General Discussion

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

13. It is limited to much more than that, including incitement to riot, false alarms, lots of things,

Reply to NutmegYankee (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 4, 2014, 11:59 AM

Oct 2014

please see links.

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):

118 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is it time America adopt hate speech and/or hate propaganda laws? [View all] Fred Sanders Oct 2014 OP

The First Amendment makes that impossible. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #1

How so? Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #2

It is limited on content only where it constituties an immediate and direct threat to health/life. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #12

It is limited to much more than that, including incitement to riot, false alarms, lots of things, Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #13

Why are you seemingly eager to limit free speech? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Oct 2014 #15

Why are you constructing strawmen? Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #16

Not a strawman at all SickOfTheOnePct Oct 2014 #20

Arguing the First Amendment allows it is an issue treestar Oct 2014 #114

Those fall under direct threat to health/life. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #18

And many of the things being said in hate today do not? They are asking that someone kill our jwirr Oct 2014 #34

To be restricted speech must have the intent and the likelihood of causing imminent violence NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #50

So it is interpreted in a very narrow sense. And it is almost impossible to prove that the increased jwirr Oct 2014 #70

Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it is constitutional... NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #94

I know but I am also very afraid of the haters. They are already killing some of the ones they hate. jwirr Oct 2014 #103

Part of my extended family are decendents of Holocaust survivors. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #107

We did do that during the civil rights movement. I don't exactly know how we did it but for years jwirr Oct 2014 #110

PC speech went really overboard and killed itself. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #111

Yes, it is n/t SickOfTheOnePct Oct 2014 #52

First Amendmend for free speech and press is sacrosanct Cayenne Oct 2014 #3

Nope. Iggo Oct 2014 #4

No! superpatriotman Oct 2014 #5

No fucking way. name not needed Oct 2014 #6

I don't support hate-speech laws. ZombieHorde Oct 2014 #7

No n/t SickOfTheOnePct Oct 2014 #8

Really bad idea. temporary311 Oct 2014 #9

That is so offensive but I defend his right to be a jerk. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2014 #10

As a Christian, I find that behavior very offensive Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #25

That is not evidence of a hate speech crime - it is evidence of your bad taste and bad judgment. Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #11

This is not hate speech. It's just someone who is underthematrix Oct 2014 #26

He's not peeing on it. temporary311 Oct 2014 #40

He's not peeing. He called the photo 'Jesus Loves Me'.... Bluenorthwest Oct 2014 #41

It is a manifestly terrible idea hifiguy Oct 2014 #14

FSM 50th anniversary October 1, 2014 antiquie Oct 2014 #17

Driving hatred underground XemaSab Oct 2014 #19

We should adopt a fairness doctrine of sorts. For every outrageous lie told, there Cleita Oct 2014 #21

Nope. Not needed in 2014. You are free to start your own website to counter Limbaugh, Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #24

No. It's needed. I live in an area that has only right wing radio. When Cleita Oct 2014 #29

"Constantly served up right wing talking points...", that is the problem with the media in general. Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #49

So for example, if President Obama is on TV for 10 minutes talking about how we should attack ISIS, Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #81

I didn't know President Obama was a journalist. Cleita Oct 2014 #83

the fairness doctrine stipulated you had to give both sides of an argument spanone Oct 2014 #117

Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" -- No thanks Cayenne Oct 2014 #47

Why would it have to be Orwellian? Cleita Oct 2014 #48

How could it not be? Throd Oct 2014 #56

How old are you? I remember when we had real news from real journalists Cleita Oct 2014 #64

Yep,we need more Walter's Go Vols Oct 2014 #82

Not old enough to look misty-eyed at yesteryear's journalism as some golden age of truth and reason Throd Oct 2014 #85

We had the Fairness Doctrine when there were a limited number of GGJohn Oct 2014 #58

Like anything else the mechanics of how things work need to be Cleita Oct 2014 #63

How hard is it to click on a link? GGJohn Oct 2014 #69

Most people don't, but they listen to the radio and watch the evening news. Cleita Oct 2014 #75

So who gets to serve as the Government's Official Arbiter of Truth? tritsofme Oct 2014 #65

Why is presenting both points of view considered seditious? Cleita Oct 2014 #66

I am responding to your suggestion that someone in government, perhaps Rush Limbaugh, tritsofme Oct 2014 #68

Huh? I said nothing of the sort. Cleita Oct 2014 #72

Well you did specifically say that you want the government to regulate "truth" in political ads. tritsofme Oct 2014 #76

+100. GGJohn Oct 2014 #80

Please quote where I said government should regulate truth. Cleita Oct 2014 #84

Please reread the last two sentences of your #21 tritsofme Oct 2014 #87

Nice strawman. Neither sentence advocates regulating truth. Cleita Oct 2014 #89

And again, I ask who shall serve as the Government's Official Arbiter of Truth? tritsofme Oct 2014 #91

Strawman again. There is no position of Official Arbiter of Truth. Cleita Oct 2014 #95

"Official Arbiter of Truth", nice slogan, someone who worries about that strawman while not Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #104

While you fantasize about jailing political opponents... tritsofme Oct 2014 #113

so you also believe backwoodsbob Oct 2014 #100

Actually it should. Cleita Oct 2014 #101

good answer backwoodsbob Oct 2014 #102

Equal time for flat Earthers and sane people would have to be exempt, stuff like that though. Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #105

The problem is that Michelle, Sarah and many others get more than equal time Cleita Oct 2014 #106

Evangelical Christian District Attorneys in the South would postively salivate over such laws. Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #22

That cuts both ways. They would have to ratchet back their hate speech too, Cleita Oct 2014 #33

No. Chan790 Oct 2014 #23

Does this mean that you think only RWers say hateful things? Dreamer Tatum Oct 2014 #31

No. It means that I believe enforcement would be one-sided. n/t Chan790 Oct 2014 #38

Hell no. nt Crabby Appleton Oct 2014 #27

yes, similar to Canada or the EU 'laws' against hate speak. yes. fines & jailtime should stay low. Sunlei Oct 2014 #28

Any religion that teaches some minorities are not equal people should then be counted as a hate Bluenorthwest Oct 2014 #39

Haven't noticed any 'hate talk' arrests in Canada or the EU with their churches? Sunlei Oct 2014 #45

Because religions get special permission for hate speech against gays. Kurska Oct 2014 #93

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, GGJohn Oct 2014 #30

No, too early B_Mann Oct 2014 #32

If and when that time does come, (hopefully never) GGJohn Oct 2014 #37

That someone would have the power to define it hifiguy Oct 2014 #67

Of course not. Bluenorthwest Oct 2014 #35

"I don't like it when people say hateful things". "Therefore there should be a law against it". Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #42

Why? Dr. Strange Oct 2014 #44

You'd have to do some talking to convince me the OP is 'on the left'. Bluenorthwest Oct 2014 #88

That's not going to happen. MineralMan Oct 2014 #36

I'm thinking... cherokeeprogressive Oct 2014 #43

A Democratic controlled government should be able to restrict the free speech we don't like. hughee99 Oct 2014 #46

I'm glad you added that sarcasm smiley. NaturalHigh Oct 2014 #73

No Marrah_G Oct 2014 #51

Fuck no! Read up on abortion that the Canadian Human Rights Commision became. LostInAnomie Oct 2014 #53

This is the kind of free speech at all costs thinking that resulted in Citizens United. Fred Sanders Oct 2014 #54

Bullshit. LostInAnomie Oct 2014 #60

FUCK NO TIMES INFINITY!!!!! Throd Oct 2014 #55

I would oppose it to my dying breath. Speech should be met with more speech, not the strong hand tritsofme Oct 2014 #57

Well said. GGJohn Oct 2014 #59

Thank you! NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #61

No, for two reasons. Jackpine Radical Oct 2014 #62

No. Such laws would be abused by people from every corner of the political spectrum. NaturalHigh Oct 2014 #71

i'm kinda curious? GGJohn Oct 2014 #74

Wow, I missed that. Absolutely disgusting. tritsofme Oct 2014 #77

That sentence made my ears perk up and say wow, GGJohn Oct 2014 #79

Maybe, instead, you could emigrate to Canada and MineralMan Oct 2014 #78

I'm very, very happy to see the overwhelmingly negative response to this OP. Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #86

+10^23! I'm also very, very sad to see authoritarianism advocated at DU friendly_iconoclast Oct 2014 #92

Seeking to limit what a free citizen can say is not progressive. Kurska Oct 2014 #90

In a word - No. GoneOffShore Oct 2014 #96

Maybe. moondust Oct 2014 #97

I have an idea. woo me with science Oct 2014 #98

The First Amendment works just fine. And it does not protect threats to the POTUS. Warren DeMontague Oct 2014 #99

No, it's not. And it's certainly not time for laws of the sort of petronius Oct 2014 #108

Let's Kick this authoritarian viewpoint back to the top. NutmegYankee Oct 2014 #109

No. sakabatou Oct 2014 #112

How do places like Canada have such laws and stay civilized? treestar Oct 2014 #115

No (nt) bigwillq Oct 2014 #116

I'm staying out of this one. Who needs butter? Initech Oct 2014 #118