• 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

JamesBY said:
You refuse to see what was in front on you, so that is on you.
Click to expand...

First, let me point out no one posting to this thread has linked or even pointed out the threats made by the white supremacist protestors at Charlottesville to any group, Jews or otherwise.

Second, JamesBY, what is it that I refuse to see in front of me? To be clear, I saw two alt groups in Charlottesville. Alt-right white supremacists and alt-left antiFA - antiFirstAmendment.

Hatfields and McCoys if you will.
 
ForeignRightist said:
To be honest I am surprised I haven't seen any other posts about this.

Brandenbyrg V. Ohio set the precedent that hate speech is indeed still considered an exercise of freedom of speech assuming it does not result in violence.


So what do you, the people of DP think?

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?
Click to expand...

it is 100% protected. there are limitations on free speech.

IE yelling fire in a building and inciting a riot.

however the rest is 100% allowed whether you agree with it or not.
 
NO1 said:
I agree, but I dont think Nazis should be allowed to protest and spread their haterd in public, just like I will oppose any protest which support any terror group say ISIS for example.
Click to expand...

I don't think you should be allowed to protest and spread your hate for dissenting ideas.

see how that works. it is a bad position for you to take.
 
NO1 said:
I didn’t say I am supporting totalitarian regime, don’t distort my words.
Click to expand...

when you try and silence the speech of others that you deem unacceptable that is exactly what you are doing. that is exactly what totalitarian governments do.

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...

Sorry feelings has no basis on negating someone's rights nor should they. If someone can't handle a few hateful words by a bunch of stupid people then they need to grow up a bit.
 
cabse5 said:
First, let me point out no one posting to this thread has linked or even pointed out the threats made by the white supremacist protestors at Charlottesville to any group, Jews or otherwise.

Second, JamesBY, what is it that I refuse to see in front of me? To be clear, I saw two alt groups in Charlottesville. Alt-right white supremacists and alt-left antiFA - antiFirstAmendment.

Hatfields and McCoys if you will.
Click to expand...
Jews won't replace us? There were no morally equivlent groups: there were only Nazis, white supremacists, and the Klan.

No squiggling, no fudging, no comparison, only the smashing of the alt right. We will Captain America the neo-nazis all day long in the press on social media and in our town squares.

And don't even ever think of hitting again.
 
NO1 said:
Why is that tyranny? Why we should allow people to spread their hatred in public and call for death of other people?
Click to expand...

I guess the important point is that speech is one thing, but incitement to violence is another. Trying to distinguish between the two is the difficult part.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I guess the important point is that speech is one thing, but incitement to violence is another. Trying to distinguish between the two is the difficult part.
Click to expand...

This sums it all up quite nicely.
And, I would add, that its the role of the judiciary to make that determination...not citizens running out en mass with baseball bats, rifles, rocks, etc......in an effort to silence a view they do not agree with.
 
ForeignRightist said:
To be honest I am surprised I haven't seen any other posts about this.

Brandenbyrg V. Ohio set the precedent that hate speech is indeed still considered an exercise of freedom of speech assuming it does not result in violence.


So what do you, the people of DP think?

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?
Click to expand...

First Amendment protects their right of free speech from actions by Congress. Not from actions by me.
 
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...

It depends on whether they are referring to an individual or a group. Once you get into "group rights", you are establishing a form of royalty which is completely against American principles.
 
NO1 said:
I agree, but I dont think Nazis should be allowed to protest and spread their haterd in public, just like I will oppose any protest which support any terror group say ISIS for example.
Click to expand...

Are you saying what rights one has depends on who they are?
 
ForeignRightist said:
To be honest I am surprised I haven't seen any other posts about this.

Brandenbyrg V. Ohio set the precedent that hate speech is indeed still considered an exercise of freedom of speech assuming it does not result in violence.


So what do you, the people of DP think?

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?
Click to expand...

Yes. There is nearly unlimited free speech, and you don't want Google and Facebook setting new standards on the fly depending on their social conscience. The destruction of the first amendment is in the left's bullseye, I see.
 
Polar Bum said:
This sums it all up quite nicely.
And, I would add, that its the role of the judiciary to make that determination...not citizens running out en mass with baseball bats, rifles, rocks, etc......in an effort to silence a view they do not agree with.
Click to expand...

Or hyperactive printing presses for that matter.

(Yes, snowflake. I know we don't use printing presses anymore except for junk mail.)
 
chuckiechan said:
Or hyperactive printing presses for that matter.

(Yes, snowflake. I know we don't use printing presses anymore except for junk mail.)
Click to expand...

You are going to have to elaborate a bit on the above comment...I am not entirely sure what you mean to say.

Are you implying that I am against the freedom of the press and First Amendment? or are you drawing a comparison between printed material and violent suppression of the 1st Amendment?
 
ludin said:
when you try and silence the speech of others that you deem unacceptable that is exactly what you are doing. that is exactly what totalitarian governments do.
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech isn't absolute, every western country limiting free speech in some case and that's not making these countries a totalitarian countries. The difference is where they draw the line.
 
ForeignRightist said:
To be honest I am surprised I haven't seen any other posts about this.

Brandenbyrg V. Ohio set the precedent that hate speech is indeed still considered an exercise of freedom of speech assuming it does not result in violence.


So what do you, the people of DP think?

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?
Click to expand...

Apparently the SS under the Trump admin thinks that the First Amendment does not even protect unfurling a banner that reads "Women resist white supremacy" while in a public place:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cret-service-asked-me/?utm_term=.eecb4c199a23




As for your particular topic, it's been long held that groups like the KKK can meet, speak, march, protest, subject to time & place restrictions - ie, get a permit, march at this time down the street - but not content restrictions.

Basically, the answer is: yes, it does, and has for quite some time.

:shrug:
 
ForeignRightist said:
To be honest I am surprised I haven't seen any other posts about this.

Brandenbyrg V. Ohio set the precedent that hate speech is indeed still considered an exercise of freedom of speech assuming it does not result in violence.


So what do you, the people of DP think?

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?
Click to expand...

The first amendment protects all speech from government intervention, even hateful speech. In fact the first amendment is designed for things like hate speech. Pleasant speech doesn't need protection.
 
Lutherf said:
Is protesting the pending removal of a monument in a public park by standing in the park, holding signs and hollering at passers by a violent act?
Click to expand...


No it is not a violent act.
 
NO1 said:
Any group or organization which his people calling for death and support terror should not be allowed to protest and spread hatred.
Click to expand...

I disagree. For instance, if what you are saying was the law, than you would not legally be allowed to say that you wish for Nazis to get the death penalty.
 
Grand Mal said:
First Amendment protects their right of free speech from actions by Congress. Not from actions by me.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. It protects them from actions by you. You say that you lean towards being Liberal on your profile, but being liberal means that you are accepting of people different than yourself, and if you want to silence people who disagree with you, than you are simply not a Liberal. So , to be factual, you are NOT a Liberal.
 
GreenProton said:
Actually, that's not true. It protects them from actions by you. You say that you lean towards being Liberal on your profile, but being liberal means that you are accepting of people different than yourself, and if you want to silence people who disagree with you, than you are simply not a Liberal. So , to be factual, you are NOT a Liberal.
Click to expand...

I, a supporter of free speech, am truthfully a liberal.
 
GreenProton said:
Actually, that's not true. It protects them from actions by you. You say that you lean towards being Liberal on your profile, but being liberal means that you are accepting of people different than yourself, and if you want to silence people who disagree with you, than you are simply not a Liberal. So , to be factual, you are NOT a Liberal.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I disappointed you.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no laws..." It doesn't say everyone will tolerate every idiotic point of view because everyone has an equal right to say whatever, just because they want to. If I tell someone, "Your opinion is too frickin' dumb to be considered. Sit down and shut up!". I'm not infringing on their rights, I'm expressing mine.
Yes, I'm liberal because I say you have a right to say whatever stupid crap you want to, and I have the right to shout you down and show everyone what an idiot you are. Don't like it? Tough. Freedom doesn't mean you get a free pass from everyone, it just means you get to beak off and accept the consequences.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Apparently the SS under the Trump admin thinks that the First Amendment does not even protect unfurling a banner that reads "Women resist white supremacy" while in a public place:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cret-service-asked-me/?utm_term=.eecb4c199a23




As for your particular topic, it's been long held that groups like the KKK can meet, speak, march, protest, subject to time & place restrictions - ie, get a permit, march at this time down the street - but not content restrictions.

Basically, the answer is: yes, it does, and has for quite some time.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
To an extent, sure. Stand on a street corner and tell your homeys, "Let's go kill some Jews," and you will have some problems real quick.
 
Grand Mal said:
Sorry if I disappointed you.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no laws..." It doesn't say everyone will tolerate every idiotic point of view because everyone has an equal right to say whatever, just because they want to. If I tell someone, "Your opinion is too frickin' dumb to be considered. Sit down and shut up!". I'm not infringing on their rights, I'm expressing mine.
Yes, I'm liberal because I say you have a right to say whatever stupid crap you want to, and I have the right to shout you down and show everyone what an idiot you are. Don't like it? Tough. Freedom doesn't mean you get a free pass from everyone, it just means you get to beak off and accept the consequences.
Click to expand...

But you don't have a right to assault them. You can shout them down. But you can't use violence. Right? It seems you understand that concept. Which would mean we agree. I as a conservative and you a liberal.




The crowd is not the sum of its parts.

I am a republican who did not vote for Trump (Or Hillary).
Click to expand...
 
ForeignRightist said:
To be honest I am surprised I haven't seen any other posts about this.

Brandenbyrg V. Ohio set the precedent that hate speech is indeed still considered an exercise of freedom of speech assuming it does not result in violence.


So what do you, the people of DP think?

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?
Click to expand...

Of course it does. We have the strongest protections for freedom of expression of just about any other nation on earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom