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.
Who decides what is 'hate speech?' A Colorado College didn't find hate speech in blacks calling for the death of all whites but a white guy saying black women aren't hot is hate speech. The truth is no one can responsibly determine what is hate speech. For example, I consider what you said as hate speech. Any regulation on speech is a step toward Totalitarianism like the Nazis and Communists and certain Muslim countries that criminalize speech that the Superstition they follow and the Pervert Prophet declared to be illegal.
The First Amendment was intended to protect speech that offends. It should not matter as to whether you or I find the speech offensive, hateful or stupid. The rights of the person to SAY those things should never be taken away! If the speech is meant to incite violence, intentionally slander another person or the intent is to cause harm or injury (i.e., yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre) then of course such speech should not and is not protected. Once you start letting the government determine what speech is acceptable and what is not, based solely on who is offended by it, eventually ALL speech will be outlawed. Just look at how political correctness has turned society into thin-skinned victims who are no longer capable of intelligent discourse because the language of debate has been deemed offensive and intolerable, thus shutting down any ability to express opposition to ideas and public policies that run counter to common sense!
Actually, it was intended to protect citizens from being prosecuted by the Federal Government for speech and writings that were deemed unfavorable by said government.
It had nothing at all to do with offending other citizens.
Actually, it was intended to protect citizens from being prosecuted by the Federal Government for speech and writings that were deemed unfavorable by said government.
It had nothing at all to do with offending other citizens.
Sure it had everything to do with offending other citizens that were offended by anything that was said...you are free to say things that offend others, otherwise, there is no purpose for freedom of speech because everything being said on this thread and this site offends someone.
Text of the 1st Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sure it had everything to do with offending other citizens that were offended by anything that was said...you are free to say things that offend others, otherwise, there is no purpose for freedom of speech because everything being said on this thread and this site offends someone.
Text of the 1st Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Well, let's take another look at that:
Text of the 1st Amendment:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The key phrase is: Congress shall make no law...
The amendment is very specific. It does not protect hateful speech, except from a federal law that might affect said speech.
In fact, the Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal government are not constrained by the 1st Amendment. Only Congress.
When the Liberals make a serious attempt to take away the 1st Amendment and Free Speech, there will be a Civil War.
That's funny, because apparently there are a lot of conservatives who seriously think we should get rid of it. Quite a few of them right here on C-D, in fact.
Just look how many of them are totally on board with the idea of discriminating against people because of their religion and closing down houses of worship. As long as those people are Muslim, that is.
The other day I saw a comment on a WND post with quite a few upvotes saying we needed to "reset" the media because it's full of liberals.
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.
