Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just curious how many of you believe so-called "Hate Speech" laws will be implemented in this country?
Personally, I tend to think so. I won't get into which groups/factions I believe would support them. But it seems from many posts on whatever topic, there are some out there who back laws that would restrict/prohibit certain speech/writings they believe is "intolerant" of others (however defined). Also, there is a generation growing -- in fact, already of age in many cases -- that honestly believe they have some kind of "right" to not be offended.
Anyway, which of the choices best indicates your outlook on it all?
I can't imagine a SCOTUS allowing this. Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie under the First Amendment.
The Court is very evenly divided right now. All it would take is one more Democrat appointed Justice in place of a retiring conservative to tip the scales in favor of political correctness.
Sotomayor freely admitted that she would allow race to affect her decisions. According to any standard of impartiality that should have disqualified her, but there she sits.
The fact that the Court won't restrict free speech today doesn't mean they won't do it tomorrow. Leftists will very easily make an argument that the "general welfare" clause gives the federal government authority to restrict offensive comments and corrupt Justices like Sotomayor and Ginsberg who put their politics above their oath to the constitution will vote for it.
The Court is very evenly divided right now. All it would take is one more Democrat appointed Justice in place of a retiring conservative to tip the scales in favor of political correctness.
Sotomayor freely admitted that she would allow race to affect her decisions. According to any standard of impartiality that should have disqualified her, but there she sits.
The fact that the Court won't restrict free speech today doesn't mean they won't do it tomorrow. Leftists will very easily make an argument that the "general welfare" clause gives the federal government authority to restrict offensive comments and corrupt Justices like Sotomayor and Ginsberg who put their politics above their oath to the constitution will vote for it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with free speech. How people react to it is a completely different matter. And this has nothing to do with leftist, it has to do with common sense. If you want to provoke people then don't complain when they react.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with free speech. How people react to it is a completely different matter. And this has nothing to do with leftist, it has to do with common sense. If you want to provoke people then don't complain when they react.
WE have "free speech" here in Canada. Because we are an intelligent nation we don't consider Hate speech to be "Free".
There is no such a thing as any freedom without limits of one sort or another.
=nvxplorer;38041857]I can't imagine a SCOTUS allowing this. Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie under the First Amendment.
True, but that was quite a while back (mid-70's, I think...?). The political/social climate has changed radically since then (no pun intended). So-called "speech-codes" are already a fact on many college campuses. And like kidkaos2 said, it wouldn't take but one vote -- at present, on SCOTUS -- to tip the scales...
The Court is very evenly divided right now. All it would take is one more Democrat appointed Justice in place of a retiring conservative to tip the scales in favor of political correctness.
Sotomayor freely admitted that she would allow race to affect her decisions. According to any standard of impartiality that should have disqualified her, but there she sits.
The fact that the Court won't restrict free speech today doesn't mean they won't do it tomorrow. Leftists will very easily make an argument that the "general welfare" clause gives the federal government authority to restrict offensive comments and corrupt Justices like Sotomayor and Ginsberg who put their politics above their oath to the constitution will vote for it.
There are already plenty of limitations on Free speech so adding Hate to the list is nothing extraordinary.
Nothing would surprise me in Canada, but whatever. So who defines "Hate"? You? Or those who think like you?
Just remember that what goes around can come around. What is meant by "Hate speech" -- if it becomes "illegal" -- can just as easily come back to bite on the butt one group as it does another.
You are correct that there is no absolute "right" of anything, including "Free Speech". Such as the proverbial example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
But to shut off someone's right -- under the Bill of Rights" -- to express their opinion on controversial issues -- regardless of how popular/unpopular it might be -- under penalty of law -- is downright scary. If indeed a thought/writing is "unacceptable", then the power of public opinion alone will take care of it, so far as its effect goes.
The government has no business in it (just as it has no business in a lot of things).
Nothing would surprise me in Canada, but whatever. So who defines "Hate"? You? Or those who think like you?
Just remember that what goes around can come around. What is meant by "Hate speech" -- if it becomes "illegal" -- can just as easily come back to bite on the butt one group as it does another.
You are correct that there is no absolute "right" of anything, including "Free Speech". Such as the proverbial example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
But to shut off someone's right -- under the Bill of Rights" -- to express their opinion on controversial issues -- regardless of how popular/unpopular it might be -- under penalty of law -- is downright scary. If indeed a thought/writing is "unacceptable", then the power of public opinion alone will take care of it, so far as its effect goes.
The government has no business in it (just as it has no business in a lot of things).
You seem rather upset over something that hasn't happened and is highly unlikely to happen.
=Votre_Chef;38042333]You seem rather upset over something that hasn't happened and is highly unlikely to happen.
*shrug* Not upset at all. Just seeing the writing on the wall. I have seen quite a few posters on various threads who -- whatever the issue might be -- take the position that certain speech on certain issues is indicative as a hateful bigot who needs to be silenced. Plus, just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it wont, or is a "conspiracy theory."
Somehow -- in studying/researching history -- these "conspiracy" theories and/or "it can't happen here" have a way of becoming a reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
