Freedom of Speech: Where's the Line?

[Gracie]

You cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so yes..there is a line. But speaking out against government, POTUS, calling someone a cracker or a wap or a niggah or whatever...that is not hate speech. That is just assholiness. When it becomes illegal is when *you* call that woman a "bitch female", KILL Her or HURT her because of her sex...or that guy a "faghole" and KILL OR HURT him because he is gay. That is the line. Kill, main, cause harm...not so good. Your opinion and your right to say it? DIfferent ballgame.

Or, at least it should be that way. When people cannot speak out against the POTUS or government or race or spiritual belief or sexual persuasion...may as well take Free Speech out of the constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

You said they were responsible for the killing. You said I was responsible. You said several other posters here were responsible.

He's not the only rabid RW who has accused others or who has called for violence against blacks.

There is no place for the racist hate speech we see here and in the RW media such as fox.

So....are you going to rant and scream and argue with the blacks holding signs saying KILL WHITES? Or are you just for blacks cuz it's all that peer pressure on ya? How about DON'T KILL ANYONE? Nah. Then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

You have this ignorant and ridiculous notion that there's some sort of 'double standard' in play, where African-Americans get a 'pass' when they commit crimes not afforded to whites – nothing could be more inane and untrue.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

You said they were responsible for the killing. You said I was responsible. You said several other posters here were responsible.

He's not the only rabid RW who has accused others or who has called for violence against blacks.

There is no place for the racist hate speech we see here and in the RW media such as fox.

So....are you going to rant and scream and argue with the blacks holding signs saying KILL WHITES? Or are you just for blacks cuz it's all that peer pressure on ya? How about DON'T KILL ANYONE? Nah. Then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

You have this ignorant and ridiculous notion that there's some sort of 'double standard' in play, where African-Americans get a 'pass' when they commit crimes not afforded to whites – nothing could be more inane and untrue.

There's no such implication held in anything Gracie said...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

No. You're wrong.

There's a LEGAL difference between free speech and hate speech.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

You said they were responsible for the killing. You said I was responsible. You said several other posters here were responsible.

He's not the only rabid RW who has accused others or who has called for violence against blacks.

There is no place for the racist hate speech we see here and in the RW media such as fox.

So....are you going to rant and scream and argue with the blacks holding signs saying KILL WHITES? Or are you just for blacks cuz it's all that peer pressure on ya? How about DON'T KILL ANYONE? Nah. Then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

If you're talking about the Fox stories, they've been proven to be LIES.

But yes, signs calling for the deaths of whites is probably LEGALLY hate speech.

Do YOU rant and scream and argue about tee potties' signs calling for the deaths of blacks, including the president of the US.

No, you don't.

Unlike you, I don't watch news sources that lean one way. Kinda like Fox News. But you watch, dontcha? And I also don't hang around people in real life that call for the death of blacks or the POTUS. I guess you do? How else would you know about it?

You just sidestepped what I wrote.

Why would that be?

The constitution says FREE SPEECH. You are for the constitution, right, luddly? Cuz if you don't, you are supposedly a right winger, right? So....why are you trying to shut people up when it is their RIGHT to state what they think/believe? I know why. You don't agree with it. Therefore....HUSH. amirite? Yep. iamrite.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that hate speech can be deemed a crime. That is also part of the Constitution.

Then the SC better get on some black asses screaming for deaths to whites, eh?

But not whites wanting blacks killed.

Look at racist RW and tee potty signs.

You're okay with that, right?

All should be treated equally. Period.

The problem is...YOU don't agree with everyone being treated equally. All I see from you is ranting about the po' black folks being so abused by racist whites..and calling for CK to shut people up you don't agree with.

And again, you ignore what I write, what I have always written, in favor of your own agenda.

Equality for all. Period.

