General Discussion

Thomas Hurt

(14,001 posts)

57. Bans don't work...

Mon Oct 29, 2018, 10:47 AM

Oct 2018

regardless of the moral or ethical imperative in doing so, they don't work.

Booze, narcotics, abortion, guns, birth control, hate speech, historical ineffective.

Not to mention if you do manage to suppress it, you just drive it underground.

Finally in a big slice of irony........isn't this exactly what that fn facist pig in the WH is saying about the press and liberals.......isn't he complaining about "hate" speech, at least what is hate speech as far as he is concerned.

Do we really want an escalating war on speech.

Just saw a comment on the Hill by a cultist, stating flat out that another comment without any threat of violence, mere disagreement was indeed violent and hateful.

They are pushing that big lie hard just as the Dear Leader does.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

103 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should hate Speech be banned and criminalized? [View all] Le Gaucher Oct 2018 OP

Yes. mia Oct 2018 #1

yes trueblue2007 Oct 2018 #97

Long ago it should have been stopped Tumbulu Oct 2018 #2

Republicans view the far left as a dark force hack89 Oct 2018 #3

Hate speech should be linkble to violence/intimidation against the target Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #8

I think MichMary Oct 2018 #35

I truly hate messing with the 1st Arger68 Oct 2018 #4

We should also require "truth" in the news. Dustlawyer Oct 2018 #41

Who gets to decide what is true? MosheFeingold Oct 2018 #68

The media must have some sources and facts they rely on before making a claim. Dustlawyer Oct 2018 #69

Definitely not oberliner Oct 2018 #5

With sufficient guard rails I think we can prevent abuse. Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #6

Bear in mind who would be writing the law oberliner Oct 2018 #11

This thread should be titled "Lets give Trump more power to militarize ideology" grantcart Oct 2018 #74

Trump isn't permanent fescuerescue Oct 2018 #83

Define "deplorables" MichMary Oct 2018 #36

You made my point. Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #40

Wait, what?? MichMary Oct 2018 #42

Has there ever been a campaign of someone routinely intimidating or Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #43

How far back are we going? Dr. Strange Oct 2018 #45

You can stretch everything to its extremes .. And I think there is a resonable ground to be found. Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #47

I don't like it, but I hate it less. Dr. Strange Oct 2018 #55

Though I agree with you on dangers .. We should be good as long there is prosecutorial independence Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #58

Don't say "as long as..." Instead, think about the real world. Jim Lane Oct 2018 #78

absolutely. Brainstormy Oct 2018 #53

Has this happened in jurisdictions with such laws? jberryhill Oct 2018 #64

The Count Dankula thing was stupid as hell. Dr. Strange Oct 2018 #70

Trump isn't the PM of Canada and their legislature isn't controlled by right-wingers oberliner Oct 2018 #79

There have been right wing governments in Canada, the UK and other jurisdictions jberryhill Oct 2018 #80

I still am not comfortable with our Republican-controlled Congress writing hate crimes laws oberliner Oct 2018 #87

It would be a Pandora's Box pintobean Oct 2018 #7

Yes! A thousand times, yes! jcmaine72 Oct 2018 #9

"The First Amendment does not protect acts of violence last I checked." MichMary Oct 2018 #39

Incitement cilla4progress Oct 2018 #52

Okay, since MichMary Oct 2018 #75

Then nothing needs changed. nt Codeine Oct 2018 #91

Yes Thyla Oct 2018 #10

No. WhiskeyGrinder Oct 2018 #12

No. Those tables can be turned far too quickly, as we've seen... vi5 Oct 2018 #13

I agree, the potential for abuse is way way to high Amishman Oct 2018 #44

Hate speech fescuerescue Oct 2018 #86

No. Messing with the 1st is ill advised. NT Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2018 #14

Ok, you are now under arrest for: Oneironaut Oct 2018 #15

How would you define hate speech and how would you prevent abuse of this law? Calista241 Oct 2018 #16

Again.. Restrict hate speech against whom there is a credible threat of Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #19

Wouldn't you agree Fox News is an enemy of the (majority) of people? ThirdEye Oct 2018 #62

It can't be get the red out Oct 2018 #17

It should have civil penalties rather than criminal ck4829 Oct 2018 #18

Absolutely Not RobinA Oct 2018 #20

I don't know if this bdamomma Oct 2018 #21

Yes, under on condition. Captain Stern Oct 2018 #22

Just think about this, please. Would you trust the majority of politicians which are Republicans BeckyDem Oct 2018 #23

Absolutely NOT! bakpakr Oct 2018 #24

There are lots of forms of speech which are banned jberryhill Oct 2018 #65

Wow. Petosky Stone Oct 2018 #25

That was very insightful. Thank you very much. Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #28

No. It is the 1st amendment for a reason. 33taw Oct 2018 #26

No, it will make things worse marylandblue Oct 2018 #27

unfortunately not. 1st amendment is most important AlexSFCA Oct 2018 #29

Does anybody read the constitution any more? grantcart Oct 2018 #30

Yes .. But hate speech is a precursor to crime ..and every right has to have bounds Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #31

Hate speech is protected grantcart Oct 2018 #49

Sometimes people here Codeine Oct 2018 #92

Trump would be criminalized? dawg day Oct 2018 #32

I dont know about president .. But Steve King calling Mexicans Animals should be. Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #34

Or he would be in a position to criminalize CNN and the NYT. Crunchy Frog Oct 2018 #94

Yes lancelyons Oct 2018 #33

The right says the same thing about CNN and MSNBC. This won't turn out like you want. 33taw Oct 2018 #46

Ya but there is something called facts or the truth lancelyons Nov 2018 #102

No, but legalize dueling... RichardRay Oct 2018 #37

It already is Baltimike Oct 2018 #38

any president who engages in it bigtree Oct 2018 #48

Here's a test of your theory Dreamer Tatum Oct 2018 #50

Maybe it should apply just to politicians. Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #51

The race to the bottom is endless... LanternWaste Nov 2018 #103

Your premise is flawed right from the start. Kaleva Oct 2018 #54

Indeed, it's a DOA concept ThirdEye Oct 2018 #60

Incitement to violence is illegal. cilla4progress Oct 2018 #56

Bans don't work... Thomas Hurt Oct 2018 #57

The remedy is more speech. The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2018 #59

Unfortunately, that is based on a flawed model of human behavior jberryhill Oct 2018 #66

Maybe so, but what is the remedy? The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2018 #67

No Loki Liesmith Oct 2018 #61

Absolutely not. MicaelS Oct 2018 #63

No! Separation Oct 2018 #71

Nope. Imagine what this country would look like if Trump and the GOP had the power to ban Azathoth Oct 2018 #72

No sarisataka Oct 2018 #73

It should be obvious by now saidsimplesimon Oct 2018 #76

The problem is 'Let us assume that there are some clearly defined parameters.' elleng Oct 2018 #77

The 1st and 2nd amendment need to be modified fescuerescue Oct 2018 #81

Germany seems to be doing just fine with that. fescuerescue Oct 2018 #82

Thank you , Thank you , Thank you. Le Gaucher Oct 2018 #85

No. trackfan Oct 2018 #84

No. geardaddy Oct 2018 #88

This OP starts with a very large, very flawed assumption. onenote Oct 2018 #89

Not just no, but hell fucking no! NutmegYankee Oct 2018 #90

Worse idea ever. GulfCoast66 Oct 2018 #93

I hate Trump and want to continue to express it, thank you. Buckeye_Democrat Oct 2018 #95

No Celerity Oct 2018 #96

Absolutely NO! nt Raine Oct 2018 #98

Nope DeminPennswoods Oct 2018 #99

let them post 'free speech' on their own social media platforms-get them off twitter, facebook Sunlei Oct 2018 #100

yes [nt] GetRidOfThem Oct 2018 #101