America Has Suffered A Lethal Blow to Its Freedoms

[Stryder50]

I can accept some notion of outlawing speech that is intended to stir up violence - "inciting a riot" type of thing. But just saying I hate "X", whether X is a person or a group, is every person's right. Even if it's stupid and deplorable.

I faked news this because it's a double standard when not being contradictory.
Language that "incites" is subjective and in the mind of the listener. There is no legal defense for "riot" or any other form of violence simply based upon words, what someone said.
That last have is semi-valid, but note that "stupid and deplorable" often applies to what some would call "speech that is intended to stir up violence".

 

[OKTexas]

Commie??? That's the dumbest thing I've read here in....maybe ever. NC is about as opposite of commie as one can get. Like he said, he's one of the very few here who actually understands the cause of liberty... and one of the very few who doesn't continually fall for the deceptive tactics that you RINO useful dupes fall for over and over and over again, which is why we've been losing our republic.

Wow, one turns tail and runs and magically a clone appears. Funny how neither bother to address the points I made and all I get is blah blah blah. I'm really surprised they haven't dislocated their shoulders trying to pat themselves on the back.

.

 

[Stryder50]

I agree pandering is not the role of Gov't. I am just saying the hyperventilating is blowing it way out of proportion.

Is the law infringing on personal liberty in any real way?

The anti-semitism on campuses is out of hand, and the Congress is trying to push the administrators to provide a little protection to students who have done nothing wrong other than being Jewish.

Many of these so-called protestors are paid activists and anarchists, who use the colleges as cover for their anti-social agendas. I would have no problem locking them up when they take over the campuses and shut down the classes for everyone...

Much of what they have done already violates laws on obstruction of other citizens rights, trespass, and destruction of public property, to name some of the major ones that they should be arrested, charged and convicted for.

 

[Stryder50]

It's clear none of them have read the bill,

Agreed.
It's more a resolution than a bill.
It mainly adds some more definitions to the existing Civil Rights Act from about 60 years ago.

 

[Stryder50]

Which is even worse than banning speech.

Protected classes: Special rights for special people.

Just the opposite.
Doesn't allow protected discrimination by those who think they are special people who have special rights.

 

[Stryder50]

Because protecting your right to associate with those you choose, and avoid those you don't like - for whatever reason - is more important than suppressing unpopular biases.

Any law that tells you that you can't discriminate based on your own conscience, is violating your rights in a most fundamental way.

That's not what this bill is about.
Read it.

 

[buttercup]

Sorry Komrade, but use of a term like this: "you RINO useful dupes" is a red flag since you aren't a conservative or on the right side of the political divide. Spirals downward to the Left from there.

I've been a conservative for decades. And unlike the buffoon who called NC a commie, I've actually known him for many years, and I know that he's one of the very few here who actually cares about protecting our liberty and rights, as opposed to enabling the authoritarians in power.... so I think it's hilarious that when I chime in to say something about him, now I get called a commie too? Thanks for the laugh, guys.

 

[Stryder50]

The law is not preventing me from associating with anyone I choose, and it is not dictating my morality. It leaves me free to hate or to not hate, as I see fit.

If I was a college administrator, and I was receiving federal funding, it would bar me from discriminating based on my personal biases, and that is proper. The State cannot dictate my biases, neither can I impose them on you or your children.

Shutting down campuses by forcibly blocking access and vandalizing property is not protected behavior. That is anarchy. The protesters are free to demonstrate and fly their banners, they just have to to it in a manner that also respects the rights of others.

BRAVO!
Since many have violated the rights of others, that is what they are guilty of and should be arrested and tried for.
They an say what they want, but breaking laws and violating rights of others isn't part of "protected speech".

 

[Stryder50]

I've been a conservative for decades. And unlike the buffoon who called NC a commie, I've actually known him for many years, and I know that he's one of the very few here who actually cares about protecting our liberty and rights, as opposed to enabling the authoritarians in power.... so I think it's hilarious that when I chime in to say something about him, now I get called a commie too? Thanks for the laugh, guys.