THAT is what I believe in.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so yes..there is a line. But speaking out against government, POTUS, calling someone a cracker or a wap or a niggah or whatever...that is not hate speech. That is just assholiness. When it becomes illegal is when *you* call that woman a "bitch female", KILL Her or HURT her because of her sex...or that guy a "faghole" and KILL OR HURT him because he is gay. That is the line. Kill, main, cause harm...not so good. Your opinion and your right to say it? DIfferent ballgame.

Or, at least it should be that way. When people cannot speak out against the POTUS or government or race or spiritual belief or sexual persuasion...may as well take Free Speech out of the constitution.

Okay, so you almost understand the difference between free speech and hate speech.

But then you prove that you don't understand it at all.

sigh

 

[Gracie]

You cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater, so yes..there is a line. But speaking out against government, POTUS, calling someone a cracker or a wap or a niggah or whatever...that is not hate speech. That is just assholiness. When it becomes illegal is when *you* call that woman a "bitch female", KILL Her or HURT her because of her sex...or that guy a "faghole" and KILL OR HURT him because he is gay. That is the line. Kill, main, cause harm...not so good. Your opinion and your right to say it? DIfferent ballgame.

Or, at least it should be that way. When people cannot speak out against the POTUS or government or race or spiritual belief or sexual persuasion...may as well take Free Speech out of the constitution.

Okay, so you almost understand the difference between free speech and hate speech.

But then you prove that you don't understand it at all.

sigh

The difference between you and I is the ignore button if I don't like what someone is saying.

 

[Clementine]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Idiots will always speak.

Right now, Sharpton is out there spreading hate. I do think he should answer for the violence that resulted from his speech, but that won't happen.

Of course, there are laws against inciting riots or any violence and people can get into trouble for that.

It's also wrong to tell outright lies, which comes from both parties. Obama lied repeatedly before they forced Obamacare on us.

Yes, it's bad.

 

[Care4all]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Idiots will always speak.

Right now, Sharpton is out there spreading hate. I do think he should answer for the violence that resulted from his speech, but that won't happen.

Of course, there are laws against inciting riots or any violence and people can get into trouble for that.

It's also wrong to tell outright lies, which comes from both parties. Obama lied repeatedly before they forced Obamacare on us.

Yes, it's bad.

can you please show us what was this 'hate' that Sharpton has in his speech?

 

[Spare_change]

Thank you for posting this.

There's a difference between free speech and hate speech.

This board has become safe haven for KKK/white supremacist hate speech. I wish cereal_killer would see that and put an end to the constant racism we're seeing here now.

I would also like to see an end to the use of the N word. We should be better than that.

Yeah, those who use it hide behind cowardly cutesy spellings but that's the word they're using.

I don't spend near as much time here any more. Frankly, if you're interested in debate, there are far better choices.

"There's a difference between free speech and hate speech."

Wrong.

 

[Spare_change]

Recently, the wife (sister?) of Eric Garner released the home address of the policeman involved in his death.

She exercised her free speech right.

If that policeman is harmed, inconvenienced, or damaged in any way, she should be held accountable under the 'inciting violence' laws.

THAT she doesn't have a right to do.

 

[reconmark]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Idiots will always speak.

Right now, Sharpton is out there spreading hate. I do think he should answer for the violence that resulted from his speech, but that won't happen.

Of course, there are laws against inciting riots or any violence and people can get into trouble for that.

It's also wrong to tell outright lies, which comes from both parties. Obama lied repeatedly before they forced Obamacare on us.

Yes, it's bad.

can you please show us what was this 'hate' that Sharpton has in his speech?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Freedom of Speech should have very few restrictions, and Freedom of Thought none at all.

Out in the world, I could not agree more strongly. But this is a privately owned message board. There is no expectation of "free speech" here.

And its true that we are up to our epaulets in the damn KKK.

I left a political message board I was on for years because a new moderator decided he would determine what topics could be discussed and what opinions were allowed. He would ban you at the drop of a hat. I won't go back until he's gone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Freedom of Speech should have very few restrictions, and Freedom of Thought none at all.

Out in the world, I could not agree more strongly. But this is a privately owned message board. There is no expectation of "free speech" here.

