, enjoy your censorship and forced government speech in Canada.

I always find it humorous to see hypocrites in less free nations give Americans, who live in the freest country on the planet, advice about individual rights that they don't have.

:lamo Because, MURICA!!

I always find it humorous to see cowboys volunteer themselves to be cartoon characters.

In the meantime, if the majority of Americans want to AMEND the constitution, they will follow the constitutional process which them enables them to do so, irrespective of the wailings of the irrelevant minority. That's the beauty of democracy. Unlike Canadians, you don't seem educated or mature enough to understand that, but there it is...

You learned something today. Thank a Canadian! :lol:

 

[Phys251]

First of all, the burden's on you, not me.

:lamo

First, you pretend that you have a rare moment of honesty.

Second, you spam a bunch of material from their website and pretend that it somehow makes your false point true. :laughat:

Please try again, this time with more emphasis on telling the truth.

 

[Phys251]

You are mistaken. If the government decides to violate our constitutionally protected rights, then we will have a new government. No bawling, no discussion, they will simply be replaced. Unlike Canadians, we don't tolerate politicians violating our individual rights in the US. We remove them from office. Meanwhile, enjoy your censorship and forced government speech in Canada.

I always find it humorous to see hypocrites in less free nations give Americans, who live in the freest country on the planet, advice about individual rights that they don't have.

:lamo

We already had a civil war over this. The secessionists lost. The Americans won. Get over it already. :thumbs:

 

[aociswundumho]

Second, you spam a bunch of material from their website and pretend that it somehow makes your false point true.

So you don't accept evidence from the ACLU itself?

 

[mrjurrs]

Wow. Where to begin. Is it from the hypocrisy of a former Time editor now championing censorship? Is it from the lack of faith in the marketplace of ideas? Is it from the hubris that hate speech can even be banned and if it could, then people would stop hating or something? Or is it from the sinister, "give us this power and, trust us, we'll never misuse it for our own political ends." No one gets to define what I think, or what I say. If that bothers you, then those other countries that have don't have free speech beckon.

We already have laws that prohibit speech likely to cause imminent violence. That's enough.

America does NOT need a hate speech law. And if Richard Stengal thinks otherwise then he's an idiot.

We already have a hate speech law, it's the First Amendment to our Constitution.