CDZ Is "Let's Go B******" protected free speech?

[Harpy Eagle]

Technically in many states, employers do not have to give reason for termination, but if they do or it can be proven that politics were the reason, then the termination was illegal and result in huge compensation and penalty fees being incurred.

Show me one law in any state that makes politics one of the protected classes.

 

[Rigby5]

Free speech doesn't apply to private companies. People get fired all the time for saying things in public which a company finds detrimental.

That is totally wrong and illegal.
The fact it does still happen is from the fact governments are totally corrupt and unduly influence government.
The only time is it legal to fire over things said in public, is if the person is advertising spokesperson, in which case they nullified their job role deliberately by their provocative public position.

 

[ClaireH]

No one should ever say "Let's go [-------]."

First, it could get you punched in the face.

Second, it could get you fired from your job.

Third, it could be considered senior abuse.

The gentleman in the Oval Office should simply be ignored.

He is a cognitive challenged senior citizen who is simply the figurehead for a group of very woke individuals who are choregraphing his every word and move.

So just as we never criticize the children of a sitting occupant of the Oval Office, neither should we criticize or even mention the man's name. Just refer to the "Administration."

I understand having respect for the presidential office regardless of personhood. That being said, however, we’re taking about important distinctions between free versus hate speech.

Now, it could be argued that using the “original crowd chant” leans more toward unprotected speech, but legally still doesn’t result in unprotected free speech tmk. Maybe there are different state laws when it comes to hate speech?

 

[Rigby5]

Show me one law in any state that makes politics one of the protected classes.

You misunderstand what a "protected class" is.
Protected classes are NOT the only ones that are supposed to be protected.
All rights are supposed to be protected, and rights are infinite, making them impossible to enumerate.
The few that ARE listed are ONLY the ones so historically often abused, that they had to be specifically enumerated.
But in no way should anyone EVER assume that only those specifically enumerate classes are the only ones protected.
So "protected classes" actually are the ones which are the most often abuses, not the only ones protected.
And it should be obvious that trying to protect only specific classes by listing them, would be totally and completely illegal.
That would be unequal treatment under the law, with listed classes being protected while those unlisted not being protected.
That would be totally illegal.
Any specific protection of an enumerated class which does not also protect all unenumerated individuals would clearly be totally illegal.
That is what judges are for.
Rights are infinite, and not limited to specific legislation.
Rights to pre-exist all legislation and are the basis for being able to pass any legislation.
Judges are to understand the abstractions and general principles of justice, so they can interpret a hierarchy of rights on the fly, in easy individual case.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You misunderstand what a "protected class" is.
Protected classes are NOT the only ones that are supposed to be protected.
All rights are supposed to be protected, and rights are infinite, making them impossible to enumerate.
The few that ARE listed are ONLY the ones so historically often abused, that they had to be specifically enumerated.
But in no way should anyone EVER assume that only those specifically enumerate classes are the only ones protected.
So "protected classes" actually are the ones which are the most often abuses, not the only ones protected.
And it should be obvious that trying to protect only specific classes by listing them, would be totally and completely illegal.
That would be unequal treatment under the law, with listed classes being protected while those unlisted not being protected.
That would be totally illegal.
Any specific protection of an enumerated class which does not also protect all unenumerated individuals would clearly be totally illegal.
That is what judges are for.
Rights are infinite, and not limited to specific legislation.
Rights to pre-exist all legislation and are the basis for being able to pass any legislation.
Judges are to understand the abstractions and general principles of justice, so they can interpret a hierarchy of rights on the fly, in easy individual case.

That is a lot of words jsut to admit that it is not illegal for an employer to fire an employee for political reasons.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Mods I think this should be a fair topic in CDZ. I even edited the B word so no triggers flair

Let's say I yell it at a crowded mall pretending to call B******'s attention to someone way ahead in a crowd

What I mean is, should people be punished if said in public?

Absolutely not

Folks after reading a lot of this thread and officially grounding it

Here are the summaries

There is a separate free speech between democruds and conservs. Democruds can say basically any gaff and be forgiven. A conserv gaff is punished for life

Destroying someones life over one thing stupid is a democrud thing. Conservs have too much class to worry about such nonsense. We have a real life to live

 

[toobfreak]

The government cannot stop you from speaking or writing "Lets Go Brandon."

They sure had no trouble outlawing it in Canada! Brandon is a crime now in the Great White North!

And LGB merchandise has been attacked and removed off the shelf here in some places as well.

 

[Rigby5]

I understand having respect for the presidential office regardless of personhood. That being said, however, we’re taking about important distinctions between free versus hate speech.

Now, it could be argued that using the “original crowd chant” leans more toward unprotected speech, but legally still doesn’t result in unprotected free speech tmk. Maybe there are different state laws when it comes to hate speech?

Hate speech has to be totally and completely legal when it involves institutions or public figures.
The only restriction can be when it is being applied against a private individual who has done nothing to make themselves a public figure.
Hate speech can also be illegal when it is deliberately attempting to incite criminal violence against anything or anyone.
But even then it depends on if the thing or person deserves it or not.

Let us not forget that back in the times of the Founders, it was very common for public figures to be hung in effigy.
The attempt to now make that illegal, is in itself clearly illegal.

 

[toobfreak]

Mods I think this should be a fair topic in CDZ. I even edited the B word so no triggers flair

Why would you need to edit Brandon? Delicate Snowflaktivity? I don't see anyone being asked to edit Trumpsters, tRump, Tramp, Trumpazoids, and many other deliberate misspellings! Or are double standards now the status quo of our society?

 

[ClaireH]

Hate speech has to be totally and completely legal when it involves institutions or public figures.
The only restriction can be when it is being applied against a private individual who has done nothing to make themselves a public figure.
Hate speech can also be illegal when it is deliberately attempting to incite criminal violence against anything or anyone.
But even then it depends on if the thing or person deserves it or not.

Let us not forget that back in the times of the Founders, it was very common for public figures to be hung in effigy.
The attempt to now make that illegal, is in itself clearly illegal.

So it’s the intent that determines hate speech, not the culturally defined words? Openly expressing inner thoughts is usually healthier than suppression, outside of cussing someone resulting in various contusions.

I’ll have to give this a lot more thought. I’m thinking Americans should be free to say whatever we want to say, up to the point that it affects someone else’s personal liberties. Words are mere words but our culture has given certain words “too much power”. Overuse is making these words less impactful , but certain words still cause people to react physically. I support the legal stance that a physical confrontation is different than verbal.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Why would you need to edit Brandon? Delicate Snowflaktivity? I don't see anyone being asked to edit Trumpsters, tRump, Tramp, Trumpazoids, and many other deliberate misspellings! Or are double standards now the status quo of our society?

LOLOLOL................................It was a joke

If I said Brandon in CDZ title, the Hall Monitors would hit that report button....olol

 

[Rigby5]

That is a lot of words jsut to admit that it is not illegal for an employer to fire an employee for political reasons.

YES it most certainly IS illegal to fire a person for political reasons, (if the political reason does not impact their ability to perform their job).

The only point in your favor is that employers do not need to give any reason in most states, so if they do not mention the reason is political and it can not be proven the reason was political, then there is no recourse.

Anyone who thinks employers are exempt from the 14th and 1st amendments, knows nothing at all about law or any legal principle.

 

[Rigby5]

So it’s the intent that determines hate speech, not the culturally defined words? Openly expressing inner thoughts is usually healthier than suppression, outside of cussing someone resulting in various contusions.

I’ll have to give this a lot more thought. I’m thinking Americans should be free to say whatever we want to say, up to the point that it affects someone else’s personal liberties. Words are mere words but our culture has given certain words “too much power”. Overuse is making these words less impactful , but certain words still cause people to react physically. I support the legal stance that a physical confrontation is different than verbal.

Seems I essentially agree.
There are what is known as "fighting words" that are so powerful that they amount to deeds, and one can be justified on a physical response.
So there are lots of factors then, such as what precipitates, what is the justifications, what was the results, whose rights were infringed, if the person is public or private in terms of privacy rights, etc.

 

[ClaireH]

Seems I essentially agree.
There are what is known as "fighting words" that are so powerful that they amount to deeds, and one can be justified on a physical response.
So there are lots of factors then, such as what precipitates, what is the justifications, what was the results, whose rights were infringed, if the person is public or private in terms of privacy rights, etc.

Juries now rely on video evidence in many cases instead of just witness statements. Seeing is believing. Do you think cases without videos will be harder to prove now with respect to proving innocence? The populace at large has quickly learned to almost expect footage from either an innocent bystander’s phone or cop’s body cam.

 

[toobfreak]

LOLOLOL.It was a joke. If I said Brandon in CDZ title, the Hall Monitors would hit that report button....olol

Yeah, I wasn't actually asking you, it was a rhetorical, Sloop, but I have to really wonder, Brandon is just a name, too bad if it now also has a double entendre. Anyone getting triggered by its usage either needs to get a fricking life or admit that their voting for Biddum has turned out to be just another big bag of ass gas as usually parleyed onto the naive voting public by the career Washington grifters.

 

[Rigby5]

Juries now rely on video evidence in many cases instead of just witness statements. Seeing is believing. Do you think cases without videos will be harder to prove now with respect to proving innocence? The populace at large has quickly learned to almost expect footage from either an innocent bystander’s phone or cop’s body cam.

And of course the problem of video is that it can leave out too much, be edited, or show something out of context.
With Kyle shooting Grosskreutz, I actually saw someone post a video where they had reversed it so that it looked like Grosskreutz was moving to aim his pistol at Kyle, when in reality he had initially aimed at Kyle but then decided to raise the pistol into the air.

 

[ClaireH]

And of course the problem of video is that it can leave out too much, be edited, or show something out of context.
With Kyle shooting Grosskreutz, I actually saw someone post a video where they had reversed it so that it looked like Grosskreutz was moving to aim his pistol at Kyle, when in reality he had initially aimed at Kyle but then decided to raise the pistol into the air.

Behind the scenes- it’s a race between deceivers abusing the technology versus the good guys who will be skillful enough to detect it. Image layering and manipulating shadows to cover the truth to “confirm” a lie. Good guys are going to have to win the war with this one, and there will be many battles go one way or the other before the war.

 

[Soupnazi630]

And of course the problem of video is that it can leave out too much, be edited, or show something out of context.
With Kyle shooting Grosskreutz, I actually saw someone post a video where they had reversed it so that it looked like Grosskreutz was moving to aim his pistol at Kyle, when in reality he had initially aimed at Kyle but then decided to raise the pistol into the air.

He aimed it and kept is aimed at rittenhousw which is why he was shot

 

[Harpy Eagle]

YES it most certainly IS illegal to fire a person for political reasons,

Then give me a link to the law that says so.

Thanks

 

[Rigby5]

He aimed it and kept is aimed at rittenhousw which is why he was shot

This is off thread, but if that were true, then how come the bullet path through his forearm is perpendicular to the bone.
If he was aiming at Kyle at the time of the shot, the forearm would have had to have been pointing at Kyle, making the bullet trajectory parallel to the bone, not perpendicular to it.