And its true that we are up to our epaulets in the damn KKK.

I left a political message board I was on for years because a new moderator decided he would determine what topics could be discussed and what opinions were allowed. He would ban you at the drop of a hat. I won't go back until he's gone.

As that message board had every right to do.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The hardcore lefties want to be in charge of which speech is acceptable and which speech deserves punishment.

.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Excellent piece in Politico:

The Worldwide War Against Free Speech - Flemming Rose - POLITICO Magazine

"Grievance fundamentalism, and the belief that a thought police can create an offense-free world that will be better..."

"Grievance fundamentalism". Perfect.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The hardcore lefties want to be in charge of which speech is acceptable and which speech deserves punishment.

So do the hardcore Rightist, so what's your point? If you have a point it is this, Freedom of Speech is Liberal ideal, as is freedom of Thought, and Religion. No Fascist, of any political persuasion, wants anything to do with that. You live in a nation where people want to ban books, ban ideas, ban religions. Don't be shocked when some asshole wants to control speech, they come in all flavors and they are all wrong.

 

[Mac1958]

The hardcore lefties want to be in charge of which speech is acceptable and which speech deserves punishment.

So do the hardcore Rightist, so what's your point? If you have a point it is this, Freedom of Speech is Liberal ideal, as is freedom of Thought, and Religion. No Fascist, of any political persuasion, wants anything to do with that. You live in a nation where people want to ban books, ban ideas, ban religions. Don't be shocked when some asshole wants to control speech, they come in all flavors and they are all wrong.

Ironic then, that modern day liberals want so desperately to control speech.

And you clearly don't know know my politics, but I realize stuff is kept simple here.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Excellent piece in Politico:
The Worldwide War Against Free Speech - Flemming Rose - POLITICO Magazine
"Grievance fundamentalism, and the belief that a thought police can create an offense-free world that will be better..."
"Grievance fundamentalism". Perfect.

So let's take his last part: "But the only right we do not and should not have in a liberal democracy is a right not to be offended. Instead of sending people to sensitivity training when they say something insensitive, we all need insensitivity training. We all need thicker skins if freedom of speech is to survive in the age of grievance fundamentalism."
Read more: The Worldwide War Against Free Speech - Flemming Rose - POLITICO Magazine

Great. Now you tell me why on this very site, people are not only offended by what I say, they are offended that I breath. They don't want to hear what bothers them, they use the ignore button like a small child with fingers suck in their ears. Care to jump that one Mac?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The hardcore lefties want to be in charge of which speech is acceptable and which speech deserves punishment.

So do the hardcore Rightist, so what's your point? If you have a point it is this, Freedom of Speech is Liberal ideal, as is freedom of Thought, and Religion. No Fascist, of any political persuasion, wants anything to do with that. You live in a nation where people want to ban books, ban ideas, ban religions. Don't be shocked when some asshole wants to control speech, they come in all flavors and they are all wrong.

Ironic then, that modern day liberals want so desperately to control speech.
And you clearly don't know know my politics, but I realize stuff is kept simple here.

Let me help you out, they are not Liberals. When you make a statement like that it is not only simplistic, it's utterly stupid.

 

[Wildman]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence is the primary problem – starting with the fact that the liberties protected by the Constitution with regard to speech apply only to the relationship between government and citizens, not between or among private persons or organizations.

One private person or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person or organization; ignorance of this fact has resulted in the myth of 'political correctness,' the ridiculous notion that in the context of private society, a private person or private organization denouncing the speech of another private person or private organization somehow 'infringes' on the free speech right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In a free and democratic society – again, only in the context of private society – the people are at liberty to denounce speech they find offensive, allowing private society to determine whether or not that denunciation is warranted, absent interference by politicians or the courts, where whatever the determination of private society, it neither constitutes a 'backlash,' nor the myth of 'political correctness.'

The First Amendment, therefore, with regard to the original intent of the Framers, only addresses the relationship between the government and those governed, to decide what speech is beyond the scope of government regulation and what is not.

For example, pornography is entitled to Constitutional protections, obscenity not; hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness is not. Government may not subject speech to prior restraint absent a compelling governmental interest, evidence in support of the restraint, and a legitimate legislative end; as we saw in the Pentagon Papers case, that government might perceive speech embarrassing to government officials does not justify prior restraint, it does not warrant restricting the protected liberties of the press enshrined in the First Amendment.

Unfortunately there are those who seek to misapply the doctrine of free speech for political reasons, by seeking to propagate the lie that is 'political correctness,' to silence dissent they fear and disagree with; we've seen this in the efforts to vilify those engaged in lawful demonstrations against what they perceive as unjustified police violence, where those demonstrating have been falsely associated with a tiny faction of criminal extremists advocating for violence against the police, and the reprehensible and unwarranted claim that those demonstrating are somehow 'responsible' for violence against law enforcement.

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence is the primary problem – starting with the fact that the liberties protected by the Constitution with regard to speech apply only to the relationship between government and citizens, not between or among private persons or organizations.

One private person or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person or organization; ignorance of this fact has resulted in the myth of 'political correctness,' the ridiculous notion that in the context of private society, a private person or private organization denouncing the speech of another private person or private organization somehow 'infringes' on the free speech right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In a free and democratic society – again, only in the context of private society – the people are at liberty to denounce speech they find offensive, allowing private society to determine whether or not that denunciation is warranted, absent interference by politicians or the courts, where whatever the determination of private society, it neither constitutes a 'backlash,' nor the myth of 'political correctness.'

The First Amendment, therefore, with regard to the original intent of the Framers, only addresses the relationship between the government and those governed, to decide what speech is beyond the scope of government regulation and what is not.

For example, pornography is entitled to Constitutional protections, obscenity not; hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness is not. Government may not subject speech to prior restraint absent a compelling governmental interest, evidence in support of the restraint, and a legitimate legislative end; as we saw in the Pentagon Papers case, that government might perceive speech embarrassing to government officials does not justify prior restraint, it does not warrant restricting the protected liberties of the press enshrined in the First Amendment.

Unfortunately there are those who seek to misapply the doctrine of free speech for political reasons, by seeking to propagate the lie that is 'political correctness,' to silence dissent they fear and disagree with; we've seen this in the efforts to vilify those engaged in lawful demonstrations against what they perceive as unjustified police violence, where those demonstrating have been falsely associated with a tiny faction of criminal extremists advocating for violence against the police, and the reprehensible and unwarranted claim that those demonstrating are somehow 'responsible' for violence against law enforcement.

"Lawful demonstrations" does not include destruction of property or racial violence. Demonstrations and riots are two very diferent things.

Please post a link to where anyone said that it does.

Fact is, I have read RW nutters here calling for punishment, jailing for constitutionally-guaranteed protesting. Many RWs here think there is one amendment - the 2nd - and want the rest of the constitution trashed. Especially if it give equal rights to gays.

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

"Hate speech"?
No such thing exists or can exist under our Constitution because everyone would have a different-sometimes directly opposite-definition of what it is. Hate speech is strictly an opinion; not law. Expressing an opinion may not be wise or safe otherwise but making that expression illegal would be tyranny. Given what they had to say about the king and his government, I'm sure the FF were well aware of that.

Incorrect.

Although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including hate speech, when that speech advocates for violence against another person because of his race, religion, or national origin (see Wisconsin v Mitchell (1993)).

And that members of private society might denounce your hate speech in no way 'violates' your First Amendment rights.

And what we see here is hate speech. Its divisive and destructive and stinks.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Fact is, I have read RW nutters here calling for punishment, jailing for constitutionally-guaranteed protesting.

please post an example or two.., or SHUT THE FUCK UP

Many RWs here think there is one amendment - the 2nd -

<------------<<<< WHAT ?? there are more than two ??

once more, why do liberliars lie all the time ? following the lead of their emperor ?