• 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!

First Amendment; What's yor take on it?

SmartCat said:
I care. I do not want hate speech laws to interfere with a biological explanation of human abilities and behavior.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I am mildly familiar with the book; have never read it. I know some people don't like some of what's said in it, and it doesn't look much like my cup of tea either, but I see no reason why it should be banned or anyone should get in a time machine and go back twenty five years to revoke the researchers' funding. It doesn't fall under the definitions of hate speech I posted, so I'm not particularly interested.

Again freedom to speak is not freedom from consequences. The consequences of that book being published is some critics disagreed with the researchers' conclusions and potential motives. Big deal.
 
Last edited:
SmartCat said:
I care. I do not want hate speech laws to interfere with a biological explanation of human abilities and behavior.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "hate speech," and any law attempting to prohibit "hate speech" is in violation of the First Amendment. Which is why there are no law prohibiting this fictitious "hate speech."

Only the insane left use terms like "hate speech" and they always apply it everyone who disagrees with them. Disagree with a delusional leftist and suddenly you become a "racist, misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobe" and everything you say is "hate speech." That is because leftists have not mentally matured beyond the age of puberty.
 
Glitch said:
There is no such thing as "hate speech," and any law attempting to prohibit "hate speech" is in violation of the First Amendment. Which is why there are no law prohibiting this fictitious "hate speech."

Only the insane left use terms like "hate speech" and they always apply it everyone who disagrees with them. Disagree with a delusional leftist and suddenly you become a "racist, misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobe" and everything you say is "hate speech." That is because leftists have not mentally matured beyond the age of puberty.
Click to expand...

Actually it exists in many countries as both a concept and a regulated or prohibited activity. Because once it becomes more than just some crazy guy on a corner - a movement or a party or a policy - then it infringes upon human rights.
 
Glitch said:
There is no such thing as "hate speech," and any law attempting to prohibit "hate speech" is in violation of the First Amendment. Which is why there are no law prohibiting this fictitious "hate speech."

Only the insane left use terms like "hate speech" and they always apply it everyone who disagrees with them. Disagree with a delusional leftist and suddenly you become a "racist, misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobe" and everything you say is "hate speech." That is because leftists have not mentally matured beyond the age of puberty.
Click to expand...

Whenever I see something like this, I feel that what the person is trying say is that they want to be a bigot with no consequences whatsoever and that free speech is good and fine...as long as it aligns itself with the conservative brand of political correctness.

Example, Kapernick wants to show a protest by kneeling for the flag, using his 1st Amendment rights...and the right wants him fired, ban him and the NFL; essentially demanding consequences for those difference in opinion. Yet here, in this quote, we have a person who doesn't believe that "hate speech" should have any consequences to it...when he is in opposition to a political point. It's okay for someone to use the n-word without any consequence...but not kneeling for the flag. Saying that is hypocritical is an understatement.

The snowflakes of the right are quick to defend Trump's commentary on grabbing a woman's privates...but god forbid you EVER say anything implying that Ivanka is a slut or even try to bring up Melania's slutty Maxim/GQ photo shoots or the lesbian photo shoot or the lesbian, S&M photo shoot she has done.
 
Glitch said:
There is no such thing as "hate speech," and any law attempting to prohibit "hate speech" is in violation of the First Amendment. Which is why there are no law prohibiting this fictitious "hate speech."

Only the insane left use terms like "hate speech" and they always apply it everyone who disagrees with them. Disagree with a delusional leftist and suddenly you become a "racist, misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobe" and everything you say is "hate speech." That is because leftists have not mentally matured beyond the age of puberty.
Click to expand...

For too long the fear of being called a "racist" has interfered with the dialog on race Bill Clinton called for, and which we need to have. It needs to be an honest conversation where people are not afraid to express their opinions, and where geneticists are not afraid to discuss their findings.
 
uptower said:
Actually it exists in many countries as both a concept and a regulated or prohibited activity. Because once it becomes more than just some crazy guy on a corner - a movement or a party or a policy - then it infringes upon human rights.
Click to expand...

I understand that, and those countries that have laws prohibiting "hate speech" do not support free speech. The US is the only nation on the planet that actually supports free speech, and it has been that way for the last 230 years.
 
SmartCat said:
For too long the fear of being called a "racist" has interfered with the dialog on race Bill Clinton called for, and which we need to have. It needs to be an honest conversation where people are not afraid to express their opinions, and where geneticists are not afraid to discuss their findings.
Click to expand...

"Racist" is an imaginary term the left like to use to shut up their opposition. Anyone who disagrees with an anti-American leftist is automatically a "racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc., etc." That is the real reason why the anti-American left support "hate speech," so they can use it to shut up their opposition. Leftists have never matured beyond the grade-school playground.
 
