Congressional Democrat Moves to End Free Speech for White People

[Ray From Cleveland]

You think it should be legal for someone to state "X_group should be shot dead on sight" in public?

I didn't say that. What I'm talking about is what her bill includes, and that is holding people responsible for the actions of others.

 

[MarcATL]

I didn't say that. What I'm talking about is what her bill includes, and that is holding people responsible for the actions of others.

I believe incitement laws are also already on the books, as illegal.

 

[Foxfyre]

The OP's stating and/or suggesting that it does. That's what we're talking about here.

You'll have to quote it from the article or my comments because i don't find that anywhere.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Not even close to a lib, dumb ass.

Seems I'm dead on considering how offended you got shitlib

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This would crush the 1st amendment....

No, it's the first amendment that will crush it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe incitement laws are also already on the books, as illegal.

She's not talking about that. If I say illegals should be shot on sight, I'm not inciting anybody to do anything, I'm expressing my opinion which again, is covered under free speech in our Constitution. Now if I told you that you should go out and start killing illegals, that could be incitement.

What she is talking about is if some nut case took my comment seriously and acted on it, I should be held responsible for their actions.

 

[MarcATL]

She's not talking about that. If I say illegals should be shot on sight, I'm not inciting anybody to do anything, I'm expressing my opinion which again, is covered under free speech in our Constitution. Now if I told you that you should go out and start killing illegals, that could be incitement.

What she is talking about is if some nut case took my comment seriously and acted on it, I should be held responsible for their actions.

I don't think we can say that even on USMB, isn't that the case?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think we can say that even on USMB, isn't that the case?

Okay, then I'll change the scenario: I say that illegals are scum and get whatever they deserve. They are destroying our country and attacking Americans. If you are not working and going hungry, it could very well be due to illegals cutting your wage. Now, if somebody killed an illegal for what I posted, I would be held responsible because according to this proposal, what I said could be considered hate speech.

 

[Rambunctious]

Interesting op-ed you posted there, too bad it's not factual.

Whats not factual about it?.. if you find any falsehoods tell us what they are....

 

[Foxfyre]

The “threat” concept is vague. Virtually no one is detained by law enforcement for being unpleasant to another person. A threat is a feeling and not a fact action. Follow through with something physical and completely different matter
The weak like to stir the pot and spout off and then if they are responded to in a way they don’t like they feel they have legality behind them because they “felt threatened”
They absolutely don’t.

Excellent point. Saying "I would gladly knock him into next week" is not a threat. It's an expression of speech. Saying "I'm getting my gun and I'll shoot you son of. . ." could also be an expression of speech but is also possibly a threat and should be taken more seriously.

Schumer's threat to SCOTUS justices: "“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. . .” was also one of those statements that is hard not to see as an actual threat but also could just be a figure of speech.

Things like that should put people on a watch list but cannot be criminalized without evidence of intent. Take that silly unstable and unusable gallows at the Jan 6 rally. Bad form absolutely, but also clearly symbolic with zero evidence of intent. Not illegal. Just dumb.

Obvious intent or actual actions to harm persons or property should always be illegal and subject to consequences of law though due process and equal protection under the law must be ethically exercised even in those cases.

But expressed opinion, even the most hateful language, should never be criminalized.

 

[MarcATL]

Okay, then I'll change the scenario: I say that illegals are scum and get whatever they deserve. They are destroying our country and attacking Americans. If you are not working and going hungry, it could very well be due to illegals cutting your wage. Now, if somebody killed an illegal for what I posted, I would be held responsible because according to this proposal, what I said could be considered hate speech.

Aside from the fact that you're attacking the wrong person, that your beef is actually w/the illegal employers, I'd say that's on the line and leaning heavily toward inciteful rhetoric.

Is that your best and/or only way to communicate your message though, which such incendiary rhetoric?

 

[WEATHER53]

You think it should be legal for someone to state "X_group should be shot dead on sight" in public?

There is no current illegality . It could be circumstance dependent
You want carte blanch for Anything that disturbs your feelings.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Aside from the fact that you're attacking the wrong person, that your beef is actually w/the illegal employers, I'd say that's on the line and leaning heavily toward inciteful rhetoric.

Is that your best and/or only way to communicate your message though, which such incendiary rhetoric?

In that situation all I was doing is expressing my thoughts. I happen to believe what I posted too. I do think illegals are destroying our country, bringing crime with them, undercutting American wages and being a burden of American taxpayers, especially those that support their local schools that the illegals attend and hold up the class.

Free speech includes expressing hatred or dislike. In fact that's the reason we have that constitutional right. If all we said in public were things everybody approved of, then there would be no need to have a right to free speech.

 

[WEATHER53]

Excellent point. Saying "I would gladly knock him into next week" is not a threat. It's an expression of speech. Saying "I'm getting my gun and I'll shoot you son of. . ." could also be an expression of speech but is also possibly a threat and should be taken more seriously.

Schumer's threat to SCOTUS justices: "“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. . .” was also one of those statements that is hard not to see as an actual threat but also could just be a figure of speech.

Things like that should put people on a watch list but cannot be criminalized without evidence of intent. Take that silly unstable and unusable gallows at the Jan 6 rally. Bad form absolutely, but also clearly symbolic with zero evidence of intent. Not illegal. Just dumb.

Obvious intent or actual actions to harm persons or property should always be illegal and subject to consequences of law though due process and equal protection under the law must be ethically exercised even in those cases.

But expressed opinion, even the most hateful language, should never be criminalized.

Mostly correct but if you are screaming profanity at me and I approach from 12 feet to 6 feet stating “I will beat your ass” then you may be frightened and wish to call the police because “you feel a threat” but unless I actually put my hands on you then the police are not going to respond to your threatened feeling and they won’t clean up for you an incident you were participatory in.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Seems I'm dead on considering how offended you got shitlib

I simply told you that you were wrong, dumb ass.
You certainly must be used to that.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

I simply told you that you were wrong, dumb ass.
You certainly must be used to that.

You being a shitlib? Yeah we're use to that

 

[MarcATL]

In that situation all I was doing is expressing my thoughts. I happen to believe what I posted too. I do think illegals are destroying our country, bringing crime with them, undercutting American wages and being a burden of American taxpayers, especially those that support their local schools that the illegals attend and hold up the class.

Free speech includes expressing hatred or dislike. In fact that's the reason we have that constitutional right. If all we said in public were things everybody approved of, then there would be no need to have a right to free speech.

You just told on yourself.

"I believe speech include expressing hatred or dislike."

AKA hate speech, which is what you and your ilk are in this very thread, bitching and moaning about not doing.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Hate crimes is another that violates our Constitution, so of course she's all for it.

Problem with so-called "hate crimes" laws is that they are biased against Conservatives and Christians.

 

[JoeB131]

Pushing a bill that won't go anywhere to push an agenda.

We need a bill to make race-baiters like SJL illegal.

As opposed to what, voting to repeal Obamacare 63 times?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Welcome to the Occupation.​

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has introduced legislation that will charge white people with federal "hate crimes" for questioning immigration, or criticizing non-whites.​

Under Jackson Lee’s legislation, if federal investigators determine that the web postings of a third party had “inspire[d]” someone else, even someone they don’t know, to commit a federal hate crime, that person would be arrested, and federally charged with a hate crime of their own.

Specifically, Jackson Lee targets Americans who are in favor of border security, calling out “replacement theory” by name, an ideology that holds that open borders and mass migration into the Western World are part of a deliberate effort to “replace” white people in their native lands.

National File - Fearless Independent Journalism

National File delivers fearless, independent journalism. No corporate agenda. Just the truth. Breaking news, politics, culture, and more.

nationalfile.com

They're showing us who they really are.

Are you paying attention Normiez?

You'd best believe them.

They’ve been showing us who they really are for over sixty years.