|
The USA has radical ideas about liberty, whether it is speech/expression/conscience or guns. We pay a cost in return for it though. The risk of being shot and the lives lost to gun violence are the price of our freedom with respect to guns, and the toleration of hateful and despicable opinions, even when they motivate violence and other harm, is the price of real freedom of speech. As a country, on the whole, we have the courage of our convictions and have proven willing for a long time to pay the price. It's more than just freedom of speech, it's freedom of conscience. The content of your beliefs don't have any bearing on your right to believe them, and everyone has the same right to speak openly about whatever he believes. This makes America different from most other places, and from many of our peers. Many of our European cousins don't have the same convictions we do, or aren't willing to pay the prices we pay. Which is fine. Their countries, they get to run them the way they want to. And if people don't like it, hey, they can always come become Americans. Lots of good people have. America really is different, that's nothing new, and it's kind of the point, and a point of pride in our civic nationalism.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
"It's a sign of our strong civic virtue that so many people volunteer to feed the Sun, whether directly or through service in the Flowery Wars," hueytlatoani Motecuhzuoma said. He continued, "It's simply the price we pay for holding off the star maidens from killing the Sun and throwing the universe into chaos and darkness for another year."
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If you're waiting on a system that ensures people will always fairly objectively judge ideas with full information, you're going to be waiting on a system that doesn't involve humans at all. The field of ideologies is very diverse in the U.S., as it would be in any nation of 300+ million. The fact that most parties don't receive mainstream support is your real complaint, but utterly irrelevant to whether or not there are many flavors extant. No, their point is that speech may be free but it's not really the government you have to worry about limiting speech, since speech without an audience is powerless. The power is in the media companies, who have freedom of their speech, but do not have to allow freedom of other peoples' speech. In this way, only the rich (as in, those who own the media outlets) have speech, and since the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine do not have any obligation to be honest, equitable and balanced. As such, there is an inequality of speech, and hate speech laws seek to force a rebalancing between those with money and those with boot marks on their face. DeusExMachinima posted:And as far as abortion goes, we actually have fewer restrictions on that in the U.S. than in many parts of Europe. How many of those are ones with hate speech laws, champ? Also always good to know a dude can go "problem, what problem?" about a womens health issue in their home country. DeusExMachinima posted:You're really painting with a broad brush and it still doesn't back up your thesis. Tu quoque.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:And as far as abortion goes, we actually have fewer restrictions on that in the U.S. than in many parts of Europe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Abortion will be illegal in the United States by 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:What laws do you have in mind when you refer to the American government's idea of hate speech? Because it seems pretty non-existent to me. Cross burning statutes that only require an intent to intimidate, for one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Cross burning statutes that only require an intent to intimidate, for one. Freedom of expression does not cover threatening people. "I am going to kill you" isn't an opinion or a matter of conscience, it's a tort. "I think you should be killed" is different. It's not an harm or a wrong or a tort that someone somewhere thinks me and people like me should be killed, or enslaved, or deported or whatever. People are free to believe whatever they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Freedom of expression does not cover threatening people. Not really. In both cases you've suggested it's completely correct to kill the person, the second simply implies you're worried about getting caught doing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Freedom of expression does not cover threatening people. This is wrong, as Virginia v. Black does not require the law to prove intent to harm, merely intent to intimidate. Cross burning is more analogous to your latter presentation of an expression of support for systemic violence rather than immediate, and it is banned as such. This SCOTUS decision sets precedent for considering the history of violence and oppression in determining how a symbol or expression can impact the affected party's standing for protection, and is a loosening of previous interpretations requiring imminent threat of harm or "fighting words." But no matter how you slice it, cross burning is a form of hate speech, and it can be banned. Therefore hate speech can be banned under US jurisprudence. Is your objection to this statement that there are limits to the forms of hate speech that can be banned? If so, I don't think anyone has suggested every form of conceivable hate speech should be banned, so you might be arguing against a strawman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
