Freedom of speech does not include hate speech

Unchecked free speech gave us those ideologies. It's being repeated again Originally Posted by winn dixie

By whom?

Actually it IS THAT SIMPLE. Again, the First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular or that some may find downright offensive

And your example as stated of you chanting at her 'big fat ass' is protected speech under the constitution. It would only not necessarily be protected speech if you truly physically threatened her Originally Posted by berryberry

Incorrect. Following a woman around chanting about her body parts would be harassment potentially stalking depending on the situation. I do realize that this is a fun dot to connect for those who seek to paint Trump as being persecuted for simple free speech and that may be how it turns out for him but does not change the facts involved.

The entire premise of a “protected class” is patently ridiculous. People should be treated as individuals, not as part of some group or another. This is what gave us communism, Marxist/Leninism, and Nazism. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Argue that before Clarence. I don't give a fuck. A certain stance I recall recently regarding voting rights says certain protected classes are still very much needed.

Touché. Lmao! That thread was mostly sarcasm, but you knew that already. Some people are fun and easy to trigger.

You should give af. Racism, classism, etc should have no bearing on legal matters. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason. Things like protected classes and hate crimes are an affront to that, I’m certain Clarence would agree.

Clarence don't give a fuck either at the end of the day.

Though he is pro-cross burning, as we learned many years ago in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul

Incorrect. Following a woman around chanting about her body parts would be harassment potentially stalking depending on the situation. I do realize that this is a fun dot to connect for those who seek to paint Trump as being persecuted for simple free speech and that may be how it turns out for him but does not change the facts involved. Originally Posted by DNinja69

Ahhhh, now that you were called out for being wrong - you are changing the bar to now say you were stalking her - which could be perceived as a threat. But that is not what you said initially nor is consistent with my reply

What I said was "And your example as stated of you chanting at her 'big fat ass' is protected speech under the constitution. It would only not necessarily be protected speech if you truly physically threatened her

It was pretty clear with the turn and follow where Ninja was going. And that you're cherry picking to pretend he's moving the bar

It was pretty clear with the turn and follow where Ninja was going. And that you're cherry picking to pretend he's moving the bar Originally Posted by HDGristle

Indeed. Maybe that's a form of free speech too?
We're running around in circles now. We all know what hate speech . Sad to see some won't acknowledge it and instead hide behind it. One point I made for the thread. Sigh

Everyone is aware of what’s defined as “hate speech”, some just don’t believe in censorship.

We all know what hate speech . Sad to see some won't acknowledge it and instead hide behind it. Originally Posted by winn dixie

Really - you should look at the speech you have recently used in another thread and tell us why it is ok for you to use hate speech there while you rail against it here

And the point of the thread is most true Americans believe in the first amendment and don't support censorship

a quick stroll down the interwebs will show you that there are a number of non-protected speech;

Here's a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Fighting_words

Rather than boiling down all the jargon- you can't induce violence, or harrass, or create danger, or knowingly lie to general population (except political speech) (* especially in court unless you like Perjury charges), copyright speeches, and here is the link above on the stuff not protected.

Here are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about.

First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[20]

Second, knowingly making a false statement of fact can sometimes be punished. Libel and slander laws fall under this category.

Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[21]

Lastly, some implicit statements of fact—those that have a "false factual connotation"—can also fall under this exception.[22][23]

so outside of the realm of politics, freedom of speech is not 100% and even some political speech isn't.

I'd say some of the things said on Jan 6th, were likely some of that crappola by the folks who took that stage- Of course the term hyperbole of truth has come about- but isn't that like Bill Clinton talking about what the word "it" meant? The difference is / was, Clinton was atleast smart enough to talk about this situation directly with Kenny Star, where not one of those inferred above could do that today.

I do think a majority of things said should be allowed as 1st party political free speech, but when you know things to be false, and continue to parade it as true, there needs to be limitations; and libel charges when it creates a cascading effect for both the speaker and the listener who takes actions based on the content. People who break the law based on someone else's instructions might be a case in point.

It was "is" and also "sex" rather than "it"

If any of those laws eye posted were enforced evenhandedly the jails would be overflowing with network executives.

As distasteful as it might be, one can say whatever hate speech they wish. The aclu has on multiple occasions represented the kkk because they have the right to assemble and have a rally, not because they believe in their message.

What you can’t do is exercise your right to the point that it encroaches upon another person’s right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s the point where hate laws come into effect. You can stand on a corner and spew anything that you’d like. When you direct it at an individual or group specific group of individuals to the point that it’s intimidating or threatening then you’ve crossed the line and encroached upon their constitutional rights.

Nobody has a constitutional right to take those rights away from someone else .

Case closed.

Solid points. Whether its speech, sexuality, religion our rights provide us the Freedom to be our own person. So long as it does not intrude on others and that is why there are laws in place to provide an avenue to deal with those who believe they know better how the rest of us should live.

We the people not us as individuals. Unfortunately our Constitution didn't apply to everyone equally for quite some time after we became a nation. We are closer today but not close enough. More work to be done