should what is considered hate speech be criminalized ?

[yidnar]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

 

[ColonelAngus]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

Libs want to limit free speech, thats for sure.

 

[Thinker101]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

Anything they hate to hear is considered hate speech in their books.

 

[night_son]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

I'm a paleoconservative, not a liberal—nor a democrat. That said, of course hate speech should not be criminalized. No one actually knows what hate speech is. In order to begin to know what it is, one would have to interview the entire world to discover what offends each and every human being. Not happening, of course.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You won't get an honest answer from any of them.

 

[Thunk]

and what exactly is hate speech ?

It will never have a clear definition...just like white privilege.

That way it can mean what ever democrats want it to mean on any given day.

 

[yidnar]

and what exactly is hate speech ?

It will never have a clear definition...just like white privilege.

That way it can mean what ever democrats want it to mean on any given day.

dems are already censoring conservative viewpoints on college campuses social media ect ..... and saying anything that isnt considered pc has resulted in people being threatened and loosing their jobs.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No speech should be criminalized. The more extreme or hateful, the more important it is that it’s out in the open. You don’t sew up a festering would, you leave it open to drain out the nasty ness.

 

[theHawk]

They already do penalize what they consider “hate speech” on social media and any other environment they have power in. Of course they would have no issues silencing their opposition, if it weren’t for that pesky First Amendment they already would have.

 

[yidnar]

 

[bripat9643]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

It's protected by the First Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

I'm a paleoconservative, not a liberal—nor a democrat. That said, of course hate speech should not be criminalized. No one actually knows what hate speech is. In order to begin to know what it is, one would have to interview the entire world to discover what offends each and every human being. Not happening, of course.

Whether you are offended doesn't determine whether what someone says is hate speech. I don't give a damn if you are offended.

 

[Disir]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

I'm not a Democrat. Noooo on both questions.

 

[night_son]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

I'm a paleoconservative, not a liberal—nor a democrat. That said, of course hate speech should not be criminalized. No one actually knows what hate speech is. In order to begin to know what it is, one would have to interview the entire world to discover what offends each and every human being. Not happening, of course.

Whether you are offended doesn't determine whether what someone says is hate speech. I don't give a damn if you are offended.

That is exactly what I said . . . in a nutshell.

 

[Zorro!]

You won't get an honest answer from any of them.

Exactly right. They always lie about the Totalitarianism they seek to impose in order to rob us of our Liberty.

FIGHT THE POWER, STICK IT TO THE MAN: Judge revives free speech lawsuit against UT-Austin.

In 2019, Judge Lee Yeakel dismissed the lawsuit because, at the time, there was allegedly no evidence that UT-Austin punished or investigated students for their speech. Per The Austin American-Statesman, that decision was overturned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in late October, as Judge Edith H. Jones wrote that Yeakel's conclusion "was mistaken."

"The chilling effect of vague regulations, coupled with a range of potential penalties for violating the regulations, was sufficient “injury” to ensure that Speech First “has a ‘personal stake in the outcome of the controversy," Jones wrote in the ruling.​

Per the Pacific Legal Foundation, the lawsuit was initiated by three anonymous students, all of whom attend UT-Austin. The students are members of Speech First, an organization dedicated to promoting freedom of speech on the American college campus.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Speech First, is specifically directed at former UT President Gregory Fenves and cites several concerns regarding UT’s speech codes.

“Nonetheless, in recent years onerous speech policies that penalize supposedly controversial speech, including the University of Texas-Austin (UT) regulations challenged in this litigation, have become more common.”​

“Speech policies like these that go beyond time, place, and manner limits on decorum threaten to imperil the free expression of students and eviscerate the protections of the First Amendment."​

​

Speech First calls out UT-Austin's speech codes, which “include speech codes, trigger warnings, so-called free speech zones, bias response teams, vague bans on 'hate speech,' and the dis-invitation of controversial speakers.”​

These speech codes, “take a toll, chilling students’ protected speech over fear of causing offense, and contributing to an animus toward the free exchange of ideas.”

At UT-Austin, these speech rules prohibit students from saying or writing anything “biased."

Should students be deemed to be spreading offensive material, they could be reported anonymously to the Campus Climate Response Team (CCRT) and potentially face disciplinary action.

Students at UT at Austin are not in favor of the speech codes.

“I don’t really think it’s a good idea to have our speech monitored this closely to the point where we could be disciplined, overall this will hopefully lead to a more free campus where we can have conversations without the fear of being approached by the university. It’s nice to hear that there are organizations out there who really look after the rights of students at college."​

"I don’t think people sometimes even realize how difficult it can be at times to speak freely on campus but this will definitely help solve that problem."​

UT spokesman JB Bird said “the university is firmly committed to protecting and promoting the free speech of all students. We are reviewing the federal court ruling as we consider the best ways to continue to support freedom of expression.”

More Like This.

 

[Crepitus]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

Personally I think we should concentrate on lies told by people in elected positions. Those should be illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

Personally I think we should concentrate on lies told by people in elected positions. Those should be illegal.

No one lies more than Dim politicians, douchebag.

 

[Crepitus]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

Personally I think we should concentrate on lies told by people in elected positions. Those should be illegal.

No one lies more than Dim politicians, douchebag.

That's a lie.

Thank you for providing an example.

 

[bripat9643]

the question is mainly directed at democrats.........should hate speech be against the law? and what exactly is hate speech ? is the conservative point view hate speech ?

Personally I think we should concentrate on lies told by people in elected positions. Those should be illegal.

No one lies more than Dim politicians, douchebag.

That's a lie.

Thank you for providing an example.

ROFL! I haven't ever seen a more truthful statement.

 

[d0gbreath]

View attachment 408087

*committee* and *your*