To borrow a mafia reference: It used to be protected for the mafia to show up and make vague allusions to how it would be "a shame for something to get broken." Now, because of the history of the mafia and things getting broken, that same allusion is treated as if it were a directed threat. Hate speech, by its nature, is intended to intimidate and install fear of harm; and we are learning that it causes real harm to the target group regardless of specific directed threat. Evolution of free speech protection is reflecting this thought and shows a willingness to let the boundaries be tested. I guarantee you are going to see more tests to these boundaries as LGBT rights continue to grow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not really. In both cases you've suggested it's completely correct to kill the person, the second simply implies you're worried about getting caught doing it. archangelwar posted:If so, I don't think anyone has suggested every form of conceivable hate speech should be banned, so you might be arguing against a strawman. We can clear this up though (and this is an open question for anybody to answer): What things does the First Amendment prevent banning that you would prefer to be banned? OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Well yeah, but then the term "hate speech" itself is vague and most of its value is to group disparagement into the same category as intimidation, harassment, and mobilization to violence. "Hate speech" is rather poorly defined, as evidenced by the gamut of examples provided in this thread. I think many people have been clear that when presenting hate speech examples, they have discussed clearly targetted and limited scope instances such as cross burning, Germany's ban on holocaust denial through incitement to hatred, etc. What would be helpful is if people responded directly to these arguments rather than bringing up Russian laws against "hooliganism" and Islamic bans on depictions of Mohammad. quote:We can clear this up though (and this is an option question for anybody to answer): What things does the First Amendment prevent banning that you would prefer to be banned? I think this might be awkwardly worded as a question because as I said before, I don't believe that the First Amendment prevents bans on certain (and the most pernicious) forms of hate speech, especially as the jurisprudence has evolved. I think Virginia v. Black would allow bans against demonstrably damaging historical discrimination patterns of expression while still maintaining a high enough burden of proof to prevent the types of slippery slope abuse that have been suggested. I also believe that our understanding of the damage of certain patterns of expression is and has been evolving since the turn of the 20th century, and continues to improve. And as we continue to diagnose and understand how the sociological, psychological, physical, and economic impact of discriminatory and hate-induced behaviors and expression create real impact on groups and the individual, I believe we will evolve our interpretation of the 1st Amendment further. Where I take issue is the absolutist nature with which people declare current (as in existing European) or future (under discussion) hate speech proposals as prima facie violations of a) the 1st Amendment, and b) the socio-political theory of freedom of expression. I say this especially in light of further evolution of human rights expression such as the right to dignity which has been strengthened by the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Especially as it pertains to LGBT rights, I think you will see further clarification of the friction points between free expression and protections under the right of dignity. Edit: To add, I disagree with the assertion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the definitive assertion and final evolution of human rights theory and thus that the definition of Constitutionality of certain legislation is an ultimate ruling of universal correctness, as implied by the OP. I believe that rights theory has evolved massively, just look at documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and where it diverges from the barest fruits of early liberal democracy. Appeals to the innate infallibility of the hasty proclamations of Enlightenment era theory are undermined by discovery of error in the underpinnings of Enlightenment era methods and knowledge. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Hate speech, by its nature, is intended to intimidate and install fear of harm; and we are learning that it causes real harm to the target group regardless of specific directed threat. Evolution of free speech protection is reflecting this thought and shows a willingness to let the boundaries be tested. I guarantee you are going to see more tests to these boundaries as LGBT rights continue to grow. This doesn't seem generally true; people could write "hate speech" without planning to distribute it to the disliked group.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Technically you can also buy piles of illegal guns and explosives without intending to distribute them but we still make that illegal. I mean technically you can probably write a diary full of how much you hate the gays but people generally settle for posting it on the internet instead or hanging around waving signs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:This doesn't seem generally true; people could write "hate speech" without planning to distribute it to the disliked group. If it is never distributed, it cannot be prosecuted; how else could an aggrieved party bring suit? If it is distributed amongst a like-minded group to promote the idea of, or incite the execution of violence, then is that not an intent to intimidate or install fear? Please note that I am not presenting all instances of such as bannable offenses, only discussing the nature and innate quality of what is commonly termed hate speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Technically you can also buy piles of illegal guns and explosives without intending to distribute them but we still make that illegal. edit: archangelwar posted:If it is never distributed, it cannot be prosecuted; how else could an aggrieved party bring suit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:Things can be distributed without the author's intent. Which would speak to the intent of the distributor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Which would speak to the intent of the distributor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:If it is never distributed, it cannot be prosecuted; how else could an aggrieved party bring suit? No, those things are obviously different. Especially if you're talking about intent. I'm imagining a preacher giving a hateful sermon. He thinks he has a sympathetic audience. He intends to inspire an intense dislike of the group he's criticizing. (Violence seems content-specific). The preacher isn't expecting anyone outside his congregation to hear his remarks, let alone react to them. Suppose someone secretly records & leaks the preacher's comments. I'm saying that the sermon would be seen as 'Hate Speech', even though the preacher didn't intend to influence anyone outside of his congregation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think you need to elaborate on this. I'm a literal Nazi and I rant about how Jews are terrible with my Nazi buddies. An activist suspicious of my organization infiltrates my, to my knowledge, Nazi only organization records and publishes my Nazi rants. Is a literal Nazi rant not hate speech or is someone getting prosecuted here? Once again, you are conflating prosecutable/bannable/illegal hate speech and the broad term of hate speech. I can only assume you have not read the previous posts for content and seized upon a single out of context sentence as some form of "gotcha." If you would like to have a fruitful discussion, I implore you to perhaps follow the previous posts in the thread. Or we can start with "not all instances of hate speech can/are/should be banned." Your final statement is a gross false dichotomy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Once again, you are conflating prosecutable/bannable/illegal hate speech and the broad term of hate speech. I can only assume you have not read the previous posts for content and seized upon a single out of context sentence as some form of "gotcha." If you would like to have a fruitful discussion, I implore you to perhaps follow the previous posts in the thread. Or we can start with "not all instances of hate speech can/are/should be banned." Your final statement is a gross false dichotomy. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:No, those things are obviously different. Especially if you're talking about intent. What exactly are you asking, whether the broad term "hate speech" is applicable to the preacher's sermon or whether hate speech legislation could be crafted that would survive current jurisprudence such that the preacher could be criminally prosecuted? I believe I have made my position on the latter quite clear in previous posts which is why I find this line of discussion so curious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think you're the one that's conflating these ideas. I'm all for an intent to intimidate law (edit: presuming it doesn't already exist), intimidating people is bad, there's no legitimate reason for people to be doing it, and it certainly doesn't help political or any sort of fruitful discussion. The thing is that an intent to intimidate law isn't going to cover a lot of things people call hate speech, so if you're talking about an intent to intimidate law, you shouldn't be using the term hate speech. Once again, since it appears that you do not want to actually respond to the substance and context of the previous statements: why are you discussing a broad "intent to intimidate law" in context of the narrow and specific discussion I presented concerning hate speech protections and the first amendment? I have neither proposed a broad "hate speech" law (and the definition you responded to of hate speech was not meant to be used in terms of such a law), nor have I discussed a broad "intent to intimidate" law as I also don't believe such a law would or should necessarily pass Constitutional muster unless given more specifics. What, specifically, do you take issue with restriction of hate speech a la cross burning and Virginia v. Black?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:What exactly are you asking, whether the broad term "hate speech" is applicable to the preacher's sermon or whether hate speech legislation could be crafted that would survive current jurisprudence such that the preacher could be criminally prosecuted? I believe I have made my position on the latter quite clear in previous posts which is why I find this line of discussion so curious. I was responding to your comments on the nature of Hate Speech. quote:Hate speech, by its nature, is intended to intimidate and install fear of harm But if that was a typo, rather than an explicit topic change, I'm fine with something like, 'the hatespeech laws, advocated by archangelwar, target speech that is ~'. My position is that, when I think of Hate Speech, I imagine a demagog trying to incite a sympathetic crowd against some disempowered group. The problem is that invective goads people towards violence. The violence might not be immediate. But it's a predictable consequence, and one not addressed by our current laws. This is the sort of thing I think people mean when they talk about "hate speech". falcon2424 fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
I am still not following (although I would change the statement to include "and/or" rather than simply "and"). I was responding to someone who claimed a ban on cross burning was not a restriction of hate speech, but was a restriction on ability to intimidate. I was responding that it was both (and that is is not a meaningful dichotomy in this instance): the nature of hate speech (when presented by an aggrieved party) is one of intimidation and/or intent to instill fear of harm. Thus, on a venn diagram with "hate speech" and "intimidation," cross burning is securely within the intersection and it is a bannable expression under SCOTUS ruling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I am still not following (although I would change the statement to include "and/or" rather than simply "and"). I was responding to someone who claimed a ban on cross burning was not a restriction of hate speech, but was a restriction on ability to intimidate. I was responding that it was both (and that is is not a meaningful dichotomy in this instance): the nature of hate speech (when presented by an aggrieved party) is one of intimidation and/or intent to instill fear of harm. Thus, on a venn diagram with "hate speech" and "intimidation," cross burning is securely within the intersection and it is a bannable expression under SCOTUS ruling. You're saying that 'intent to intimidate' is intrinsic part of hate speech. I disagree. That intent isn't necessary, or even central to the concept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:You're saying that 'intent to intimidate' is intrinsic part of hate speech. Maybe I am just playing fast and loose with intent because of the broadness of the totality of hate speech, but the nature of hate speech is that the promulgator has some ill intent toward the target; Intimidation, violence, oppression, etc. That ill intent may be the result of legitimate ignorance, stupidity, or psychological deficiency, but that is mitigation not substitution. I did not say that there was an intent for specific action or immediate threat. In reference to law, intent is necessary and central. In terms of broader speech, intent can be inferred. By speaking hate speech to a sympathetic audience you are reinforcing institutional oppression which is contributory to intimidation, fear, oppression; there is intent. For instance, in your preacher example: there is intent. Borrowing from wikipedia: Broad Definition Hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. (attack -> intent) Narrower (legal) Definition In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics. (I suppose you could construe that disparagement could occur absent intent, but the deliberate act of promulgating the hate speech is intent) Edit: Not all hate speech is specifically "intent to intimidate" It is expression of desire for: intimidation, violence, oppression, undermining humanity, etc. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:This is wrong, as Virginia v. Black does not require the law to prove intent to harm, merely intent to intimidate. Cross burning is more analogous to your latter presentation of an expression of support for systemic violence rather than immediate, and it is banned as such. This SCOTUS decision sets precedent for considering the history of violence and oppression in determining how a symbol or expression can impact the affected party's standing for protection, and is a loosening of previous interpretations requiring imminent threat of harm or "fighting words." "Cross burning is a form of hate speech and it can be banned, therefore hate speech can be banned under US jurisprudence" doesn't imply that "hate speech can be banned for being hate speech," because cross burning isn't banned because it's "hate speech." It's banned if it is meant to intimidate people, because intimidating people is not protected speech. Is "I hate all Jews and blacks" hate speech, since it clearly expresses hate, and doesn't express anything else besides hate, or do you and others mean something else? I'm asking earnestly, because frankly I've never taken the notion of 'hate speech' seriously as something that the law could or should regulate, just as something personally distasteful. Is it against the law in the US to say "all [ethnic group] should be rounded up and killed" or "the Germans were right to kill the Jews, our government should do the same thing?" Would it be unlawful to vote for a candidate who promised to 'round up the Jews' if elected president? Would it be unlawful for him to campaign on that platform? Do you think it should be? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:"Cross burning is a form of hate speech and it can be banned, therefore hate speech can be banned under US jurisprudence" doesn't imply that "hate speech can be banned for being hate speech," I did not say this, nor imply it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not really. In both cases you've suggested it's completely correct to kill the person, the second simply implies you're worried about getting caught doing it. Does saying "it's completely correct to kill [the person]" really require any kind of hate at all to say or believe? Would someone saying "I have no problem with Native Americans, they are mostly decent acting and I have Native American friends, but I don't believe that they are human beings or have human rights, so it is completely correct to kill them if they are a nuisance, like any other animal. I would miss my friends if they were killed, but it wouldn't be the same as human beings losing their lives" be saying something hateful? If it isn't hateful or motivated by hate, is it "hate speech?" Anyway, "i am going to kill you" is a threat, a person who hears and believes that has a reason to believe his life is in danger. "Someone should kill you" isn't a threat, a person who hears and believes it isn't given a reason to believe his life is in danger. Some person believes he should be killed, but hasn't expressed any intention to kill him, or given anyone else an incentive to kill him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I did not say this, nor imply it. OK cool Is "I hate all Jews and blacks" hate speech, since it clearly expresses hate, and doesn't express anything else besides hate, or do you and others mean something else? I'm asking earnestly, because frankly I've never taken the notion of 'hate speech' seriously as something that the law could or should regulate, just as something personally distasteful. Is it against the law in the US to say "all [ethnic group] should be rounded up and killed" or "the Germans were right to kill the Jews, our government should do the same thing?" Would it be unlawful to vote for a candidate who promised to 'round up the Jews' if elected president? Would it be unlawful for him to campaign on that platform? Do you think it should be?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Once again, I am not answering your questions because you are explicitly conflating "hate speech" with "things that must be banned." I have never suggested a ban on hate speech, I have simply discussed that certain specific instances of hate speech may be restricted under the 1st Amendment. Additionally that interpretations of the 1st seem to be broadening what can be deemed harmful and thus not covered. Your questions don't appear to have anything to do with these specific examples.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Once again, I am not answering your questions because you are explicitly conflating "hate speech" with "things that must be banned." I have never suggested a ban on hate speech, I have simply discussed that certain specific instances of hate speech may be restricted under the 1st Amendment. Additionally that interpretations of the 1st seem to be broadening what can be deemed harmful and thus not covered. Your questions don't appear to have anything to do with these specific examples. ok
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:"Someone should kill you" isn't a threat, a person who hears and believes it isn't given a reason to believe his life is in danger. Some person believes he should be killed, but hasn't expressed any intention to kill him, or given anyone else an incentive to kill him. This gets interesting if it's Glen Beck (or some other public figure) who says, "someone should kill you". Especially if he went on a rant about why I deserved it. If that happened, I'd totally believe that my life were in danger. Not from Beck, personally. But he has millions of listeners. I'd expect him to influence someone. The problem would get even harder if he called for some kind of lesser-harassment. If he called for people to kill me, maybe every individual would balk and I'd live. If the ask were "Smash Falcon's mailbox", then there's basically 0% chance that my house would go un-vandalized. And then we've got a really-direct connection between his speech and the harm. archangelwar posted:Narrower (legal) Definition The reason I care is that, "X is intrinsically Y" also means, "Not Y? Must not be X then." Sweeping claims like, "Hate speech is an expression of desire for: ..." or "Hate speech is about intent to intimidate," carry with them arguments like, "Desire for violence? No! I was indifferent to violence. I was just in it for the money." or "Intent to intimidate? Why would my audience be intimidated? They agreed with me."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Once again, I am not answering your questions because you are explicitly conflating "hate speech" with "things that must be banned." I have never suggested a ban on hate speech, I have simply discussed that certain specific instances of hate speech may be restricted under the 1st Amendment. Additionally that interpretations of the 1st seem to be broadening what can be deemed harmful and thus not covered. Your questions don't appear to have anything to do with these specific examples. You are definitely playing fast and loose with your definitions here. Speech that can be banned under Black v. Virginia isn't bannable because it's hateful but because it's intimidating in the circumstances it was delivered in. Were the content the same and the circumstances altered, it'd be ok to go. Try finding an acceptable circumstance to deliver holocaust denial in Germany for an actual example of what the term "hate speech" actually covers in the real world. All hate speech requires is that it was public and discriminatory against a protected class. Intimidation has nothing doing with it. Austria jailed David Irving for IIRC 5 years recently for publishing a denialism book. There is zero precedent (and never will be) for doing the same in the U.S. whether it's Holocaust or KKK subject material delivered in a book. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:27
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
falcon2424 posted:Right, things can be hate-speech, even if the maligned group never sees them. This is what I've been arguing. That has nothing to do with intent quote:The reason I care is that, "X is intrinsically Y" also means, "Not Y? Must not be X then." This is just weirdly asserting that a claim of ignorance or alternative motive is a legitimate deflection of intent. Claiming that you thought you would heal someone by shooting them does not erase your intent to shoot them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You are definitely playing fast and loose with your definitions here. Speech that can be banned under Black v. Virginia isn't bannable because it's hateful but because it's intimidating in the circumstances it was delivered in. Were the content the same and the circumstances altered, it'd be ok to go. Try finding an acceptable circumstance to deliver holocaust denial in Germany for an actual example of what the term "hate speech" actually covers in the real world. I do not see how cross burning bans are consistent with your presentation of limitation of speech within your OP, as there is no explicit target or imminent threat of harm. I feel that the precedent that is set under Virginia v. Black is broader than your presentation of acceptable limits of speech in the OP. If this is not true then we are simply in agreement concerning current limitations. I do, however, believe that these limitations will be broadened further as understanding of true social, physical, economic, and political damage toward vulnerable groups becomes further ingrained within the dominant socio-political zeitgeist; and I think you will disagree here. The predominant issue I have is that you present this disagreement as a matter of established fact, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are an established immutable truth from which divergence is inherently wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The USA has radical ideas about liberty, whether it is speech/expression/conscience or guns. Spoken like a true
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Spoken like a true I sure hope not? But middle class white people haven't had any kind of immunity from say, being shot by a maniac, in recent times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:You are conflating legal and cultural/social power. Which is cool and good because if you speak freely at someone and he speaks freely at you back we have freedom of speech. This is what people don't seem to get or are intentionally misrepresenting. You can think or say anything you want. The restrictions involve where and how it's said. Talking to your fellow KKK members about killing Jews is legal. Cornering a Jewish person and telling them how they need to die is not. It's context not content that hate speech laws address. (In the U.S. Anyway) falcon2424 posted:This gets interesting if it's Glen Beck (or some other public figure) who says, "someone should kill you". Especially if he went on a rant about why I deserved it. This already happened. O'reilly spent months talking about 'Tiller the baby killer' and how someone needs to do something about him. So someone killed him. O'reilly being the douchebag he is went into 'I never said anything' mode like he always does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:34
|
|
