ANTIFA group at UT - Austin proposes "Law Enforcement Incineration Day"

What I'm trying to make clear to you is that not all "threats" are "real threats".
I understand that

Back to my point/question in OP

If a student group made a similar tweet about hanging black people, do you believe they would face charges?

I do

And it would be the lead story in our traditional media, Trump would be asked about it

Do you doubt that?

Would they face charges? Of course not, they wouldn't have done anything illegal.

Would it be in the news? Probably. So was this.
 
That's because you're a fuckwit who doesn't understand the First Amendment.
This is what happens when someone is bested in a debate, they fall back on personal insults good job

:lol:

Because posting an Anchorman meme is "debate", in your deluded world?
It was a way to make a point

And I did not stoop to personally allow attacks

Don't worry, I'll be ok

but using personal attacks in a discussion is always a great sign that one example is losing the argument
 
That's because you're a fuckwit who doesn't understand the First Amendment.
This is what happens when someone is bested in a debate, they fall back on personal insults good job

:lol:

Because posting an Anchorman meme is "debate", in your deluded world?
It was a way to make a point

And I did not stoop to personally allow attacks

Don't worry, I'll be ok

but using personal attacks in a discussion is always a great sign that one example is losing the argument

:lol:

No. This is the internet, not the Harvard Debate Club.

Personal attacks are just part and parcel of the whole - and are no better or worse than trying to "make a point" with internet memes.
 
Do you think that the tweet is a "statement in which a speaker expresses a “serious” intent “to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals”?
What I think is that the" hate crime" laws are really a tool to circumvent the 1st amendment and allow for persecution of unpopular speech

And I'm hoping that you understood that coming in...

1st amendment doesn't protect crime. Show me one example where hate crimes laws persecute free speech.

It is the law of the land in the UK, and I believe that is where we are headed

We already have college campuses refusing to allow certain groups (conservatives) the same access they allow others

And you said one example

Here you go

Hate speech prosecution in Montana
 
Do you think that the tweet is a "statement in which a speaker expresses a “serious” intent “to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals”?
What I think is that the" hate crime" laws are really a tool to circumvent the 1st amendment and allow for persecution of unpopular speech

And I'm hoping that you understood that coming in...

1st amendment doesn't protect crime. Show me one example where hate crimes laws persecute free speech.

It is the law of the land in the UK, and I believe that is where we are headed

We already have college campuses refusing to allow certain groups (conservatives) the same access they allow others

And you said one example

Here you go

Hate speech prosecution in Montana

:lol:

You should have done more research on that case. The charges were dismissed, and the law they were using was determined to be unconstitutional.

Opinion | Group libel / “hate speech” charges in Montana dismissed
 
You should have done more research on that case. The charges were dismissed, and the law they were using was determined to be unconstitutional.

irrelevant

the defendants had to expend resources to get the charges dropped

and the fact that the law was even made is problematic

plus - "hate crimes" allow for certain groups to be prosecuted more vigorously than others for the same offense
 
You should have done more research on that case. The charges were dismissed, and the law they were using was determined to be unconstitutional.

irrelevant

the defendants had to expend resources to get the charges dropped

and the fact that the law was even made is problematic

plus - "hate crimes" allow for certain groups to be prosecuted more vigorously than others for the same offense

:lol:

It's not "irrelevant", it's literally a demonstration of how our system is supposed to work.

Additionally, "hate crime" laws do not allow for "certain groups" to be prosecuted more vigorously than others. Hate crime laws are sentence enhancements, nothing more. They apply when anyone commits a crime, and demonstrates that they did it due to bigotry or hatred. They do not have to be members of any specific "groups" for the sentence enhancements to apply.
 
You should have done more research on that case. The charges were dismissed, and the law they were using was determined to be unconstitutional.

irrelevant

the defendants had to expend resources to get the charges dropped

and the fact that the law was even made is problematic

plus - "hate crimes" allow for certain groups to be prosecuted more vigorously than others for the same offense

What groups ?


Hate crime laws cover everyone .
 

Forum List

Back
Top