Restrictions on Hate Speech

[Syriusly]

'oppress' what people?

The fact is that the governor spent his time working to protect the people of the Virgin Islands- unlike a single one of the posters here at USMB.

How many guns were seized? Zero.

How many lying headlines by gun nuts on the internet? dozens- maybe hundreds

You know like the lying title of the thread?

Look at a small selection of these titles- every single one a lie by gun nuts- or those seeking to infuriate the gun nuts

View attachment 148648

View attachment 148650

View attachment 148651
View attachment 148652

View attachment 148654

Do you claim that the following are lies?

U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.

The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered its national guard to seize guns, ammunition and other weapons from its citizens as the territory prepares for Hurricane Irma to make landfall.

The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered the territory's national guard to begin seizing guns and ammunition from citizens in preparation for Hurricane Irma's landfall.

Yeah- these two parts are flat out lies

1) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered its national guard to seize guns, ammunition and other weapons from its citizens as the territory prepares for Hurricane Irma to make landfall.

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

2) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered the territory's national guard to begin seizing guns and ammunition from citizens in preparation for Hurricane Irma's landfall

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

What happened to? "U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma."
Are you now ready to concede that that quote was not a lie and apologize for your slander or do you not consider your lies less important than those of others?
In the other two instances you are content to split hairs "authorize" "direct" and "order" have very similar meanings.
Your charge of lying is just an obvious attempt to spin tyranny. No matter what the NG did or didn't do in no way changes the fact that the Governor issued an unconstitutional (illegal and treasonous) order. Your defense of his act is an excellent example of why Americans should support the NRA.

There was no 'tyranny'- there was an order that authorized the National Guard to seize weapons if necessary. There was no order to seize guns from citizens. You posted three lines- two of which were lies- and I will be glad to post them again:

Yeah- these two parts are flat out lies- the only question is whether they are your lies- i.e. you posted them not knowing them to be false- or whether they are someone else's lies- but they are lies.

1) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered its national guard to seize guns, ammunition and other weapons from its citizens as the territory prepares for Hurricane Irma to make landfall.

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

2) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered the territory's national guard to begin seizing guns and ammunition from citizens in preparation for Hurricane Irma's landfall

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

View attachment 149283

A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.

Calling people Nazis who are not is your own brand of hate speech, is it not?

I have no idea why you copied part of our exchange about the Virgin Islands into this thread.

 

[Syriusly]

'
Hate speech is equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Canada has Hate Speech Laws, which, up to the present have been applied carefully and sensibly. I am not sure that there are enough careful and sensible people in the United States to apply such laws appropriately.

Here are the relevant sections in the Canadian Criminal Code:

LINK

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Willful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Marginal note: Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Marginal note: Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Marginal note: Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Marginal note: Definitions

(7) In this section,

communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)

identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)

statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)

Definition of identifiable group

318(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
.

As long as the speech does not specifically call for violence then that speech is protected in my opinion.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Do you claim that the following are lies?

U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.

The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered its national guard to seize guns, ammunition and other weapons from its citizens as the territory prepares for Hurricane Irma to make landfall.

The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered the territory's national guard to begin seizing guns and ammunition from citizens in preparation for Hurricane Irma's landfall.

Yeah- these two parts are flat out lies

1) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered its national guard to seize guns, ammunition and other weapons from its citizens as the territory prepares for Hurricane Irma to make landfall.

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

2) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered the territory's national guard to begin seizing guns and ammunition from citizens in preparation for Hurricane Irma's landfall

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

What happened to? "U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma."
Are you now ready to concede that that quote was not a lie and apologize for your slander or do you not consider your lies less important than those of others?
In the other two instances you are content to split hairs "authorize" "direct" and "order" have very similar meanings.
Your charge of lying is just an obvious attempt to spin tyranny. No matter what the NG did or didn't do in no way changes the fact that the Governor issued an unconstitutional (illegal and treasonous) order. Your defense of his act is an excellent example of why Americans should support the NRA.

There was no 'tyranny'- there was an order that authorized the National Guard to seize weapons if necessary. There was no order to seize guns from citizens. You posted three lines- two of which were lies- and I will be glad to post them again:

Yeah- these two parts are flat out lies- the only question is whether they are your lies- i.e. you posted them not knowing them to be false- or whether they are someone else's lies- but they are lies.

1) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered its national guard to seize guns, ammunition and other weapons from its citizens as the territory prepares for Hurricane Irma to make landfall.

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

2) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered the territory's national guard to begin seizing guns and ammunition from citizens in preparation for Hurricane Irma's landfall

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

View attachment 149283

A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.

Calling people Nazis who are not is your own brand of hate speech, is it not?

I have no idea why you copied part of our exchange about the Virgin Islands into this thread.

Error. My bad.

 

[koshergrl]

'
Hate speech is equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Canada has Hate Speech Laws, which, up to the present have been applied carefully and sensibly. I am not sure that there are enough careful and sensible people in the United States to apply such laws appropriately.

Here are the relevant sections in the Canadian Criminal Code:

LINK

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Willful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Marginal note: Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Marginal note: Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Marginal note: Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Marginal note: Definitions

(7) In this section,

communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)

identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)

statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)

Definition of identifiable group

318(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
.

So this is hate speech, right?

That's a teacher of cops, who is openly anti cop, who proudly defends the right of antqueefa to physically assault people for saying things they don't agree with.

John Jay professor slammed over ‘future dead cops’ tweet

 

[numan]

'
All of you mindless jingos should actually read the Canadian law in the Opening Post before you vomit forth your hysterical clichés.
.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The law gives the government the authority to define and prosecute "hate speech" however it likes at any particular time with the burden of proof being on the defendant.

 

[HenryBHough]

You say shit I don't like and you're a hate-speaker so must die.

See how simple that can be?

 

[Boss]

'
All of you mindless jingos should actually read the Canadian law in the Opening Post before you vomit forth your hysterical clichés.
.

Guess what? This ain't Canada, ass hat!

 

[numan]

The law gives the government the authority to define and prosecute "hate speech" however it likes at any particular time with the burden of proof being on the defendant.

Nonsense! It is limited by section 318(4).

Moreover, any case brought to court which failed in law to find the defendant guilty would provoke a storm of anger against the government which would cause the government to fall, and new elections would be called.

No government would risk that unless it had an iron-clad case.
.