General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

21. That's a false choice

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 03:33 PM

Sep 2012

The First Amendment doesn't protect you for liability from a variety of categories of speech related actions:

- defamation
- trademark infringement
- copyright infringement
- solicitation of prostitution or other crimes
- mail fraud / wire fraud
- advocating violent overthrow of the government
- threats, assault
- perjury
- intimidating witnesses / jurors
- forgery
- cyberstalking
- impersonation

There are a variety of narrow categories of speech which we treat as "speech as an action" of some kind. In other words, these are, in one sense, acts of speaking or writing. But the speaking or writing parts of them are a vehicle for performing some sort of act defined as incurring civil or in some cases criminal liability.

To discuss, hypothetically, whether there could be additional classifications is not some kind of assault on the Constitution.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

333 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Our Freedom of Expression Is Killing Us [View all] Jessy169 Sep 2012 OP

du rec. Nt xchrom Sep 2012 #1

kr Robyn66 Sep 2012 #297

Alrighty then! How about a constitutional amendment repealing the 1st amendment. Hey Jude Sep 2012 #2

Let him or her go ahead and try to sell the repeal of the First Amendment to We the People. Zalatix Sep 2012 #7

You did not read and comprehend Jessy169 Sep 2012 #22

ROTFLMAO!!! You're living in denial. A re-do is a repeal. Zalatix Sep 2012 #72

Will membership on the peoples' committee that subjectively determines "truth", Riftaxe Sep 2012 #84

That's the way that it is done now & the reason is, in part, because it is assumed patrice Sep 2012 #92

Has nothing to do with the 1st A., and everything to do with slander, libel, and counter-points. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #172

Why stop at the 1st Amendment? There are lots of the COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #17

Just talking about limiting free speech to NOT include hate, lies Jessy169 Sep 2012 #25

I support the right to free unfettered speech, unequivocally. COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #32

Really. So it's okay that those with a voice constantly lie? Zoeisright Sep 2012 #63

What Is The Mechanism You Would Use To Remove FAUX Noise From The Air? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #69

This message was self-deleted by its author COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #76

It's their right as U.S. citizens. In fact, courts have held COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #102

Problem is that the only real way of countering the message is money Jkid Sep 2012 #282

I think you're absolutely correct. That's why COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #320

Yes- Freedom of speech especially protect speech you do not like Marrah_G Sep 2012 #322

Faux is the price we pay for living in a Democracy COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #332

How good is the concept of more speech if you have to pay for it. Jkid Sep 2012 #280

It's tough. But why can't we hit up donors like COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #321

Your 'lie' might be another's 'truth' B2G Sep 2012 #33

Exactly! MNBrewer Sep 2012 #39

You are looking at an armed rebellion that the WORLD will regret Zalatix Sep 2012 #87

you have been lied to Whisp Sep 2012 #123

If you want a dictatorship so much, then why not move? Zalatix Sep 2012 #196

I was in the lucky sperm club and born Canadian. Whisp Sep 2012 #208

Well, goody for you! Zalatix Sep 2012 #216

you are making yourself look very foolish! Whisp Sep 2012 #246

You're also making yourself look like an anti-American bigot. Zalatix Sep 2012 #248

you have a nice day too! Whisp Sep 2012 #253

You can crow all day about how superior you think you are. Zalatix Sep 2012 #254

:) Yes, you got it. ''America's freedoms bother me'' Whisp Sep 2012 #258

Your "lucky sperm club" comment constitutes hate speech under Canadian law. Zalatix Sep 2012 #262

no it doesn't and you are now just being silly Whisp Sep 2012 #264

Your "lucky sperm club" comment kicked off the silly hour. Zalatix Sep 2012 #265

Not sure why that bothers you so much. Whisp Sep 2012 #266

Not sure why America's freedoms bother you so much. Zalatix Sep 2012 #267

I like your President a lot Whisp Sep 2012 #269

I don't know why our freedoms bother you. Zalatix Sep 2012 #270

you have less freedoms than I do Whisp Sep 2012 #271

Okay so we let crazy people speak here without being sent to jail. Zalatix Sep 2012 #272