Glitch said:
I understand that, and those countries that have laws prohibiting "hate speech" do not support free speech. The US is the only nation on the planet that actually supports free speech, and it has been that way for the last 230 years.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. They have as much free speech as the US but stops short where it can be unnecessarily harmful to others. You can scream the prime minister is an idiot to your heart's content on their street corners, but if you call for rounding up the Jews and gassing them, don't be surprised if the police are watching your Facebook page.

Incidentally it's no different in the US, despite the illusion of 'free speech': the FBI keeps a tab on hate groups and agitators, no mistake. Hell if they had a file on MLK you can bet they have one on Richard Spencer, the Proud Boys or the Oath Breakers.

As I mentioned earlier, the far right believes the First Amendment gives them the right to actively discriminate and the Second gives them the means to carry it out. They're living in a dreamworld. Freedom isn't free as the right wing love to preach. Free speech has consequences and hate speech gets you on someone's list.
 
uptower said:
Incorrect. They have as much free speech as the US but stops short where it can be unnecessarily harmful to others. You can scream the prime minister is an idiot to your heart's content on their street corners, but if you call for rounding up the Jews and gassing them, don't be surprised if the police are watching your Facebook page.

Incidentally it's no different in the US, despite the illusion of 'free speech': the FBI keeps a tab on hate groups and agitators, no mistake. Hell if they had a file on MLK you can bet they have one on Richard Spencer, the Proud Boys or the Oath Breakers.

As I mentioned earlier, the far right believes the First Amendment gives them the right to actively discriminate and the Second gives them the means to carry it out. They're living in a dreamworld. Freedom isn't free as the right wing love to preach. Free speech has consequences and hate speech gets you on someone's list.
Click to expand...

No they do not support free speech at all. England, Canada, and all these other nations fine or throw people into prison for things they say or post on-line. Contrary to what you may believe, that is not "free speech." Unless you libel or slander someone in the US, you can say or post anything you like. Offensive hateful speech is protected speech in the US - THAT is the very meaning of free speech. It isn't free speech if you only protect that speech with which you agree. It is free speech when you protect that speech with which you disagree.
 
Glitch said:
No they do not support free speech at all. England, Canada, and all these other nations fine or throw people into prison for things they say or post on-line. Contrary to what you may believe, that is not "free speech." Unless you libel or slander someone in the US, you can say or post anything you like. Offensive hateful speech is protected speech in the US - THAT is the very meaning of free speech. It isn't free speech if you only protect that speech with which you agree. It is free speech when you protect that speech with which you disagree.
Click to expand...

Yeah, didn't a comedian have to go to a human rights tribunal in Canada, and even ended up being forced to pay a fine for the joke he made?

I don't think a country that possesses such a policy, or standard. Even understands what free speech is at this point.
 
Glitch said:
No they do not support free speech at all. England, Canada, and all these other nations fine or throw people into prison for things they say or post on-line. Contrary to what you may believe, that is not "free speech." Unless you libel or slander someone in the US, you can say or post anything you like. Offensive hateful speech is protected speech in the US - THAT is the very meaning of free speech. It isn't free speech if you only protect that speech with which you agree. It is free speech when you protect that speech with which you disagree.
Click to expand...

I get the concept, but turn it into a free for all and there are consequences. We're seeing them now with a dangerous pool of ideas fermenting on the internet and in hate groups: not just the words we might not 'like', but calls to action that are dangerous and get people killed. If 'free speech' leads to a mess like Charlottesville, it can;t really be called free.

But again, principles and reality are a different matter. the first amendment might guarantee free speech, but those who use it too much are probably already being watched by law enforcement. Their free speech is freedom to incriminate themselves and often leads to their plots being uncovered. It has been persecuted before - in the McCarthy era, when MLK marched, and recently where the past few presidents have threatened to lock up journalists, leakers, whistleblowers.

In that respect it is an illusion: America only has free speech on paper. And right-wing fantasists who think their 1st Amendment rights allow them to hate with impunity, are actually often being watched (by the very 'blue lives' they purport to care for) because those words have consequences.
 
Oborosen said:
Yeah, didn't a comedian have to go to a human rights tribunal in Canada, and even ended up being forced to pay a fine for the joke he made?

I don't think a country that possesses such a policy, or standard. Even understands what free speech is at this point.
Click to expand...

Several people have been fined and put in prison in the UK for what they said. The UK has never had free speech, and still doesn't, which is one of the reasons why it is the very first amendment in the US Constitution.
 
uptower said:
I get the concept, but turn it into a free for all and there are consequences. We're seeing them now with a dangerous pool of ideas fermenting on the internet and in hate groups: not just the words we might not 'like', but calls to action that are dangerous and get people killed. If 'free speech' leads to a mess like Charlottesville, it can;t really be called free.

But again, principles and reality are a different matter. the first amendment might guarantee free speech, but those who use it too much are probably already being watched by law enforcement. Their free speech is freedom to incriminate themselves and often leads to their plots being uncovered. It has been persecuted before - in the McCarthy era, when MLK marched, and recently where the past few presidents have threatened to lock up journalists, leakers, whistleblowers.

In that respect it is an illusion: America only has free speech on paper. And right-wing fantasists who think their 1st Amendment rights allow them to hate with impunity, are actually often being watched (by the very 'blue lives' they purport to care for) because those words have consequences.
Click to expand...

The only legal consequences, with regard to speech, in the US is when you libel or slander someone. Using speech to cause someone financial harm is not allowed. Using speech to offend someone is allowed. The only "dangerous pool of ideas" I see are originating from anti-American leftists and foreigners who have no concept what free speech means. Charlottesville was a fine example of leftist hatred and violence. You apparently are not aware that neo-NAZIs are actually the National Socialist Movement. They are all left-wing scum, not a right-winger among them. All fascists, as Mussolini defined the term, are also left-wingers. In fact, ever domestic terrorist organization in the US, from ANTIFA, BLM, ALF, ELF, KKK, and the neo-NAZIs are all leftist scum. Yet they are permitted to exist because unlike the rest of the planet, the US actually values and protects free speech.

Here is an education in American history that you are clearly lacking: During the 1950s the Democrat-controlled House Un-American Activities Committee violated the constitutional rights of Americans with their investigations. Senator McCarthy had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes committed by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. Senator McCarthy kept his investigations entirely within the federal government, primarily investigating the Department of State and the Department of Defense.

Propagandists who commit crimes should be arrested. With regard to the criminal leftist media (a.k.a. "the enemy of the people") those crimes include illegally attempting to influence a national election.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
You apparently are not aware that neo-NAZIs are actually the National Socialist Movement. They are all left-wing scum, not a right-winger among them. All fascists, as Mussolini defined the term, are also left-wingers. In fact, ever domestic terrorist organization in the US, from ANTIFA, BLM, ALF, ELF, KKK, and the neo-NAZIs are all leftist scum.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Neo-Nazism and half of those group are far right. Even the founder of national Socialism - Hitler - railed against the left and Bolsheviks so no, neither he nor his ideological followers can be called leftists in any sense of the word, no matter what moniker they chose for their party.

Glitch said:
Here is an education in American history that you are clearly lacking:
Click to expand...

No personal comments please. I do not operate at that level.

Glitch said:
During the 1950s the Democrat-controlled House Un-American Activities Committee violated the constitutional rights of Americans with their investigations. Senator McCarthy had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes committed by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. Senator McCarthy kept his investigations entirely within the federal government, primarily investigating the Department of State and the Department of Defense.
Click to expand...

It takes a very active imagination to defend McCarthyism and free speech in the same breath. MCCarthy stood for exactly the opposite.

Glitch said:
Propagandists who commit crimes should be arrested. With regard to the criminal leftist media (a.k.a. "the enemy of the people") those crimes include illegally attempting to influence a national election.
Click to expand...

So much for freedom of speech then.
 
uptower said:
Incorrect. Neo-Nazism and half of those group are far right. Even the founder of national Socialism - Hitler - railed against the left and Bolsheviks so no, neither he nor his ideological followers can be called leftists in any sense of the word, no matter what moniker they chose for their party.
Click to expand...
So now left-wing socialists have somehow become right-wing conservatives in your tiny mind. This is typical public school indoctrination. "Let's pretend that socialists are really right-wing conservatives!" ROFL! You would have to be pretty damn stupid to fall for that one, but that is the irrational left for you.

uptower said:
It takes a very active imagination to defend McCarthyism and free speech in the same breath. MCCarthy stood for exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...
It takes an uneducated indoctrinated mind to hold a Senator responsible for the illegal actions taken in the House of Representatives.

uptower said:
So much for freedom of speech then.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but your idea of "free speech" does not give you carte blanche to commit crimes. Or did you miss the whole Mueller investigation about illegally influencing elections? It isn't just a crime for Russians to be illegally influencing our elections, it is also a crime when the media does it. But since you have no clue what "free speech" actually means, I wouldn't expect you to grasp the concept of holding those accountable for illegally influencing elections either.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
So now left-wing socialists have somehow become right-wing conservatives in your tiny mind.
I wouldn't expect you to grasp the concept of holding those accountable for illegally influencing elections either.
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed. I do not speak to others this way on the forums and had hoped for a more sensible interaction. Sorry it has come to this.

The saddest part is it has a 'last edited' tag at the bottom and the personal insults are still in there.
 
Glitch said:
Unless you libel or slander someone in the US, you can say or post anything you like. Offensive hateful speech is protected speech in the US - THAT is the very meaning of free speech. It isn't free speech if you only protect that speech with which you agree. It is free speech when you protect that speech with which you disagree.
Click to expand...

It is clear you really don't understand the Founding Fathers' intent when they adopted the 1st amendment. Further, your idea that "offensive hateful speech" is the very speech that must be protected is ridiculous on its face. Add that the USSC has in many cases drawn the boundaries of free speech. You are clueless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom