General Discussion

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)

95. Just out of curiousity

Reply to ellisonz (Reply #80)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:47 PM

Sep 2012

why would it prohibit you from owning firearms?

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

132 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's settle this: Hate speech is protected in the U.S. [View all] cali Sep 2012 OP

No, ann--- Sep 2012 #1

Lame. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #3

Well, yelling Fire in a crowded theater isn't hate speech, MadHound Sep 2012 #4

You must have failed a lot of classes! Read more, react less! Logical Sep 2012 #5

Fire in a crowded theater had nothing to do with mayhem. JoeyT Sep 2012 #7

That aspect of the Schenck case has effectively been overruled onenote Sep 2012 #11

lol. wrong. and the cases cited make it clear that you're wrong. cali Sep 2012 #8

I had a boss yell, I hate you and you are fired! n/t DeadEyeDyck Sep 2012 #9

"Hate speech" is not like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Sorry, that's the law. Zalatix Sep 2012 #13

Your response to the OP is the COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #18

What is the difference between yelling and inciting? Hutzpa Sep 2012 #21

A clear and present danger to public order. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #83

Hate speech is protected. hrmjustin Sep 2012 #25

Of course you can SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #38

Not the same thing gollygee Sep 2012 #56

The point in the post you're responding to is...speech is in fact restricted. Not all speech is Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #98

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #126

Thanks Cali, and thanks to Madison and Jefferson longship Sep 2012 #2

Good post! Thanks for this! Logical Sep 2012 #6

What's your point Cali? 99Forever Sep 2012 #10

I think the point is that the best way to deal with hate speech is through speech that rebuts it onenote Sep 2012 #12

That isn't what I got from it. 99Forever Sep 2012 #15

I think reframing the words of others is a sort of hateful use of language... Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #19

Several points to make onenote Sep 2012 #46

The regulation of speech is limited to time, place and manner and cannot be based on political or JDPriestly Sep 2012 #89

no. my point is that "hate" speech is too subjective to be cali Sep 2012 #17

So "we" aren't capable of discerning the difference... 99Forever Sep 2012 #44

You seek a world in which powerful people hold all the cards and minorities get no Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #61

Hogwash. 99Forever Sep 2012 #75

Throughout history, laws protecting against specific kinds of religious ideas or speech JDPriestly Sep 2012 #90

Where have I ever said or implied... 99Forever Sep 2012 #91

Read my other posts on this thread. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #97

. Quantess Oct 2012 #119

Wow, the mental gymnastics necessary to come to THAT conclusion from the op... eqfan592 Sep 2012 #26

Hate speech laws are dangerous cpwm17 Sep 2012 #31

Hate speech is also "dangerous." 99Forever Sep 2012 #81

No... Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #107

"Strive for better"? Um, you're talking about the foundation of my country. Edweird Sep 2012 #70

Ahh yes... 99Forever Sep 2012 #79

It's not 'agree with me' - again, it's founding principles of this nation. Edweird Sep 2012 #86

Horsepucky. 99Forever Oct 2012 #113

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #127

WTF? 99Forever Oct 2012 #130

This is what wiki says about hate speech - TBF Sep 2012 #14

here's what wiki has to say about hate speech in the U.S. cali Sep 2012 #16

The eagerness with which so many on here were willing to give up their rights 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #20

Sadly, some RW stereotypes have a real basis in fact. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #24

It depends of the context of the criticism cpwm17 Sep 2012 #35

IMO Hitchens just tended to over-generalize. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #65

WARNING: This is a very dangerous path to walk on. Hutzpa Sep 2012 #22

what is a dangerous path? cali Sep 2012 #27

The way I see it Hutzpa Sep 2012 #30

Which is why there are no US laws against hate speech eallen Sep 2012 #23

Not the only misrulings by the SCOTUS... joycejnr Sep 2012 #28

I'd like to exercise my 1st ammendment right to declare that last statement unmitigated horseshit. Throd Sep 2012 #29

It's never hard, to reverse-paraphrase Ann Romney... joycejnr Oct 2012 #114

Wow, what a revealing post. eqfan592 Sep 2012 #32

I think I do... joycejnr Oct 2012 #115

fuck that. and fuck it hard. cali Sep 2012 #33

I find it difficult to see that mirror images are exactly the same... joycejnr Oct 2012 #116

See what I mean. Hutzpa Sep 2012 #34

Nope, no I don't. n/t joycejnr Oct 2012 #117

So we are free to only think like you? cpwm17 Sep 2012 #36

No, not at all...how in the world can you stop how people think... joycejnr Oct 2012 #118

Time to take another look at the 1st Amendment? gollygee Sep 2012 #57

The key in Douglas's opinion is "clear and present danger" Jim Lane Sep 2012 #78

I'm not sure how hating the LDS enters the subject because I think I meant something else... joycejnr Oct 2012 #120

I mentioned hating the LDS because that speech DID cause violence. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #125

I fantasize often about how it *would* "cut it"... joycejnr Oct 2012 #132

The First Amendment and rulings that uphold it aren't usually termed "misrulings." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #84

Not sure I understand what you mean.... joycejnr Oct 2012 #122

I hate you. (just testing) L0oniX Sep 2012 #37

I'm alerting! (not really) cali Sep 2012 #40

Thanks for this post SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #39

It's an effect of the fact that we have the First Amendment Hippo_Tron Sep 2012 #41

Money = free speech only because hifiguy Sep 2012 #50

A far far more liberal SCOTUS said that in 1975 in Buckley v Valeo Hippo_Tron Sep 2012 #74

In 1934 the Nazis simply could not understand why the US Government could not prevent Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #42

I believe you have misconstrued that "trial" AND the Nazi response (though ITA with your last WinkyDink Sep 2012 #85

. n/t porphyrian Sep 2012 #43

I agree that hate speech is protected free speech in America - but let us still be mindful of just Douglas Carpenter Sep 2012 #45

Yes, it can be dangerous. More dangerous is curtailing speech. cali Sep 2012 #48

There are more than a few DUers who need to hifiguy Sep 2012 #47

And more than a few who need to stop misusing the "fire in a crowded theater" meme 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #51

The actual Holmes quote was hifiguy Sep 2012 #52

As it SHOULD be! coldwaterintheface Sep 2012 #49

I think the important part of you sentence is: IN THE US loyalsister Sep 2012 #53

no, we don't have that right. Who is saying we do? cali Sep 2012 #54

Most of the discussion has been on whether we should allow such speech here 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #55

My point is why is it so ridiculous to handle a situation like this loyalsister Sep 2012 #67

They have the problem, they need to find a way to cope with it. Edweird Sep 2012 #103

They have the problem loyalsister Oct 2012 #123

No, they don't have to be anything like us. No one (but you) is saying that. Edweird Oct 2012 #131

And when they decide that international gay rights is an affront, what then? hack89 Sep 2012 #104

We should be respectful 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #110

Respect is a two-way street 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #109

Their biggest problem is not free speech loyalsister Oct 2012 #124

Too bad that peaceful citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights by protesting sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #58

+1000. Geller is destructive in her medieval Inquisition-style bigotry, yet closeupready Sep 2012 #60

disgusting. I have nothing but the utmost contempt cali Sep 2012 #64

Is that what you read into my post? My post was a general statement about the laughable sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #69

You're free to say whatever you want. closeupready Sep 2012 #102

Of course there should be better protection for those exercising their cali Sep 2012 #66

Do you really not remember the outrage over what was done to the Occupy protesters? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #68

I don't remember any court rulings forbidding the brutality against protesters and sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #72

Are you talking about THIS? MNBrewer Oct 2012 #108

Amen. Thank you. woo me with science Sep 2012 #101

You're trying to talk about something you haven't defined. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #59

Take, as an example, the hate speech laws in Canada eallen Sep 2012 #62

uh. the examples are right there in the cases cited. cali Sep 2012 #63

There's no definition in your post...the first half, anyway. I didn't read further when I didn't Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #96

As Sec. of State Clinton JUST SAID, IN RESPONSE TO THE EMBASSY ATTACKS: WinkyDink Sep 2012 #71

Let her tell this to OWS, both protesters and journalists who were beaten and sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #106

How about this? MNBrewer Oct 2012 #121

Remember, the 1st only applys to government, not private citizens like us Great Caesars Ghost Sep 2012 #73

But it should not be protected and endorsed on DU n/t Scootaloo Sep 2012 #76

HATE SPEECH IS PROTECTED....HATE SPEECH & COMMITTING CRIME IS NOT. fightthegoodfightnow Sep 2012 #77

Yes, it is. The homicide, however, is not. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #82

In a way it's not glacierbay Sep 2012 #93

Absolutely correct glacierbay Sep 2012 #94

Not only that, but publicly espousing hate speech does not prohibit you from legally owning firearms ellisonz Sep 2012 #80

Just out of curiousity glacierbay Sep 2012 #95

Why should it? nt hack89 Sep 2012 #105

You mean you can't lose your rights without committing an actual crime? 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #111

Or from voting. Or drinking alcohol. Or attending college. Dr. Strange Oct 2012 #112

I think we've drawn the lines we have pretty well. DirkGently Sep 2012 #87

Thank you. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #88

The difference Gal Friday Sep 2012 #92

I hate Illinois Nazis! PD Turk Sep 2012 #99

Definition of hate speech Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #100

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #128

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #129