• 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

Grand Mal said:
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?
Click to expand...



I think I confused you with someone else, my apologies for the prior remarks. I mostly agree with you, but there has always been a simmering collectivist "action" for decades. ARA, RASH, among other groups can be traced back to the late 80's. Then you had the other communist groups going back to the late 60's. what you are seeing is a rise in the alt-left and ANTIFA is the most vocal of it.
 
Cherub786 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why? Both are not conveying any threat to another human being. If I think blacks are sub human, Jews are greedy, whites are racists, or Asians are bad drivers, I should have every right to do so.
 
The danger of having a banned category called "hate speech" is that it means whatever the group in power want it to mean. Historically, only speech that immediately leads to violence, like yelling fire in a crowded theater, have been banned. Or "speech" (like porn) that children shouldn't be exposed to. Other than that all speech should be allowed. Just because it offends someone isn't enough justification to ban it.
 
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...

All speech is free, but not all speech is equal in constitutional value. The problem is that the most constitutional speech is not defined. It is time that state Citizens use the 9th amendment at a majority in 38 states, use Article 5, and revise the 1st Amendment to include the language of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy regarding the "Greater Meaning" of free speech.

The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is or was, an actual, practiced philosophical doctrine. The "meaning" is derived from an understanding that can come from the practice of free speech. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.​

Notice that only 30% of it is found in the Declaration of Independence. The torys were paying people in gold to oppose the framers inclusion of the entire doctrine in order to weaken the peoples ability to unify.
 
Cherub786 said:
Lawmakers, who else? The same people who determined what constitutes a threat by law and what doesn’t.
Click to expand...

The same law makers who brought us the patriot act and the effective repeal of Habeas?

I think I'll pass on that one. Faith in domestic enemies of the US Constitution is an irrational act.
 
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...

Herein is exactly what the PURPOSE of free speech resolves.

By mass discussion in various forms enabled by technology, people can resolve the emotional aspects that comprise hate. Perhaps when "hate speech" is suspected, freedom of expression should be restricted for the purposes of reason to TEXT.

Humans have two brains, at least, really three if the hypthalmus is considered. The left brain or cognitive process is always involved with speech, but with text, only the right may be active. Meaning that when the reasoning for the hate is written, it most often makes no sense. That, should, in a normal person, make it clear that there is no real reason for the hate.

It might be possible in a group of haters, with their efforts to justify their hate with reason, that they would separate the emotional from the logical and begin to understand that the hate they feel is not going to resolve the issues they have.

Modern understandings of the human mind and psychology can be useful along with technology to address hate but those with the emotion need to understand all of the issues as well as those targeted with hate.
 
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...

It is not at all clear a racist message or racist speech "often" leads to violence. However, the message should not be censored on the basis people respond violently to the message. It is proper to demand adults control their responses to racist speech in non-violent ways and to penalize those who resort to violence in response to a racist message. The underlying principle here is the rational notion of responding appropriately, maturely, to a message or opinion one disagrees with, perhaps even despises. This is the approach, I would assert the proper approach, taken with other kinds of speech which have historically, and occasionally today, results in violence. Specifically, political speech can and continues to result in violence. Religious speech has and continues to result in violence.

The proper response to someone responding violently to a message they disagree with, perhaps even despise, is to arrest and prosecute those responding with violence, as opposed to censoring speech.

Lawmakers, who else? The same people who determined what constitutes a threat by law and what doesn’t.
Click to expand...

This is not entirely accurate. Lawmakers have passed laws regarding threats but the judiciary has either rendered those some of those laws as unconstitutional and/or interpreted them in such a way as to exclude certain kinds of threats from being criminalized. After all, legislatures cannot proscribe that which the 1st Amendment free speech clause declares to be sacrosanct.
 
Cherub786 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Both are free speech. It is clear your concept of free speech, ironically, is contradictory to the very concept of free speech. Repulsive, disgusting, and revile speech is also free speech.
 
JamesBY said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do it. If that's the way you figure you must take care of social movements you find offensive, do it.
But when you break the law, in order to carry out your heaven-sent moral mission, you will be held accountable.
Be prepared for the ever-so-ugly moral equivalence to be drawn again as well.
Your actions will condemn you to a visitation to the ethical depths of the very people you so vehemently oppose.

Wait a minute...does that course of action sound reasonable...to anyone?

JamesBY said:
And don't even ever think of hitting again.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you know who started the violent confrontation in Charlottesville?
 
Cherub786 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen more hate speech from the liberal left than from anyone else. Here's today's example:

Tomi Lahren's Final Thoughts: New York Times' Race Bait | Fox News Insider

Excerpts: "Over the weekend the ethically corrupt New York Times published an op-ed titled "Can My Children Be Friends With White People?" Better question, could this article be anymore racist? The Left lives in an obscure world where Colin Kaepernick is citizen of the year and it's acceptable to ask if your kids can have white friends. Wow."
 
Logicman said:
I've seen more hate speech from the liberal left than from anyone else. Here's today's example:

Tomi Lahren's Final Thoughts: New York Times' Race Bait | Fox News Insider

Excerpts: "Over the weekend the ethically corrupt New York Times published an op-ed titled "Can My Children Be Friends With White People?" Better question, could this article be anymore racist? The Left lives in an obscure world where Colin Kaepernick is citizen of the year and it's acceptable to ask if your kids can have white friends. Wow."
Click to expand...

EXACT-A-MUNDO!!!

Is anyone really paying attention these days?
 
ChrisABrown said:
Herein is exactly what the PURPOSE of free speech resolves.

By mass discussion in various forms enabled by technology, people can resolve the emotional aspects that comprise hate. Perhaps when "hate speech" is suspected, freedom of expression should be restricted for the purposes of reason to TEXT.

Humans have two brains, at least, really three if the hypthalmus is considered. The left brain or cognitive process is always involved with speech, but with text, only the right may be active. Meaning that when the reasoning for the hate is written, it most often makes no sense. That, should, in a normal person, make it clear that there is no real reason for the hate.

It might be possible in a group of haters, with their efforts to justify their hate with reason, that they would separate the emotional from the logical and begin to understand that the hate they feel is not going to resolve the issues they have.

Modern understandings of the human mind and psychology can be useful along with technology to address hate but those with the emotion need to understand all of the issues as well as those targeted with hate.
Click to expand...

An interesting post. I wonder if the emotion of hatred exists alone in humans, or must they be taught hatred by those afflicted? So too with other harmful emotions?
 
Isn't it terribly presumptuous to think you can eliminate "hate"?
Also, why ascribe "hate" to anything or anyone? Isn't that too terribly presumptuous?
 
Logicman said:
I've seen more hate speech from the liberal left than from anyone else. Here's today's example:

Tomi Lahren's Final Thoughts: New York Times' Race Bait | Fox News Insider

Excerpts: "Over the weekend the ethically corrupt New York Times published an op-ed titled "Can My Children Be Friends With White People?" Better question, could this article be anymore racist? The Left lives in an obscure world where Colin Kaepernick is citizen of the year and it's acceptable to ask if your kids can have white friends. Wow."
Click to expand...

Wow...I hadn't read that article till you just brought it up. I can't believe how much is wrong with that "article".
 
Harshaw said:
There are posts about it all the time.

Some people claim "hate speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment.

They're wrong.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you let progressive websites teach you about the US Constitution.

The same group of people also think the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias" who got their weapons from the government.

I cannot count how many people who repeat headlines and talking points from political editorials within minutes of them being posted; it's so bad it's to the point of their repeating the headline, verbatim, and laughing for hours.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Wow...I hadn't read that article till you just brought it up. I can't believe how much is wrong with that "article".
Click to expand...

Remember: It's not hate speech or racism if it's from liberals or leftists and it's about white people/capitalists/Christians -- especially not if about all 3.
 
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...

Define hate speech, and I'm wondering why you limit offenders to white people. That sounds racist.
 
Thoreau72 said:
An interesting post. I wonder if the emotion of hatred exists alone in humans, or must they be taught hatred by those afflicted? So too with other harmful emotions?
Click to expand...

Appreciated!

The medical facts surrounding our two brains were compiled by Colin Wilson, a sci-fi writer.

missing records

The fact that a sci-fir write had to do, INSTEAD of medical professionals or professionals of psychology, is, in itself WEIRD!

It tells us that academia really does not want us to know why we are the way we are. They, controlled by others, prefer that we create a ton of problems that then the others can solve and blame us.

This is especially true regarding a book that was the target of a modern "book burning", which is done with $.

A book titled "The Hundredth Monkey", which I personally read in 1989, written by 23 Japanese biologists in 1962, studying primates on an island in the south pacific, observed what they could only explain as "dream state communications" between the mammals. In 1974 another book by the same name came out written by Ken Keyes, which marginalized the concept by politicizing it. In 20 years of trying to find anyone that ever saw or read the book, I have only found 1 person, and of course no copies of the marginal printing of 20k copies can be found anywhere.

Basically, the church controls the state, and academia, but its all unconscious and started with the crusades. The church, considers the unconscious mind to be the realm of satan. Logically, it is also the realm of God. Accordingly, by eliminating understanding of he unconscious, they are creating a Godless world. The baby goes out with the bathwater.

Here is an interesting and related recent event. The California governors Vatican speech.

Jerry Brown talks Donald Trump at Vatican | The Sacramento Bee

I detect a bit of change going on within Catholicism/Jesuitism, and these links with the Popes position sort of show it.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-satan-seduces-by-disguising-evil-as-good-85265

https://onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-christ-made-himself-the-devil/

I have a distinct perception that the governor, being a strong left brain type person, but he is a trained Jesuit priest, has figured out that humanity is corrupted within the churches mandates which exclude directly working with the unconscious mind.

The governor on the other hand, logically leaves open the unconscious (without saying so) when saying, “At the highest circles, people still don’t get it,” he said. “It’s not just a light rinse” that’s required. “We need a total, I might say ‘brain washing." Well "brainwashing" is done by conditioning the unconscious mind, and that is what corporations and media have done over the last 40 years turning people into pliable consumers. And, they, the people are not finding fulfillment in it. But hate is a powerful set of instincts, DNA that initiate epigenetic change if entertained for very long.

That fact can be seen by the immersion in powerful drugs or alcohol.

Another implication or concept, is that people with similar intentions, or some similar conditioning, as in a group of monkeys, may dream together. May share information which is completely unconscious. Never the less, what is unconscious controls us.

Your unconscious mind is running your life! | LifeTrainings
 
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...

So not just all racists?
 
ChrisABrown said:
Appreciated!

The medical facts surrounding our two brains were compiled by Colin Wilson, a sci-fi writer.

missing records

The fact that a sci-fir write had to do, INSTEAD of medical professionals or professionals of psychology, is, in itself WEIRD!

It tells us that academia really does not want us to know why we are the way we are. They, controlled by others, prefer that we create a ton of problems that then the others can solve and blame us.

This is especially true regarding a book that was the target of a modern "book burning", which is done with $.

A book titled "The Hundredth Monkey", which I personally read in 1989, written by 23 Japanese biologists in 1962, studying primates on an island in the south pacific, observed what they could only explain as "dream state communications" between the mammals. In 1974 another book by the same name came out written by Ken Keyes, which marginalized the concept by politicizing it. In 20 years of trying to find anyone that ever saw or read the book, I have only found 1 person, and of course no copies of the marginal printing of 20k copies can be found anywhere.

Basically, the church controls the state, and academia, but its all unconscious and started with the crusades. The church, considers the unconscious mind to be the realm of satan. Logically, it is also the realm of God. Accordingly, by eliminating understanding of he unconscious, they are creating a Godless world. The baby goes out with the bathwater.

Here is an interesting and related recent event. The California governors Vatican speech.

Jerry Brown talks Donald Trump at Vatican | The Sacramento Bee

I detect a bit of change going on within Catholicism/Jesuitism, and these links with the Popes position sort of show it.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-satan-seduces-by-disguising-evil-as-good-85265

https://onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-christ-made-himself-the-devil/

I have a distinct perception that the governor, being a strong left brain type person, but he is a trained Jesuit priest, has figured out that humanity is corrupted within the churches mandates which exclude directly working with the unconscious mind.

The governor on the other hand, logically leaves open the unconscious (without saying so) when saying, “At the highest circles, people still don’t get it,” he said. “It’s not just a light rinse” that’s required. “We need a total, I might say ‘brain washing." Well "brainwashing" is done by conditioning the unconscious mind, and that is what corporations and media have done over the last 40 years turning people into pliable consumers. And, they, the people are not finding fulfillment in it. But hate is a powerful set of instincts, DNA that initiate epigenetic change if entertained for very long.

That fact can be seen by the immersion in powerful drugs or alcohol.

Another implication or concept, is that people with similar intentions, or some similar conditioning, as in a group of monkeys, may dream together. May share information which is completely unconscious. Never the less, what is unconscious controls us.

Your unconscious mind is running your life! | LifeTrainings
Click to expand...

I have heard of The Hundredth Monkey, but have not read it. I think I've come across an excerpt or two.

I'm no big fan of Alex Jones, but he is right about one thing--there IS a war on for your mind.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I have heard of The Hundredth Monkey, but have not read it. I think I've come across an excerpt or two.

I'm no big fan of Alex Jones, but he is right about one thing--there IS a war on for your mind.
Click to expand...

The only book you can find is the 1974 replacement, which is not worth reading. I re tell it from memory as I read perhaps the only copy in 1989. I don't think the forum allows posts that long however.

Yea, AJ has that part right but doesn't quite represent how the war works besides media misleading.
 
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, it does. It doesn't excuse you from being fired, it doesn't excuse you from social repercussions, and it doesn't stop you from being human filth. But you can and should legally be allowed to say what you genuinely believe is true, and be allowed to protest.


With that said, the second you get involved with violence --like say running over pedestrians with cars, threatening people, etc-- you lose your legal right to protest.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Yes, it does. It doesn't excuse you from being fired, it doesn't excuse you from social repercussions, and it doesn't stop you from being human filth. But you can and should legally be allowed to say what you genuinely believe is true, and be allowed to protest.


With that said, the second you get involved with violence --like say running over pedestrians with cars, threatening people, etc-- you lose your legal right to protest.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Or moving your protest from the park your assigned to, in order to pick a street fight with people you don't like.
 
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...

So anti-capitalist speech should be criminalized because it has historically led to violence like Marxist revolutions, gulags, and the genocide of entire social classes?

Or is this just about speech YOU hate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom