• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hate Speech and the First Amendment

Harshaw said:
You just contradicted yourself again.

You. Do. Not. Respect. Freedom. Of. Speech.
Click to expand...

For you it's all or nothing but I dont think like you , somtimes rights need to be limited like in this case as i have said time and again.
And you can keep saying I dont respect it but I just don't think like you.
 
Speech is generally protected unless it encourages or results in violence.
 
NO1 said:
For you it's all or nothing but I dont think like you , somtimes rights need to be limited like in this case as i have said time and again.
And you can keep saying I dont respect it but I just don't think like you.
Click to expand...

No, you don't think like me. You don't understand or cherish freedom.

I really have no idea what you think repeating the point over and over again does for you.
 
JamesBY said:
Speech is generally protected unless it encourages or results in violence.
Click to expand...
Which speech causes violence under the microscope of the law? 'I smacked someone with a bike chain because he called me an offensive name?' No.

Side note: I used to play football and some players would call others names just to get the reaction and the 15 yard unsportmanlike penalty from the player who received the offensive language. Of course, in pileups, those name callers would be the worse for wear.
 
Last edited:
NO1 said:
Life isn't black or white, and I'm sorry but i don't support the freedom of Nazis to call for death to other people.
Click to expand...

I believe the standard is against calling for the murder of specific individuals. There is also the consideration of calling for the murder of others. Calling for a group's death is no different than wishing them bad luck.
 
cabse5 said:
Which speech causes violence under the microscope of the law? 'I smacked someone with a bike chain because he called me an offensive name?' No.

Side note: I used to play football and some players would call others names just to get the reaction and the 15 yard unsportmanlike penalty from the player who received the offensive language. Of course, in pileups, those name callers would be the worse for wear.
Click to expand...
And that is happening to the name callers of the Alt Right. They are in the scrum of the aftermath of VA, and they are paying and will continue to pay the price.

Quote Originally Posted by SDET View Post
I believe the standard is against calling for the murder of specific individuals. There is also the consideration of calling for the murder of others. Calling for a group's death is no different than wishing them bad luck.
Click to expand...
That will be taken up in American court just as it was at Nuremberg.

Yes, crimes against humanity are crimes here in America.
 
JamesBY said:
And that is happening to the name callers of the Alt Right. They are in the scrum of the aftermath of VA, and they are paying and will continue to pay the price.


That will be taken up in American court just as it was at Nuremberg.

Yes, crimes against humanity are crimes here in America.
Click to expand...
First or all, I'm quite confident the alt-left antiFA - antiFirstAmendment counter-protestors who attempted to take away the civil rights of the alt-right white supremacists will be charged with civil rights violations by the federal government.
Second: Today's white supremacists didn't kill all those Jews in WWII so there wouldn't be any Nurenburg trials for today's white supremacists. And off topic, and third: more people have been killed in socialist and Communist regimes than the Nazis of WWII.
You have any hate for socialist or Communist countries? Hum?
 
cabse5 said:
First or all, I'm quite confident the alt-left antiFA - antiFirstAmendment counter-protestors who attempted to take away the civil rights of the alt-right white supremacists will be charged with civil rights violations by the federal government.
Second: Today's white supremacists didn't kill all those Jews in WWII so there wouldn't be any Nurenburg trials for today's white supremacists. And off topic, and third: more people have been killed in socialist and Communist regimes than the Nazis of WWII.
You have any hate for socialist or Communist countries? Hum?
Click to expand...
What are the fascists bubbling on about?

First, Alt Right fascists get no slack, none. They attack American values, they get stomped. Every time.

Two, if crimes against humanity are committed by White Supremacists, they will be tried by such charges.

Third, Progressivism itself is not the cause of countries (USA, UK, China, Russia, Germany, France, and on and on and on) killing hundreds of millions. Countries using mass industrial processes have killed hundreds of millions.
 
JamesBY said:
What are the fascists bubbling on about?

First, Alt Right fascists get no slack, none. They attack American values, they get stomped. Every time.

Two, if crimes against humanity are committed by White Supremacists, they will be tried by such charges.

Third, Progressivism itself is not the cause of countries (USA, UK, China, Russia, Germany, France, and on and on and on) killing hundreds of millions. Countries using mass industrial processes have killed hundreds of millions.
Click to expand...
OK. You can think whatever you want <walking away slowly>.:eek:
 
SDET said:
I believe the standard is against calling for the murder of specific individuals. There is also the consideration of calling for the murder of others. Calling for a group's death is no different than wishing them bad luck.
Click to expand...

When did the alt-right white supremacists in Charlottesville call for the murder of Jews?
 
Quote Originally Posted by JamesBY View Post
What are the fascists bubbling on about?

First, Alt Right fascists get no slack, none. They attack American values, they get stomped. Every time.

Two, if crimes against humanity are committed by White Supremacists, they will be tried by such charges.

Third, Progressivism itself is not the cause of countries (USA, UK, China, Russia, Germany, France, and on and on and on) killing hundreds of millions. Countries using mass industrial processes have killed hundreds of millions.
cabse5 said:
OK. You can think whatever you want <walking away slowly>.:eek:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the concessiion.
 
JamesBY said:
Quote Originally Posted by JamesBY View Post
What are the fascists bubbling on about?

First, Alt Right fascists get no slack, none. They attack American values, they get stomped. Every time.

Two, if crimes against humanity are committed by White Supremacists, they will be tried by such charges.

Third, Progressivism itself is not the cause of countries (USA, UK, China, Russia, Germany, France, and on and on and on) killing hundreds of millions. Countries using mass industrial processes have killed hundreds of millions.
Thanks for the concessiion.
Click to expand...

I can somewhat agree with the "no slack" idea. If a group of neo-NAZIs demonstrate, file charges if they so much as spit on the sidewalk. However, the same standard needs to be applied to the counter-protesters or it's a violation of equal protection under the law. You might want to check your facts putting Red China on the list of countries that haven't systematically killed scores of millions of people.
 
SDET said:
I can somewhat agree with the "no slack" idea. If a group of neo-NAZIs demonstrate, file charges if they so much as spit on the sidewalk. However, the same standard needs to be applied to the counter-protesters or it's a violation of equal protection under the law. You might want to check your facts putting Red China on the list of countries that haven't systematically killed scores of millions of people.
Click to expand...

China is Red China as well as Nationalist China. I agree with equal application of law. I also agree that the far left loonies need to be kept on the leash of the law.
 
Last edited:
NO1 said:
I didn’t say I am supporting totalitarian regime, don’t distort my words.

I don’t live in the US but I think any democratic regime that protect the liberty of its people, should protect it’s people not just from physical harm but also from mental harm, and in this case the harm in the public feelings is way to much and therefore its overpower the free speech.
Click to expand...

Our freedoms already protect us from mental harm in this context....we are not forced by law to listen to the Nazi rally for example.
 
jimbo said:
Are you talking about BLM? Calling for the death of other people crosses the line and is no longer free speech.
Click to expand...

I disagree.....calling for the death of someone doesn't cause harm to that person so long as nobody acts upon that call. When/if they do, they should and will be help responsible.
 
NO1 said:
Again I respect freedom of speech but in some cases like this I won't support it because in my opinion it cause a bigger harm in other's rights.
Click to expand...

What specific right is violated by someone else's use of mean or hateful speech?
 
NO1 said:
Again I respect freedom of speech but in some cases like this I won't support it because in my opinion it cause a bigger harm in other's rights.
Click to expand...
Who gets to decide?
 
classiclogic said:
What specific right is violated by someone else's use of mean or hateful speech?
Click to expand...

It seems that there is an implicit right for snowflakes not to have to hear things that they disagree with.
 
Ikari said:
Tis a true statement. Hate speech is free speech, violence is not. Any individual should be allowed to run their mouth about whatever so long as they keep it to running one's mouth, not one's fist.
Click to expand...

I will say this we disagree on topics and you can be really irritating when that happens. But you are a consistent individual when it comes to your thoughts. Especially civil rights. Well said.




The crowd is not the sum of its parts.

I am a republican who did not vote for Trump (Or Hillary).
Click to expand...
 
classiclogic said:
I disagree.....calling for the death of someone doesn't cause harm to that person so long as nobody acts upon that call. When/if they do, they should and will be help responsible.
Click to expand...

Making threats is one of the few preemptive laws we have. You don't have to act it out to be in violation. I think that includes 3rd person.
 
JamesBY said:
You did not see it? OK.
Click to expand...

Describe the 'death threats' of Jews perpetuated by the alt-right white supremacists in Charlottesville. A link would be nice.
 
jimbo said:
Are you talking about BLM? Calling for the death of other people crosses the line and is no longer free speech.
Click to expand...

The Left is no longer pretending that they respect The Constitution. The mask is off and they've made it perfectly clear that they will break any rules necessary to gain political power.
 
jimbo said:
Methinks you are correct. I'm sure both sides expected a physical war. Otherwise you bring flowers, not clubs and bottles of urine, and masks. Which, BTW are illegal.

I fault the government for this one. It takes a special kind of stupid to get broadsided by two armed groups being held apart by a bike rack and a 2 x 6 barrier and thinking nothing bad will happen.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm? Let's see?
One side comes prepared to defend themselves based on previous experience of being attacked. (defensive)
while
the other side comes prepared to attack. (assault/aggressive/criminal)

I would say there is a difference there that needs to be recognized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom