• 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

NO1 said:
So opposition to Nazis marching in public and calling for killing Jews and Blacks is hatred?
Click to expand...

If they're doing that, they're breaking the law. Incitement to commit violence is illegal. Simply speaking badly of them isn't against the law. If it were, Hillary would have been arrested for her "basket of deplorables" remark.
 
blackjack50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, we agree.
I'll go further and say that common civilized behaviour should prevent someone from 'shouting down' an opinion they don't like, but being a classless boor isn't against the law.
 
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...

Are you considering shouting someone down as violating the first amendment? Or using violence to stop them?




The crowd is not the sum of its parts.

I am a republican who did not vote for Trump (Or Hillary).
Click to expand...
 
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

A person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion.

The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.

Hate speech is subjective in my opinion, what one considers hate another may see only as their opinion. In today's world is seems almost anything can cause an upset in the peace and disagreements over peanut butter could easily turn violent. It all depends on the forum in which it takes place. To me just saying "hate speech" is too nebulous, with people today looking for any excuse to be offended by something, you must walk a fine line and censor yourself or say what you think and face the arrows of ignorance.
 
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...




What right do you have to tell another person what they can and can't say?



“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”


― Friedrich Nietzsche
 
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...



TRUE! two way street. tell your ANTIFA friends this. ;)
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I don't have any Nazi comrades. Why would you falsely accuse me of associating with nazis?


Do you like to lie?
Click to expand...

Oh, those comrades are as substantial as my ANTIFA friends, I guess.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Are you saying ANTIFA are as bad as nazis? if so, then I misjudged you.
Click to expand...

As bad as? How do you quantify it? My point is, you don't get to be indignant when I say you have Nazi comrades one post after you refer to my 'ANTIFA friends'.
Two-way street, remember.
 
Grand Mal said:
As bad as? How do you quantify it? My point is, you don't get to be indignant when I say you have Nazi comrades one post after you refer to my 'ANTIFA friends'.
Two-way street, remember.
Click to expand...



As bad?


Simple, if you go to a ralley and stand next to a guy with a swastika, you are as bad as the nazi you are standing with. they murdered 6 million jews remember.


So we both agree that is bad.


If you go to a rally and stand next to guys flying hammer and sickles, representative of the soviets who murdered 100 million plus, you are also just as bad.



Right? therefore if one stands at a rally that has nazis, you can say they have tacit support for those nazis.


You then have to say the same about antifa standing shoulder to shoulder with an even more murderous ideology.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
As bad?


Simple, if you go to a ralley and stand next to a guy with a swastika, you are as bad as the nazi you are standing with. they murdered 6 million jews remember.


So we both agree that is bad.


If you go to a rally and stand next to guys flying hammer and sickles, representative of the soviets who murdered 100 million plus, you are also just as bad.



Right? therefore if one stands at a rally that has nazis, you can say they have tacit support for those nazis.


You then have to say the same about antifa standing shoulder to shoulder with an even more murderous ideology.
Click to expand...

They do that? I thought they identified more as anarchists.
I don't know much about them. They were just some odd, European thing 'till Charlottesville. They seem to have come out from under something all at once, which makes me wonder if they're not just a bunch of trouble-makers who like that antifa flag 'cause it makes them cool and glamourous. I didn't know they were communists but even there I doubt how committed they are ideologically. I still suspect they're just trouble-seekers and trouble-makers. Their parents were SLA (remember the Symbionese Liberation Army?).
 
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...

Here in America we have a first Amendment, it is first on the list for a reason. It is the most disagreeable speech that is the most deserving of protection. There is good reason for it.
 
jimbo said:
You are of course correct. It's a shame that violence is now seen by some as free speech. Shades of the '60's.

But we survived the '60's. Hopefully we'll survive this.
Click to expand...

And speech is violence, ergo, initiating violence is "self defense" Such is logic in the twisted brain of an antifa thug.
 
Grand Mal said:
They do that? I thought they identified more as anarchists.
I don't know much about them. They were just some odd, European thing 'till Charlottesville. They seem to have come out from under something all at once, which makes me wonder if they're not just a bunch of trouble-makers who like that antifa flag 'cause it makes them cool and glamourous. I didn't know they were communists but even there I doubt how committed they are ideologically. I still suspect they're just trouble-seekers and trouble-makers. Their parents were SLA (remember the Symbionese Liberation Army?).
Click to expand...



Yes they do.


TFoCmBYh.jpg




I could go into the whole history, all the way back to ARA, and RASH, but you'd be the third person I did this with, and thus far the respnses have been "nuh uh"./


You have posters here, rocking antifa and che avatars. how is that any better?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Yes they do.


TFoCmBYh.jpg




I could go into the whole history, all the way back to ARA, and RASH, but you'd be the third person I did this with, and thus far the respnses have been "nuh uh"./


You have posters here, rocking antifa and che avatars. how is that any better?
Click to expand...

Any better than what?
I still suspect those antifa jackasses aren't committed to any ideology, just stirring up trouble and wanting to be where trouble might happen. But whatever.
One upside to my theory is that they might be easily discouraged, if they face determined opposition. If all they face is an equally wishy-washy bunch of white nationalists, this might drag on until the two factions are on a first-name basis with each other.
What do you suppose that guy has in his pants pockets, in your pic?
 
Racist hate speech should be criminalized because it’s dangerous often leading to violence. Likewise, all White racist and neo-Nazi groups should be proscribed by law even if they claim to be non-violent.
 
Cherub786 said:
Racist hate speech should be criminalized because it’s dangerous often leading to violence. Likewise, all White racist and neo-Nazi groups should be proscribed by law even if they claim to be non-violent.
Click to expand...

And who decide what is racist hate speech?
 
Cherub786 said:
Lawmakers, who else? The same people who determined what constitutes a threat by law and what doesn’t.
Click to expand...

So what if they decided that your speech was racist hate speech. We live in a world where literally anything is considered racist and bigoted. Do you really want to give the government the power to enforce the whims of what is considered racist?
 
Maccabee said:
So what if they decided that your speech was racist hate speech. We live in a world where literally anything is considered racist and bigoted. Do you really want to give the government the power to enforce the whims of what is considered racist?
Click to expand...

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what constitutes racist hate speech. Saying “I don’t like you” isn’t racist, but saying “Blacks are sub-human” is racist hate speech. The former is freedom of speech, the latter should be criminalized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom