I agree with the rioters. I am against the ANTISEMITISM bill passed by Congress that violates the First Amendment.

[ColonelAngus]

The bill is a clear violation of the first amendment. It should be overturned on appeal.

I agree with all the ANTISEMITES. Thee should be no carve out in the FIRST AMENDMENT that makes ANTISEMITISM illegal.

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, the ANTISEMITIC members of Congress voted against this.

If this was a bill to make it illegal to say bad things about ISLAM…..I WOULD ALSO OPPOSE IT.

Would the ANTISEMITIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?

No.

“HATE SPEECH” is protected speech under the first amendment!

 

[Votto]

The bill is a clear violation of the first amendment. It should be overturned on appeal.

I agree with all the ANTISEMITES. Thee should be no carve out in the FIRST AMENDMENT that makes ANTISEMITISM illegal.

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, the ANTISEMITIC members of Congress voted against this.

If this was a bill to make it illegal to say bad things about ISLAM…..I WOULD ALSO OPPOSE IT.

Would the ANTISEMITIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?

No.

“HATE SPEECH” is protected speech under the first amendment!

Agreed.

They are Republicans after all.

Their biggest accomplishment in life is to fire their Speaker.

Their next biggest accomplishment is to resign in mass to given the House back to the DNC.

And now this.

It sure would be nice to have an opposition party.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I agree with the JEW HATERS like Illan Omar and Tlaib….THERE SHOULD BE NO HATE SPEECH LAWS AGAINST JEWS.

There also should be no HATE SPEECH LAWS for Islam.

This is where we disagree.

See, I AGREE WITH ANTISEMITES ON THIS ISSUE.

Does that make me an antisemite? Nope.

 

[1srelluc]

No worries OP, the "head Jew" and his gop lackey "leader" won't allow it to get voted on.

 

[rosends]

The bill is a clear violation of the first amendment.

No it is not. The first amendment is not an absolute (nor was it ever intended to be). There are loads of exceptions (a priori and causes of action after the fact). A lot of expression is not legally protected. Hate speech is already prohibited.

It should be overturned on appeal.

Not at all. The adoption of a universal standard for anti-Semitism is not a bad thing. Why would you oppose it?

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

No, it isn't.

“HATE SPEECH” is protected speech under the first amendment!

no, it isn't, at least not always

Is Hate Speech Illegal?

Is hate speech illegal? We explore one of the most common misconceptions about the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

www.freedomforum.org

and being protected doesn't mean "free from legal consequence" -- it just means "not subject to prior restraint"

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The bill is a clear violation of the first amendment. It should be overturned on appeal.

I agree with all the ANTISEMITES. Thee should be no carve out in the FIRST AMENDMENT that makes ANTISEMITISM illegal.

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, the ANTISEMITIC members of Congress voted against this.

If this was a bill to make it illegal to say bad things about ISLAM…..I WOULD ALSO OPPOSE IT.

Would the ANTISEMITIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?

No.

“HATE SPEECH” is protected speech under the first amendment!

Thats right. Hate speech is protected under the US constitution. As long as they're not breaking laws, they should be able to say whatever they want.

 

[TNHarley]

Dont you talk bad about Israel! Or the American govt will come after you!
LOL what a bunch of horseshit.

 

[TNHarley]

No it is not. The first amendment is not an absolute (nor was it ever intended to be). There are loads of exceptions (a priori and causes of action after the fact). A lot of expression is not legally protected. Hate speech is already prohibited.

Not at all. The adoption of a universal standard for anti-Semitism is not a bad thing. Why would you oppose it?

No, it isn't.

no, it isn't, at least not always

Is Hate Speech Illegal?

Is hate speech illegal? We explore one of the most common misconceptions about the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

www.freedomforum.org

and being protected doesn't mean "free from legal consequence" -- it just means "not subject to prior restraint"

Hate speech is a first amendment protected activity.

 

[ColonelAngus]

NO LIMIT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

Anyone can lampoon me for my Latvian heritage, huge penis, handsome face, and gigantic bank account….and my humility.

 

[progressive hunter]

I agree with the JEW HATERS like Illan Omar and Tlaib….THERE SHOULD BE NO HATE SPEECH LAWS AGAINST JEWS.

There also should be no HATE SPEECH LAWS for Islam.

This is where we disagree.

See, I AGREE WITH ANTISEMITES ON THIS ISSUE.

Does that make me an antisemite? Nope.

keep in mind a lot of what the rioters are saying is calling for violence against israel and jews,, restricting that doesnt violate the 1st A//

just calling the jews devils and talking shit about them does not violate it and this bill goes to far,,

so when you say you agree with the rioters are you saying you agree with committing violence against israel and the jews??

 

[rosends]

Hate speech is a first amendment protected activity.

No, it isn't. Did you read the legal material I presented?

And even an activity that is, a priori, protected, still is actionable AFTER the fact as a tort.

 

[TNHarley]

No, it isn't. Did you read the legal material I presented?

And even an activity that is, a priori, protected, still is actionable AFTER the fact as a tort.

Indeed it is. Threats etc arent, but that isnt just speech. They have their own terms. Like "threats" which is illegal.

 

[rosends]

Indeed it is. Threats etc arent, but that isnt just speech. They have their own terms. Like "threats" which is illegal.

actually, legally, threats ARE speech which is why there is an unprotected type of "speech". The first amendment was never absolute. Are you against all the legal exclusions?