Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-24-2019, 03:40 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,858,077 times
Reputation: 17863

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post

If someone steps up on a soap box in the U.S. and exhorts a crowd to go round up all the Muslims and burn down their houses ……. how long would it be before you think that guy is looking through some bars?

Implying that people in the U.K. or anywhere else in the free world can be jailed for merely expressing an opinion contrary to popular belief or political expediency is not being honest when attempting to show 1st amendment rights in the U.S. being superior to all others. In practical terms, they are not.

I will not be jailed and fined in the US for offering opinions on Muhammad that may offend Muslims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-24-2019, 03:43 PM
 
Location: So Cal
51,955 posts, read 52,378,573 times
Reputation: 52448
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I will not be jailed and fined in the US for offering opinions on Muhammad that may offend Muslims.
That example provided by that other poster was asinine. Of course free speech ends at the point of riling up people to commit violence.

Describing Muhhammad as a war mongering pedophile which is an accurate description is just an observation. Not a call to commit violence.

The old adage about not falsely screaming Fire!!!! in a crowded movie theater is what we're talking about here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 03:44 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,858,077 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
..... they were all VOLUNTEERS … no draftees. Get it?
.

6,332,000 US men and women volunteered for WW2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 03:48 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,858,077 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound View Post
Describing Muhhammad as a war mongering pedophile which is an accurate description is just an observation. Not a call to commit violence.

Point is someone in Austria was jailed for this. There is similar laws in place in other European countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Morrison, CO
34,153 posts, read 18,422,531 times
Reputation: 25721
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
The issue Phil is who is defining hate speech. Once you go down that road you no longer have the freedom of speech because the legality of your opinions or views are being defined by someone else.
Yep, and if they don't agree nor like what you say, they can label it "Hate Speech" and have you jailed. Nice, huh? That's what they Left wants here. That is what Political Correctness and the concept of hate speech is all about. Punishing and removing those in which the LEFT disagrees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Canada
7,667 posts, read 5,453,839 times
Reputation: 8807
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Specifically what constraints does the US press have?
Not asked of me, but you would have had had your answer if you had looked around the website. The U.S. page there: https://rsf.org/en/united-states

The U.S. page refers to the U.S. Freedom Tracker, a database of SPECIFIC press freedom incidents in the U.S. - “everything from arrests of journalists and the seizure of their equipment to interrogations at the U.S. border and physical attacks.”

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 04:14 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,858,077 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
Not asked of me, but you would have had had your answer if you had looked around the website. The U.S. page there: https://rsf.org/en/united-states

The U.S. page refers to the U.S. Freedom Tracker, a database of SPECIFIC press freedom incidents in the U.S. - “everything from arrests of journalists and the seizure of their equipment to interrogations at the U.S. border and physical attacks.”

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/

Specifically what are they citing that concerns you the most about government interference with what journalists are publishing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Canada
7,667 posts, read 5,453,839 times
Reputation: 8807
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Specifically what are they citing that concerns you the most about government interference with what journalists are publishing.
I was simply answering your question about what specific concerns/data contributed to the U.S. rating compared to other countries.

Why would I have any concerns about American press freedoms? The U.S. is not my country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 04:50 PM
 
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
17,386 posts, read 6,715,271 times
Reputation: 16243
If all these liberals who doubt American exceptionalism would just leave, everyone would be happier and better off. Please leave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2019, 04:55 PM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,398,330 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Specifically what are they citing that concerns you the most about government interference with what journalists are publishing.
Now we have to be specific while you and others are suggesting hate speech laws in other countries are denying freedom of speech?


Fighting words and offensive speech
Main article: Fighting words

A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[31] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[32] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[33][34]

“True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[35] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[36][37] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[38]



The first para contains a reference to "offensive speech" that does indeed allow for exactly the same type of prosectution that happened in Austria.

The Second para details the type of situation for those two U.S. teens that any court in the land should have determined as "hyperbole" but since there's been so many school shooting etc. in the U.S. …. heightened sensitivity is allowing for exceptions to common sense to occur.

Goalposts - - moving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top