Racist groups vs Free Speech, i've converted...

[OKTexas]

I think the problem isn't censoring hate speech right now...it's what gets censored after that hate speech. When do we start letting "uncomfortable speech" turn into "hate speech". Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the KKK and groups like them, however as ugly as they might be-they do have all of the same constitutional rights as everybody else.

We don't have the right to not be offended.

Who determines hate speech? The government?

If I say Donald trump is an orange cheeto face, should the government arrest me for hate speech?

How about if I say "the bible teaches that marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God"?

I don't want someone prosecuted for either. Should any man have that power?

Our laws should determine "hate speech" - and prosecuted accordingly. "Hate speech" is much like pornography - most of us know it when we see or hear it.

Yep, and you folks spew a lot of it. So how about we just outlaw you?


.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

But the moment any violence is incurred by any one individual or group, stiffer sentences need to be mandated.

No conundrum at all. Let people speak. If we can't beat people in the arena of ideas, we don't deserve to.

Freedom of expression is about speech we DON'T like, not speech we DO like.

So, you're in full agreement that radical Muslim recruitment should NOT be curtailed or hindered by us, correct?

As long as they are not planning any form of terrorist attack on the American Public let them speak just like letting the Nazis speak...

I have no issue with that... No matter race, religion, sex or political affiliation...

 

[bripat9643]

Trump Divided The Nation After Tragedy Struck. His Predecessors Chose To Inspire

Trump has done the opposite!

You mean the way Clinton tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma bombing? And the way Obama tried to blame Benghazi on a video some poor guy made? Or how about when he lied about the cause of the Orlando night club massacre?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As many other fellow posters, I too face that dilemma as to whether fully allow KKK members, WS and neo-Nazis to openly spew their hatred or opt to stop their Constitution-allowed speech.

It is a tough conundrum. The problem rests with how that hate speech manages to recruit gullible and somewhat ignorant young people to join in that hate-filled ideology.

The best comparison I can make is whether we would opt to STOP radical Muslims to recruit disenfranchised young people to become terrorists for a dubious cause....After all, we sometime monitor what may go on in a Mosque to intervene if that environment is spewing hate filled and violent behaviors......

We all must make a choice regarding our love of free expression, and our desire to be safe from the spreading of more hatred.

There is no choice.

Try and stop free speach...and face the consequences.

It's that simple.

 

[Mac1958]

Our laws should determine "hate speech" - and prosecuted accordingly. "Hate speech" is much like pornography - most of us know it when we see or hear it.

Yep, and you folks spew a lot of it. So how about we just outlaw you?.

The Regressives are in charge of what is and is not racism, what is and is not hate, and what is and is not hate speech.

That way, they can control every last thing you say, and ultimately, what you think.
.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No conundrum at all. Let people speak. If we can't beat people in the arena of ideas, we don't deserve to.

Freedom of expression is about speech we DON'T like, not speech we DO like.

So, you're in full agreement that radical Muslim recruitment should NOT be curtailed or hindered by us, correct?

Nope. Should not be.

 

[Flash]

Another picture of the hate and stupidity of the Alt Left that was shown today. The Moon Bat bitch would have made a great Nazi, wouldn't she?


View attachment 144763

I guess that you'd consider all Americans that have killed a NAZI to be equally full of hate and stupidity, huh?

My father fought against the Nazis in WWII. My uncle gave his life at Hürtgen Forest . I don't need any stupid lectures from a stupid Moon Bat about Nazism. I can't speak for my uncle because he died before I was born but I know my father would be standing with the man on the left in that picture and not the filthy ass Alt Left bitch.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It - Voltaire


The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Oath of Office (for officers):

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

'Nuff said.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections; acting on that hate is not.

Moreover, the right to freedom of expression is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to say anything one wishes at anytime, anywhere.

First Amendment jurisprudence affords government the authority to place reasonable restrictions on speech consistent with that jurisprudence – restrictions on speech that are content neutral and ensure ample alternate channels of expression are perfectly Constitutional, for example.

Most importantly, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private organizations.

Consequently, one private person cannot ‘violate’ the right of free speech of another private person.

That’s why private persons or organizations who oppose the hate speech of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right are not ‘violating’ the free speech rights of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right – the notion that they are is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Last, those who oppose the hate speech of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and others on the hateful right have no desire to ‘silence’ or otherwise ‘prevent’ the expression of hate speech, neither through official government action nor through private acts of ‘intimidation’ or ‘coercion’ – to maintain otherwise is a lie.

Are you kidding? ...those on the Left who oppose "hate-speech" (according to their definitions) are desirous of shutting it down.....get real.....

You don't really understand what Clayton is saying do you? Private persons have every right to speak out against hate speech-whatever the goals are. They are exercising THEIR freedom of speech.

Except the topic is whether speech should regulated and not whether other private citizens can speak something contrary.

That's never been in question except by those you want to shut down speech.

If you shut down one you give the government power to shut down all

 

[Avatar4321]

If you want to stop hate speech you wont do it with regulation. You stop hate with love. You have to love them.

Not talking about romantic love. Or even liking someone. Im talking about genuine love. Charity. The pure love of Christ that Paul speaks of in 1 cor 13

This love is long suffering and patient. Are you willing to love people enough to suffer for them?

Not many are. Many wont suffer for their family.

But it will be that transformative love that overcomes all.

Or you can just stop listening to them......and voting for them.....

Americans have been. Democrats have been losing power like crazy

 

[Avatar4321]

How funny is it to hear rightwing bigots of various stripes demanding their constitutional right to oppose constitutional rights?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right here is the problem, everyone who disagrees with the left is a bigot, racist or what ever, they have to be demonized and dehumanized to justify the hate coming form the left, while they attempt to claim some moral high ground. The reality is this poster and many others are nothing but Alinksy acolytes who wish to destroy the very fabric of the country.


.

Not all Conservatives or even alt-right people are considered racists or bigots by the left. Lot's of their views are respected if not agreed with. Economic populism, anti free trade are a few.

The fact that these people have allowed themselves to become associated with groups that profess extremely un-American views is their won fault.

If you consider the KKK and NAZIS to be part of the 'fabric of this country', then yes, we definitely want to destroy that fabric.

Nonsense. The left frequently calls anyone who disagrees with them as racist regardless of why they are disagreeing.

 

[whitehall]

Lefties fought long and hard back in the 60's for a Supreme Court decision that affirmed the free speech right to desecrate the Flag. Now the same people are fighting against the free speech issue of flying the Confederate flag. Every day I'm thankful that Hillary lost the election and liberals are so far out of power that they look like whiny losers.

 

[Flash]

One of the Alt Left's finest at today's rally in Boston. Then these stupid Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule them so much.

 

[OKTexas]

"Yeah, I'm all about freedom of speech n' stuff, as long as it doesn't offend me, if I don't like the way it's said, or if I think it should offend someone else, or if I just don't like it in general."

What the fuck. What happened to this country?

Did you not learn about the Declaration of Independence or enlightenment philosophy in school?

It seems that where this country went wrong is that too many Americans forgot the basic principals that this country was founded upon.

Those who oppose those principals are un-American and void their rights under those principals.

"Those who oppose those principals are un-American and void their rights under those principals."

And by the way, where is this rule written, please?
.

Specifically in 'the Rights of Man and of the Citizen'. But the idea that anyone's rights are limited to the point that infringe upon the rights of another is a well accepted concept in American philosophy and law. Preaching the infringment of other peoples rights should equally be considered to unaccepted.

Of course forcing someone to create and decorate a cake that they disagree with, by force of law, is not an infringement on their rights, correct?


.

 

[Hum Dinger]

So WHERE was the Army or the Police to shut down the fighting between the Fascists and the Fascist AntiFascists in Charlottesville...?

When people publicly profess idea which are clearly contradictory to the most fundamental founding principals of America, it should be considered sedition.

Especially when they are members or allies with a political organization which has engaged in promoting the destruction of the U.S. government and has engaged in genocide (i.e. the KKK and NAZIs)

Many people considered to be Alt-Right do not engage in promoting these ideas, but they should be careful to not be associated with these groups.

You mean folks like the CPUSA that just love endorsing commiecrats? According to regressives anyone who wants to see our laws enforced are Alt Right and part of a hate group. BTW violently suppressing free speech goes against our founding principles.


.

The CPUSA has been illegal since the 1950s. They are seditious without a doubt.

Progressives support enforcing the laws of this country except when those laws violate the founding principals.

Free speech is not an unlimited right. Suppressing groups that profess sedition is justified.

Illegal since the 50s, funny how they keep endorsing the candidates on your side every election. Exactly what laws do you consider as violating the founding principles? And what's your opinion on the sedition coming from your side trying to undermine a duly elected government?


.

If the CPUSA is endorsing anyone, they're probably operating from websites outside the U.S. I would fully support shutting down the CPUSA, They are clearly seditious.

I consider the laws against marijuana to be in violation of basic American principals. I also consider the resistance to gay marriage to be against those principals - even though I think that homosexuality is repulsive.

I do not think that there is any real attempt to undermine the 2016 Presidential election by the left. The extrodinary amount of contacts between Trump election officials and the Russian government certainly warrants an investigation. It may very well be found that Trump did nothing illegal.

However, the Trump Presidency is obviously being undermined by Donald Trump himself. His obvious incompetence is destroying his Presidency - he needs no help from the left.

We have had many Presidents that are far more conservative that Trump, but none that have been close to his level of incompetence.

He is a joke of a President.

 

[RodISHI]

Actually the confederates were tired of being raped through taxes. Slavery is a BS claim that had absolutely nothing to do with starting the Civil War.

5 New England States ( Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.

Interesting opinion.

I'd like to know why then when the South seceded in their letters of secession they claimed slavery was the founding cause. Why their VP called it the Cornerstone of secession. And why the ONLY mention of taxes in ANY of the Articles of secession was in mention to the 3/5 compromise which they actually wanted and wrote into their own Constitution of the Confederacy.

Maybe they didn't mention taxes, because the tax law at the time in the US was written by Robert M.T. Hunter. You may also recognize him as Secretary of State of the Confederacy. Maybe they didn't mention taxes because they were at historically low levels (and much lower than they ever were in the Confederacy).

But your belief is Slavery, which is mentioned dozens of times (slavery, slave law, abolitionists, slavery expansion) wasn't the cause, but taxes was the issue. They just forgot to mention it right?


Also seeing as Massachusetts banned the slave trade in their state BEFORE George Washington was president. Care to explain to me how they had a state run slave trade?

You are right that those 5 northern colonies were responsible for most of the slave importation to the colonies of Great Britian in America. Granted Northern states banned slave trade during the Revolutionary War, and George Washington was the president who signed the law banning slave trade by any US ship, private or public. There was a small number of illegal slave trade ongoing, but the overwhelming majority of slaves in the US were bred in the US. Of the ones that came over, the overwhelming majority of them traveled under a British flag.


THIS is why statues celebrating those people aren't going to help us remember our history. Books and reading will. Museums will. A big monument of Lee on a Horse gets people thinking taxes was the cause of the Civil war.

The whole mess started over taxation/excess tariffs and escalated from there. There were people in the north and the south that considered slavery an abomination....both my husbands ancestors and the Lincoln families were close friends (letters of history) My own ancestors also fought for liberty for all people back in those years (also historically documented).

Go from here and work your way through the history and the years leading up to April 1861. Nullification Crisis - Wikipedia

 

[Hum Dinger]

"Yeah, I'm all about freedom of speech n' stuff, as long as it doesn't offend me, if I don't like the way it's said, or if I think it should offend someone else, or if I just don't like it in general."

What the fuck. What happened to this country?

Did you not learn about the Declaration of Independence or enlightenment philosophy in school?

It seems that where this country went wrong is that too many Americans forgot the basic principals that this country was founded upon.

Those who oppose those principals are un-American and void their rights under those principals.

"Those who oppose those principals are un-American and void their rights under those principals."

And by the way, where is this rule written, please?
.

Specifically in 'the Rights of Man and of the Citizen'. But the idea that anyone's rights are limited to the point that infringe upon the rights of another is a well accepted concept in American philosophy and law. Preaching the infringment of other peoples rights should equally be considered to unaccepted.

Of course forcing someone to create and decorate a cake that they disagree with, by force of law, is not an infringement on their rights, correct?


.

There is no such thing as either an unalienable or Constitutional right to do business. It requires a business license and is a privilege, not a right.

 

[OKTexas]

How funny is it to hear rightwing bigots of various stripes demanding their constitutional right to oppose constitutional rights?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right here is the problem, everyone who disagrees with the left is a bigot, racist or what ever, they have to be demonized and dehumanized to justify the hate coming form the left, while they attempt to claim some moral high ground. The reality is this poster and many others are nothing but Alinksy acolytes who wish to destroy the very fabric of the country.


.

Not all Conservatives or even alt-right people are considered racists or bigots by the left. Lot's of their views are respected if not agreed with. Economic populism, anti free trade are a few.

The fact that these people have allowed themselves to become associated with groups that profess extremely un-American views is their won fault.

If you consider the KKK and NAZIS to be part of the 'fabric of this country', then yes, we definitely want to destroy that fabric.

He dumb ass, you're making assumptions that I'm in any way associated with those retards. Standing up for the free speech rights of all Americans is not associating with anything but our laws and Constitution and your claiming otherwise makes you part of the problem.


.

Go look up the definition of the word 'if'.

Otherwise learn to read.

Deflection noted.


.

 

[Avatar4321]

A demonstration in Boston today to support the concept of free speech.

A counter protest by the filthy ass Alt Left to speak out against the concept of free speech. As un American as it gets.

The Alt Left is the scum of this country now. Assholes all around. The Brownshirts of our time.

Don't call them alt left. They aren't an alternative to the left. They are the same leftists they have always been.

The alt right is the same. An alternative to the right isn't right. It's an alternative. It's not right. Which leaves left


The opposite of limited government conservatives is big government. Doesn't matter what side they claim to be one. They are all the same.

 

[Flash]

Only the Alt Left Brownshirts would feel it was necessary to protest against people supporting the right of free speech because that is exactly what was going on in Boston today. The scum of America out in force to once again show this country what assholes they are.