• 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!

A Hate Church Makes a Case for Free Speech

1.) Zero speech is restricted that lie doesnt float, disagree factually prove otherwise
2.) Why in this case is it magically a restriction of speech by the SPLC but when other orgs or churchs or people etc etc label others as terrorist, sinners, deviants, godless, jesus freaks, baby killers, bible thumbers, etc etc is magically not? is it only labels you dont like?
3.) The suit you bring up seems like it will easily fail. I dont know that of course but theres a thread on it here and IF Cool Ridge does in fact do what was stated in the thread they are clearly a hate group and they were NOT added to the list for just thoughts LMAO . . its a nice story you are trying (And completely failing) to paint but nobody has been labeled a hate group for feelings
4.) you have ZERO evidence or even logic showing free speech is being restricted and there zero factual evidence that anybody was labeled just on thoughts/feelings. So both you and owl are factually wrong in your claims because its not happening, multiple posters shot holes in it and its based on hypocritical "logic"
5.) As for hate crimes they make total sense and the whole justice system is set up this way. More charges for bigger offenses or certain circumstances. speeding ticket vs reckless endangerment. Both can be just speeding but maybe one you are 15 over and the other you are 40 over. Manslaughter vs Murder. One is a crime of passion typically and the other was a planned out thought. Drug charges vs when you have illegal drugs on you vs when you have enough they think you could sell. Theft vs Grand theft. Etc etc etc Are you against all those distinctions too? or are just against using motive and circumstance for reasons you dont like ooooooops. . .

Once again -- this is obviously over your head and I'm not interested in engaging you.

See when you have so many lies, inaccuracies, logic holes and hypocrisies in your claims they will always be easily destroyed by honest, educated objective posters.

So here we are, no rights are restricted, and nobody is labeled a hate group for feelings :shrug: please let us know when that has changed , thanks :)

The "honest, educated, objective posters" disagree with you.

If you ever manage to get that chip off your shoulder, come back and try again. More folks would be likely to give you a chance. As it is -- it's simply not worth it.
 
Whether they are a hate group or not, the SPLC is just another soros funded alt-left hack organization. They are so bad, the fbi dropped them from a list of sources.

This is another good point -- what is the political purpose behind the SPLC?

They certainly do seem to fall into the alt-left category, but I wasn't aware they were one of Soros' pets.

I did read that the FBI was discounting them as a valid source in some instances, and that makes sense, if they're going to be showing blatant bias.

At the end of the day, they're just not a great group and I'm wondering how the lawsuit against them will go.
 
Once again -- this is obviously over your head and I'm not interested in engaging you.



The "honest, educated, objective posters" disagree with you.

If you ever manage to get that chip off your shoulder, come back and try again. More folks would be likely to give you a chance. As it is -- it's simply not worth it.

Translation: you still cant support any of your claims with any facts that make them true or even logical since multiple posters have destroyed them. LMAO. That's what I thought!
Also please list these "honest,educated and objective posters that agree with your false claim that free speech is infringed on by labels. We would LOVE to read it :)

Dont forget, as always, when you can show one fact that this infringes on free speech and you are ready to stop posting lies and dodging the questions that prove your claims wrong, please let us know, thanks!
 
This is another good point -- what is the political purpose behind the SPLC?

They certainly do seem to fall into the alt-left category, but I wasn't aware they were one of Soros' pets.

I did read that the FBI was discounting them as a valid source in some instances, and that makes sense, if they're going to be showing blatant bias.

At the end of the day, they're just not a great group and I'm wondering how the lawsuit against them will go.

Please show where the FBI discounted them as a valid source because of blatant bias :)
This will be good, I bet this question is dodged too LMAO
 
Once again -- this is obviously over your head and I'm not interested in engaging you.



The "honest, educated, objective posters" disagree with you.

If you ever manage to get that chip off your shoulder, come back and try again. More folks would be likely to give you a chance. As it is -- it's simply not worth it.

Indeed, way over people’s head who disagrees with you. :roll:

You’re right, why would anyone negate your arguments? The world should revolve around your opinions and beliefs. Very few people, like yourself, are capable of grasping such complex issues like hate crimes and freedom of speech issues like you.

By the way, did you happen to read my post #60? It was actually a reply to you and AO’s Post #53 and #59.

From one of your previous post, I’d like to point out....

There is a difference between deaths or being harmed (hitting someone in the head with a instrument of some kind) resulting from one having immutable characteristics that others hate - versus having what is opined by a bigot to be an offended by a hairstyle.

A person who is considered by a bigot to have an offensive or bad hairstyle can be coerce by the bigot into changing it to avoid harm or death. At least that offers a person with an offensive hairstyle a choice as to whether or not they want to be harmed or even killed. Say a person of color, who is hated solely for their skin color, isn’t capable of possibly saving themselves from being harmed or killed, regardless.
 
1A. They can believe that crap if they want. Same as the Identity and KKK bunch.
 
By SPLC's own standards can be identified as a hate group.
 
By SPLC's own standards can be identified as a hate group.

You mean by YOUR opinions and feelings of their standards LOL
 
You mean by YOUR opinions and feelings of their standards LOL

No I mean exactly what I said. By their own standards they do not pass the smell test.
 
No I mean exactly what I said. By their own standards they do not pass the smell test.

Once again based on your feelings and opinions of their standards :)
 
Indeed, way over people’s head who disagrees with you. :roll:

You’re right, why would anyone negate your arguments? The world should revolve around your opinions and beliefs. Very few people, like yourself, are capable of grasping such complex issues like hate crimes and freedom of speech issues like you.

By the way, did you happen to read my post #60? It was actually a reply to you and AO’s Post #53 and #59.

From one of your previous post, I’d like to point out....

There is a difference between deaths or being harmed (hitting someone in the head with a instrument of some kind) resulting from one having immutable characteristics that others hate - versus having what is opined by a bigot to be an offended by a hairstyle.

A person who is considered by a bigot to have an offensive or bad hairstyle can be coerce by the bigot into changing it to avoid harm or death. At least that offers a person with an offensive hairstyle a choice as to whether or not they want to be harmed or even killed. Say a person of color, who is hated solely for their skin color, isn’t capable of possibly saving themselves from being harmed or killed, regardless.

Grow thicker skin.

You're on the wrong side of the old childhood saying, "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names can never hurt me."

Millions of mothers have imparted wisdom to snowflake children with those words. And, they're still true today.

The First Amendment protects the words of those we find repulsive due to their beliefs. The SPLC is circumventing the Constitution in order to label groups with which they disagree.

I never stated the SPLC didn't have the "right" to do that. I simply asked if they were infringing on the free speech of others (through social shaming) with their labels. The Church in the OP appears to think that's what's happening to them.

We've had some good thoughtful posts on the topic (including yours), and then we've had some flighty, non-thinking posts. That's the way most threads go so it's not surprising, but in order to maintain the topic, I'm not addressing the posters who simply want to throw mud.
 
It's more the way in which the "societal consequences" are dealt with that is at issue here.

We all have the right to call out any behavior or talk we see that we don't like. But, when we support a system, albeit in this case a private one (SPLC), that labels a group as being a "hate group" we are buying into that system of "shaming" in an attempt to socially engineer thought.

A couple of months ago, another church filed suit against the SPLC for giving them a "hate" designation because the Church teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and the base their teachings on bible scriptures. You can see that case here:
Southern Poverty Law Center hate group LGBT lawsuit: Coral Ridge Christian ministry sues | The Kansas City Star

Is it hateful for a church to say that homosexuality is wrong? If we, as a society, are to believe that, are we not shaming that church into silence? And, if we do that, are we not guilty of censoring their right to speak to their beliefs?

The SPLC is creating an atmosphere whereby citizens are taking their "ratings" as truth without thinking about the ramifications for free speech.

Consider the case of Floyd Corkins, who, based on SPLC's label of the Family Research Council as a anti-gay hate group, decided to kill as many of them as possible.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?utm_term=.813f207dc2fe

Now, any crazy can pick up a gun, and obviously Corkins was crazy, but the SPLC is wielding great power here, and should our 1st Amendment grant them more freedom of speech than the groups they label receive?

The fact is -- we cannot (as a society) punish thoughts. We can, however, punish deeds.



AlbqOwl nailed it on this one.

Your argument is as follows:

SLPC designates groups as a “hate group.” Some entities and people will review SLPC designations to determine whether to provide money or associate in a formal or professional capacity with the group. Such a designation has resulted in some entities, for sure one, to lose funding of some kind. This has the effect of infringing upon free speech as groups will modify their speech to avoid the undesirous consequences of the label “hate” group. In other words, there is a “shaming” of these groups and this has the potential to chill speech.

A component of free speech of course includes the liberty to use labels to describe and characterize things, objects, people, groups, etcetera. This is especially true in regards to matters of pure opinion. Excluding defamation and other forms of speech exceptions under the law, speech in the form of opinion should be protected. Whether some entity is a “hate” group because of its views is purely subjective, it is an opinion as opposed to a statement asserting facts that could harm a reputation. So, for example, falsely claiming someone to be a member of the KKK is an assertion of fact that is more amenable to validate or falsify.

But labeling some group as a hate group is mere opinion, as there isn’t any objective facts unequivocally demonstrating whether some group is a “hate” group. Pure opinion should be permitted. If some group dislikes the opinion of another, such as a label, then the proper remedy is for the group to respond with speech denouncing the label, its use, applicability, and publicly deride those using the label, as opposed to seeking to take away free speech of others to give a pure opinion.

As you’ve acknowledged, there may be societal consequences for speech. One such consequence is the use of labels in a pure opinion manner. Labels such as the speech was racist, sexist, unpatriotic, ant-American, anti-religion, hate speech, and I’d include the labels they’re commies, they’re fascists, they are a of “hate” group, is an inherent part of a society valuing free speech. Free speech undoubtedly permits the use of labels to demonize the opposing point of view and those expressing the message. Those are the unavoidable consequences of free speech, the use of labels to demonize the message and messenger.

And the “social engineering” argument is to unpersuasive quite simply because social engineering is an inherent quality of society, and speech is indispensable to it. Indeed, your own opinion is part of “social engineering” as you express a vision of what should occur in society and in expressing your views, hope to so influence others and society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
My concern is that by designating individual groups as "hate groups," we're effectively creating an atmosphere that restricts their free speech.

The question is not so much whether these various groups/churches have the right to free speech -- we know they do -- it's whether being designated a hate group has the effect of infringing on that right.

Is the "hate" label a form of social engineering designed to make society put pressure on specific groups to silence them?

This is an especially interesting case, because not only is this church racist in nature, it's also a religion, so it comes under another protective constitutional classification.

I've thought about this question extensively, and any attitude that the label "hate" creates, is very much the option of the perceiver to accept it is hate, or reject it as hate.

Of course it is social engineering, and in a social environment where the constitutional PURPOSE as allowed by the 9th Amendment is NOT defined, such social engineering is to be expected as a default. Or, if the opposite is not defined, then the extreme can be effectively defined.

When the ultimate constitutional PURPOSE of free speech is defined, then Americans will automatically know that such speech now labeled "hate" is really the opposite of constitutional.

My thread here;

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-c...ee-speech-re-established-through-9th-amd.html

Is about this and for creating an understanding of HOW the living document, lives through us and our need of its service to fix, generation and after generation, principles that are indeed timeless and always serving humanity, and firstly that humanity that lives under its natural law doctrines as they respect all humanity.
 
Back
Top Bottom