What part of using language that suggests otherwise have you failed to understand?
I quoted the part that shed light on the rest of the context of your post.
It was mostly out of the Left's playbook.

 

[buttercup]

What part of using language that suggests otherwise have you failed to understand?
I quoted the part that shed light on the rest of the context of your post.
It was mostly out of the Left's playbook.

You don't think RINOs exist? If that's the case, then that speaks volumes about you, not me.

 

[Stryder50]

when you vote for the lessor of 2 evils....you are still getting evil....you folks voted for these assholes....now live with it....

Your alternate path~solution is .... ???

 

[Stryder50]

You don't think RINOs exist? If that's the case, then that speaks volumes about you, not me.

I know they exist.
Same as CINOs, DINOs, and LINOs.
But as I said, within the context of your post, that usage is more suggestive of a Leftist, not a Rightist.
If JFK was alive today and politically active and of the age he was in the 1960s,, the Democrat Party wouldn't support or run him, he'd have to be a RINO. Many would see him as more a CINO than a LINO.

 

[Stryder50]

As far as I'm concerned anyone who attacks the 1st Amendment should be jailed. You got a problem with that?

Then you agree that the tens of thousands of insurrectionists occupying USA cities in the summer of 2020 should also be jailed.

 

[Stryder50]

No, but all insurrectionists should be imprisoned.

Then you agree that the tens of thousands of insurrectionists occupying USA cities in the summer of 2020 should also be jailed.

 

[The Duke]

Well **** that. I, for one, intend to fight for my right to say whatever I want!

View attachment 941344

A lot of self-professed ''conservatives'' like to grandstand and act like they oppose this kind of authoritarian censorship, but from where I'm sitting, many suddenly don't seem very interested in walking the walk when they must for their own interest as a free American.

Oh! Eddie Murphy with the Michael Jackson suit RAW. Back in the day, we just had tapes of that, but that was a thing.

The Mr.T part. The Honeymooners..yeah. That's almost as good as Richard Pyor and Carlin.

It's good stuff. I forgot to mention Cheech and Chong's Wedding album, which we actually rolled a joint with like 7 bags with the paper that came with Cheech and Chong's Wedding album. I was the roller as a matter of fact.
It took friends to pitch in several whole bags to fill that paper. Let's say it was uh..ambitious.

This is Eddie Murphy like I remember:


The video quality sucks, but I didn't even have video, and that was the bomb!

 

[Stryder50]

Well **** that. I, for one, intend to fight for my right to say whatever I want!

View attachment 941344

A lot of self-professed ''conservatives'' like to grandstand and act like they oppose this kind of authoritarian censorship, but from where I'm sitting, many suddenly don't seem very interested in walking the walk when they must for their own interest as a free American.

Some of us not only read a bill like this one, but understand it.
It doesn't remove your right to free speech. It just extends the definition of discrimination and may allow the government/taxpayers note to have to fund it.

 

[The Duke]

Some of us not only read a bill like this one, but understand it.
It doesn't remove your right to free speech. It just extends the definition of discrimination and may allow the government/taxpayers note to have to fund it.

To have to fund it? Eww.

 

[Stryder50]

To have to fund it? Eww.

Ooohps!
Thanks!
Fixed it.

 

[Mac1958]

The First Amendment came under a brutal attack today by nonother than its Congress.

In their panic and hysteria over losing their gaslighting war to paint ANTI-war protestors as the aggressors, they've now written a LAW dictating that to criticize the ideology and/or actions of a FOREIGN country's government, is now considered hate speech and CAN be prosecuted in American courts.

That's it folks, we're screwed...........IF this is allowed to stand.

This video explains it nicely...



WHO will stand and fight against this assault on the Constitution?

WHO will stand and fight for America?

17+ minute video. Do you have a link to the "law" that was "written"?

The one linked on this thread says 2023.

 

[The Duke]

17+ minute video. Do you have a link to the "law" that was "written"?

Wow, it looks like an end-around for hatespeech laws if you ask me.