Why is it that the US is so different from most of the rest of western countries? Whisp Sep 2012 #274

But why does our freedom of speech bother you? After all, you're so superior! Zalatix Sep 2012 #275

it bothers me because it doesn't make sense Whisp Sep 2012 #277

It doesn't make sense to YOU. Zalatix Sep 2012 #316

Here is the problem DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #116

Yes, I do support the right to lie and I do support the right to speak hatefully. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #143

Mass media must be responsible for truth and common sense and the individual must not incite to The Wielding Truth Sep 2012 #155

Actually I would point out that you would have to get rid of nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #273

I brought this exact point up the last time this crap happened and was nearly run off the boards. Initech Sep 2012 #186

And how do you define "hate," "lies"? JDPriestly Sep 2012 #231

That's a false choice jberryhill Sep 2012 #21

But Prohibiting "Hate Speech" Is Of A Whole Different Order DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #26

Simple assault jberryhill Sep 2012 #49

It Still Come Down To What Speech Is Verboten And What Speech Isn't DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #52

Absolutely jberryhill Sep 2012 #77

Please Read The Thread DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #90

No he didn't Jessy169 Sep 2012 #121

Where's The Proof That Ann Coulter Is A Slut? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #126

+1 nt BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #79

Thanks jberryhill for your fabulous critique! Jessy169 Sep 2012 #118

It all depends on the details jberryhill Sep 2012 #80

Hmm tama Sep 2012 #133

More pro-censorship shit. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #3

Sounds like you support Glen Beck, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh Jessy169 Sep 2012 #16

I Support Their Right To Free Speech As I Support Your Free Speech And Mine DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #23

Who decides what's acceptable? Mz Pip Sep 2012 #35

^.^ This justiceischeap Sep 2012 #234

I support Glen Beck, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh. The KKK too. Xithras Sep 2012 #54

Exactly Major Nikon Sep 2012 #142

Another card carrying member here. Dash87 Sep 2012 #255

False dichotomy fail Major Nikon Sep 2012 #140

Who decides what is propaganda or not? Odin2005 Sep 2012 #191

Whoever is in charge Dash87 Sep 2012 #256

Is that your idea of a conversation? jberryhill Sep 2012 #24

Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #122

What the hell do you NOT grasp about the First Amendment? it is NOT up for repeal, FGS. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #177

Spam deleted by Hassin Bin Sober (MIR Team) kolayamilya Sep 2012 #4

If mocking religion was a criminal offense, DU would be a different place. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #5

In England, Canada and Germany people are free to mock magic underwear Jessy169 Sep 2012 #10

How Is Not Hateful To Make Fun Of Garb That Is Required By A Certain Religion? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #14

OFGS. Are you American? Because, seriously, dude. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #178

What's Your Point? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #181

Wait, what? Marrah_G Sep 2012 #323

The Point Flew Right Over Your Head If You Followed The Discussion Within The Discussion DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #325

You totally lost me Marrah_G Sep 2012 #329

You could be arrested and tried. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #15

I have rarely, indeed never, been arrested for mocking religion here. Posteritatis Sep 2012 #20

Where is "here"? (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #27

One of the countries where you think I'd be arrested and tried. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #38

It's pretty smart of you to choose to post on a US website, instead of one based in your country. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #62

LMFAO laundry_queen Sep 2012 #202

Ah, it's Canada. With its notorious Canadian Human Rights Tribunals. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #203

We on DU have our own self-inflicted kangaroo court, I suppose. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #236

Also, people who post unacceptable stuff on this board don't go to prison. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #237

Do you mean, Posteritatis, that you live in a country in which the JDPriestly Sep 2012 #232

You interpreted that in the exact opposite manner that I expressed it. Well done! (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #249

rarely arrested -- Good heavens. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #235

Christ on a crutch, people here need to learn what sarcasm is. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #250

I have no sympathy for these men MNBrewer Sep 2012 #43

Again, what about Christianity? Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #104

OR what about this? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #110

No thanks. former9thward Sep 2012 #6

I Think Some Of Our Guys Said Some Pretty Hateful Things About Right Wing Figures DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #8

Were they true statements -- then, ok Jessy169 Sep 2012 #11

Ed Schultz Called Laura Ingraham A "Right Wing Slut" DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #18

To be determined Jessy169 Sep 2012 #31

What Proof Do You Have That Ann Coulter Is A Slut? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #42

really, dear? you KNOW that Ann Coulter is a "slut". cali Sep 2012 #111

Except, Cali, I didn't really say what "I would ban", did I Jessy169 Sep 2012 #124

That's The Whole Problem With Abridging Freedom Of Speech DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #131

Exactly!!! And I've called Romney and the Repbs WORSE!!! liberallibral Sep 2012 #53

So we would constantly be in court proving statements Union Scribe Sep 2012 #165

The main issue is the lines between words, incitement, and actual actions Posteritatis Sep 2012 #9

Totally agree Jessy169 Sep 2012 #13

Good for you Herlong Sep 2012 #12

No thanks. I'll choose freedom of speech over religious mob appeasement rollin74 Sep 2012 #19

No thank you. longship Sep 2012 #28

The likes of Limbaugh could be fixed with better radio licensing laws and Waiting For Everyman Sep 2012 #29

I agree, but Jessy169 Sep 2012 #34

It's The First Amendment To The Constitution. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #45

No offense intended, but you really should inform yourself a bit better for this argument. Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #65

This message was self-deleted by its author Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #66

Let me guess -- you're a lawyer Jessy169 Sep 2012 #134

You don't need to be a lawyer. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #224

Well said, Jim Lane. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #239

K&R. Well done. COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #333

Before you make this sort of OP kiva Sep 2012 #107

I'll agree with you on licensing laws malokvale77 Sep 2012 #162

Totally agree, and you may have hit on THE solution Jessy169 Sep 2012 #164

Thank you malokvale77 Sep 2012 #170

First of all, you have demonstrated poor knowledge of world media, MadHound Sep 2012 #30

Fox News is available in other countries Jessy169 Sep 2012 #44

Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of Fox and its worldwide reach MadHound Sep 2012 #112

But you're obscuring the main point and playing gotcha Jessy169 Sep 2012 #136

It does NOT include the 'freedom to incite riot.' elleng Sep 2012 #36

Yes, it does Jessy169 Sep 2012 #141

freedom of speech is stupid BOG PERSON Sep 2012 #37

Who's Freedom? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #47

in the main, freedom for perverts and douchebags BOG PERSON Sep 2012 #64

They don't in authoritarian societies either. Dash87 Sep 2012 #261

and they're usually right, too BOG PERSON Sep 2012 #268

Would you want to leave it up to a Republican Congress SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #299

You just criticized one of our government's founding documents. Dash87 Sep 2012 #260

Actually incitement to a riot is penalized under law nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #40

Is that only in Montana, or is that Federal law too? Jessy169 Sep 2012 #144

Here is one of the U.S. Code in question nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #200

I doubt that that section would apply to the anti-Muslim film. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #225

I agree with you, Jim Lane. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #241

Alas, at least to me this is about LIMITS TO FREE SPEECH nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #244

That movie insults a religion, but I have not heard that it incites to riot. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #240

There are complications nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #245

To say that you were 'wildly' misunderstood xchrom Sep 2012 #41

Who Gets To Judge? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #48

This isn't the Great Unknown. xchrom Sep 2012 #74

+1 & I resist the assumption that we are incapable of doing that reasonably so we must'nt do it in patrice Sep 2012 #78

What Infringements On Free Speech Beside Those Established By Case Law Would You Be Comfortable With DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #85

I'd like to see those "established by case law" more widely considered, relative to new technologies patrice Sep 2012 #99

Nicely said. 99Forever Sep 2012 #113

Paternalism. "People are bad. They are dumb, so they can't grow. Everything should be defined or not patrice Sep 2012 #117

Oh, REALLY? You mean like the UK, that censors articles about the royals because they'd be offended? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #175

Thank you xchrom! Jessy169 Sep 2012 #129

Careful now... Cause I'm a Left Wing Loonie. xchrom Sep 2012 #153

I'm a left-wing loonie too -- I use the term lovingly Jessy169 Sep 2012 #156

I'd worry more about the deliberate misinterpretation of the 2A going on. Loudly Sep 2012 #46

We've tryed this before Progressive dog Sep 2012 #50

And it led to the first Slander and Libel laws, some of which are still in the books nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #56

No one is defending lying about others as free speech Progressive dog Sep 2012 #67

I am familiar with the history nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #75

Not quite Jessy169 Sep 2012 #132

That is ok, and welcome to the club nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #201

Sorry, but I'm willing to die for our freedom of expression... liberallibral Sep 2012 #51

Then maybe you should ... frazzled Sep 2012 #71

How about we stay right here in America Zalatix Sep 2012 #82

Is posting something on YouTube a right? frazzled Sep 2012 #115

Youtube refused to take it down. So there. Zalatix Sep 2012 #195

No, that is a corporation nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #207

Yep, I'll fight and even DIE for those I disgree with, such as Glen Beck, etc.... liberallibral Sep 2012 #95

So when they riot because the US allows gay marriage hack89 Sep 2012 #138

bingo this seems to be were its all going loli phabay Sep 2012 #188

LOL! Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #55

Like any ideology, an absolute formulated as "We need more speech, not less" seems to be based patrice Sep 2012 #57

"assert one's own biases, i.e. fascism in one degree or another" BOG PERSON Sep 2012 #98

The will to power is fundamental to survival. It's agendas, more but usually way less, honestly patrice Sep 2012 #106

Here is the problem DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #279

Perhaps you could be the first cabinet head of the Ministry of Truth. MineralMan Sep 2012 #58

Imagine DU If That Law Was On The Books During The Bush* Administration DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #59

You know, you could always move to Iran. name not needed Sep 2012 #60

Thanks for your contribution Jessy169 Sep 2012 #145

Fits quite nicely with the OP. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #176

Under your proposed limits to our rights, I assume you would allow preachers Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #61

??? OP seems VERY much to be saying the opposite of what you think: patrice Sep 2012 #73

I note the OP refuses to respond, and no patrice the OP does not at all address Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #139

I'm not sure I understand how you get that from OP. Maybe one thing we could talk about would patrice Sep 2012 #159

OP is very much saying the opposite of what Bluenorthwest is saying Jessy169 Sep 2012 #147

Well why not simply respond to the questions you are being asked? Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #154

Responding Jessy169 Sep 2012 #167

You did not reply to a single question I asked you, nor to any point I raised. Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #197

James Holmes Was Set Off Because Of The Batman Franchise DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #211

Wrong. Other peoples in other places reaction to our Freedom of expression is. hobbit709 Sep 2012 #68

Would this bit of unvarnished mockery of religion be unacceptable in your new country? Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #70

Would you care if you were the subject of that mockery? What if that mockery progressed to patrice Sep 2012 #86

We Have Laws On The Book That Ban Discrimination On The Basis Of Race, Religion, And National Origin DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #96

You and I probably differ on that point of "curtail". I think it is possible to say almost anything patrice Sep 2012 #114

No, the solution is always more speech treestar Sep 2012 #81

Blame the victim? How about blaming the troglodytes who think killing is O.K.? nt Speck Tater Sep 2012 #83

Canadian or UK style restrictions would not preclude the filming or posting of Innocence of Muslims tifanyhunter Sep 2012 #88

Not a good idea lunatica Sep 2012 #89

Is it time to burn our RR, blues, hiphop and rap records yet? L0oniX Sep 2012 #91

excellent. Whisp Sep 2012 #93

What Would Have Happened If Attorney General Ashcroft Had The Power Of Those Laws Behind Him? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #101

Exactly. Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #103

I'm not sure exactly but Whisp Sep 2012 #120

Limbaugh Didn't Invent Nutters DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #137

If Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the price for the freedom to speak freely, NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #148

then explain why the US is in such a sorry state compared to others. Whisp Sep 2012 #212

You think all things are equal, except for that? NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #263

Totally agree, Whisp Jessy169 Sep 2012 #151

the herd is fattened, and now we see the the powerful feed on them. Whisp Sep 2012 #158

Some would argue that our freedom of expression silvershadow Sep 2012 #94

Defining what constitutes "hate speech" would be a nightmarish, never-ending debate. Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #97

This is a completely misguided approach abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #100

Hate speech laws are tempting M_M Sep 2012 #105

codswallop. cali Sep 2012 #108

I don't think so. ProSense Sep 2012 #109

FAIL. Religious nut jobs are killing us and you're trying to further empower them. trouble.smith Sep 2012 #119

Nope. abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #166

religious zealots do stupid things for stupid reasons trouble.smith Sep 2012 #193

Uh, card carrying ACLU member here Warpy Sep 2012 #125

But what about the right of those people not to be killed? Why is that less of a right than patrice Sep 2012 #135

Manson said he was told to kill by the Bible and the Beatles. Son of Sam said a dog Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #149

I operate on the basic assumptions of rational empiricism, which include the fact that patrice Sep 2012 #163

Please try to demonstrate cause and effect in this situation. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #183

I was responding to a post saying that Manson and Son of Sam claimed cause and effect in their cases patrice Sep 2012 #187

Keep up instead of just spouting. David Berkowitz recanted that claim long ago. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #290

I was speaking hypothetically in response to a claim made by someone else. And, if you'll patrice Sep 2012 #301

You do understand that the rational methods to which I refer only yield possibilities? patrice Sep 2012 #303

The hateful crap will always be with us in one form or another Warpy Sep 2012 #179

Take it up with the violent thugs. Oh, I forgot; they're "sensitive." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #289

Yeah, drug dealers have no part in the crimes committed for whatever high they propagate. nt patrice Sep 2012 #305

Are some people born certain ways that limit their choices or not? nt patrice Sep 2012 #306

Nope. Sorry. We let the courts decide when speech has gone so far as to actually harm someone. kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #127

The religious RW in this country would like nothing more than to limit free speech. n/t cynatnite Sep 2012 #128

People are always offended by new truths Yo_Mama Sep 2012 #130

But freedom is not served by what we are doing. Regressive feedback loops get going and patrice Sep 2012 #146

The point of allowing people to speak freely Yo_Mama Sep 2012 #169

WHO will be the arbiter? You? Me? Oh, wait; it would be THE US SUPREME COURT, TYVM. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #174

You assume that the only effective forms of control are external and, hence, hierarchical patrice Sep 2012 #189

What? I'm SAYING that the US Supreme Court has ruled against the OP's restrictive concept. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #288

Why is it that so many people who are allegedly so interested in freedom almost never think in any patrice Sep 2012 #308

You have an interesting defintion of "freedom." And of "free." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #291

Do you dispute that the post to which you are responding describes pretty much what is going on patrice Sep 2012 #298

Are you implying that the mere fact that some -one/thing expresses something because s/he/they WANT patrice Sep 2012 #300

If we're going to limit free speech, let's start with the people who want to get rid of it... Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #150

Amen. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2012 #168

I'm Actually More Concerned About An Expansive Construction Of The Second Amendment DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #152

Then you'd be better served leaving the 2nd alone... eqfan592 Sep 2012 #157

We do not have to change the First Amendment. RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #160

Free expression is not the problem. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #161

Take it up with the Supreme Court. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #173

Sure thing! Scootaloo Sep 2012 #180

Oh, haHA! At least these men are more apt to protect speech than YOU, apparently. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #184

At the expense of others, of course. Just like you. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #210

You are, alas, completely illogical. To equate rape with speech is, in a word, STUPID. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #286

Just Out Of Curiosity Did You Support Or Oppose The Supreme Court's Flag Burning Decision? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #185

"Beyond what case law proscribes," you say? Scootaloo Sep 2012 #209

Where Did I Suggest DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #217

In your response to my post Scootaloo Sep 2012 #218

And I Established That To Some Burning That Cloth Is "Heaping Abuse On Them" DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #220

And you seem to accept their argument wholly. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #221

Straight White Male DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #222

It may very well be abuse, but outside of specific venues (e.g., schools), "verbal abuse", if not a WinkyDink Sep 2012 #293

If burning a cloth is OK, then what about burning some paper, like a Koran? nt kelly1mm Sep 2012 #223

Free speech also protected Confusious Sep 2012 #233

Disgusting and risible at the same time. JUST WHOM DO YOU NOMINATE to "RE-DO" our Freedom of Speech? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #171

No, it's not. Iggo Sep 2012 #182

What a crock. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #190

We have always had to put up with crap to have our right to free speech. Jennicut Sep 2012 #192

To everyone reviling OP in this thread, do you consider Citizens United free speech? Why not? patrice Sep 2012 #194

Free speech applies to people Confusious Sep 2012 #238

The ACLU defends Citizens' United. patrice Sep 2012 #251

So my next point is Confusious Sep 2012 #287

I believe the ACLU discusses modification of the Constitution for this & is against it. nt patrice Sep 2012 #304

Well, I'll have to disagree with them about it. Confusious Sep 2012 #318

If you think our freedom of expression is killing us - lynne Sep 2012 #198

And the ONLY reason you were able to post this NashvilleLefty Sep 2012 #199

You can add all "bad" speech to the Patriot Act. hack89 Sep 2012 #204

^^^This.^^^ nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #206

Oh, snap. Quantess Sep 2012 #226

Nope, can't get behind this. JoeyT Sep 2012 #205

Do you think that simply muting people will make them go away? Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #213

What is "offensive" is entirely in the ears of the beholder. Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #214

US freedom of speech MellowDem Sep 2012 #215

You and the 22 who have so far rec'd this thread may support appeasing the fundies SpartanDem Sep 2012 #219

I disagree with all three foreign laws you mention. Citizens United is a different matter. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #227

There are people all over the world fighting for free speech sitting in a jail cell davidn3600 Sep 2012 #228

Facts are objective. Truth is subjective. How one uses facts can be subjective. cali Sep 2012 #229

Jessy169, who among us should decide whose speech, what speech incites to riot? JDPriestly Sep 2012 #230

Jessy169's post #122 was hidden, so they cannot reply to you muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #243

That poster was simply rude and non responsive. I asked specific questions and that Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #247

I like be Canadian riverbendviewgal Sep 2012 #276

Canada may have some graces DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #281

I know this but so far it is not like the USA right now riverbendviewgal Sep 2012 #283

I hope so DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #317

Sorry - I refuse to give volent people veto power over my civil rights. hack89 Sep 2012 #242

+1 X_Digger Sep 2012 #315

speech can be abusive and even scar for life... it is a psychic weapon... trailmonkee Sep 2012 #252

I am wondering what you would think if there were more and better counter-weapons. patrice Sep 2012 #257

See all the above responses to this argument. The U.S. does NOT have laws against "hate speech." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #285

The U.S. has laws against speech which increases danger to vulnerables beyond what they would patrice Sep 2012 #307

There are no laws against hate speech in the United States SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #302

Speech that increases danger to vulnerables beyond what they would otherwise patrice Sep 2012 #309

Nice try, but no cigar SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #319

Perhaps the principle should not be applied by law, but by community assent instead. You've heard patrice Sep 2012 #324

hate crimes more specifically... sorry, speech can be part of that... trailmonkee Sep 2012 #311

"A hard look at freedom of expression?" Never Dash87 Sep 2012 #259

I'm afraid your wrong GordonHide Sep 2012 #278

I strongly disagree with your viewpoint. Marrah_G Sep 2012 #284

I think I've got it: The OP doesn't like "Saturday Night Live." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #292

The solution to speech you don't like is more speech, not restricting speech. alarimer Sep 2012 #294

Sorry, but our freedom of expression has saved us and will continue to save us. eom yawnmaster Sep 2012 #295

I think this OP was an exercise in dragging a shiny thing under the water behind a boat... cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #296

I think whenever people talk with one another about important stuff that's good, who cares patrice Sep 2012 #310

Inciting violence? I just don't see it. michaelslomo Sep 2012 #312

No it isn't. 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #313

Man I miss that unrec button. nt Skip Intro Sep 2012 #314

This is an astonishingly stupid post. WilliamPitt Sep 2012 #326

Bullshit--how about we have a re-do of the live and let live principal? librechik Sep 2012 #327

Sigh...unrec Taverner Sep 2012 #328

Dumbest. Thread. Ever. Alduin Sep 2012 #330

Under The Broad Hate Speech Laws DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #331