Lawyer Backs Black Lives Matter Group's Right to Defend Hamas Attack

If you people were all about American Democracy, at a minimum, you would interpret and apply hate speech law more consistently.

D'Oh!

I cited the law. You're just a loon.


"Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group."
 
It's a free country. They can say whatever they want. None of us have to agree with them, none of us have to print it or allow it on social media platforms, but the government cannot tell them not to say it.

Well the government seems to want to tell social media what to do, as per the current case against the Biden Administration.
 
82bvmc.jpg
 
It's a free country. They can say whatever they want. None of us have to agree with them, none of us have to print it or allow it on social media platforms, but the government cannot tell them not to say it.
Can you have a word with Biden and all the leftists in his administration.
 
I wonder how far this guy would go, if it were the defense of conservative causes?





I don't think Turley was defending BLM at all. But he has long defended the constitutional right for ALL citizens to be able to express their opinions, views, beliefs, however un-PC, unpopular, indefensible, stupid, bigoted, prejudiced or whatever '-ist.' He was not saying anybody's opinion or position was off limits for criticism but rather nobody should be censored for having offensive or unpopular opinions.

He would be intellectually dishonest if he did not acknowledge that BLM or anybody else has the same constitutional rights however wrong or reprehensible their position might be.
 
I’m glad the demafasict brownshirts in BLM have the right to show us all they support rapist, and bastards that behead babies…we know where they stand
 
D'Oh!

I cited the law. You're just a loon.


"Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group."
You can cite the law many times as you want. I’ll be impressed when you cite the level of consistency this law has been interpreted and executed.
 
The operative word here is "defund." If it is referring to private donations, then it is perfectly appropriate to withhold contributions to organizations with which one disagrees. On the other hand, government donations to private charities should not exist in the first place.
 
Well the government seems to want to tell social media what to do, as per the current case against the Biden Administration.
Some of you pwople don't seem to understand the difference between deliberate misinformation and opinion.
 
Some of you pwople don't seem to understand the difference between deliberate misinformation and opinion.
I don’t disagree with you on that…with that said, having the govt set up a ministry of truth to tell you what they say is disinformation, or opinion, well most of us understand that’s Orwellian fascism

But I get some of you like that
 
I don’t disagree with you on that…with that said, having the govt set up a ministry of truth to tell you what they say is disinformation, or opinion, well most of us understand that’s Orwellian fascism

But I get some of you like that
confuses-handsup.gif
 
Some of you pwople don't seem to understand the difference between deliberate misinformation and opinion.
Many do that was why they were so against the government trying to pass off their opinion to purposely misinform the nation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top