General Discussion

Chan790

(20,176 posts)

23. No.

Sat Oct 4, 2014, 12:37 PM

Oct 2014

Let's be honest about this...the GOP would still say hateful things, then liberals would get smacked with the fines and jail-time for rebutting the hateful things that Palin and Rush say under those hate speech laws.

Because our leaders and elected officials are quisling wankers who would bend over to placate America's enemies in the name of fairness and compromise...and theirs are not.

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