General Discussion

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)

11. DU and Democrats already protected hateful speech aggressively when Rick Warren was anointed

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:10 AM

Jan 2015

as Inaugural Minister a few days after he'd denigrated LGBT people as criminals, pedophiles and like those who commit incest. Also when Donnie McClurkin served as Obama's surrogate after declaring 'war' on LGBT people and saying we are trying to kill Christian children.
We could review some threads on those subjects which very clearly show the bulk of DU stating that any objection to officially presented, clearly spoken bigotry and denigration of a minority is simply 'poutrage' and 'wanting a pony'.

So once a group has decided to stand with name calling hate preachers a few times over, it is a bit late for those people to suddenly claim they 'always oppose any denigrating language'. Because they have often supported such language, and those who did not support it downplayed it, dismissed the importance of it and most certainly expected LGBT people to accept all insults without comment.
So folks who suddenly have empathy for insulted murderers who had no empathy for innocent insulted LGBT people are hypocrites of the first degree.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trying to protect "free speech" is all very well and good... [View all] Turborama Jan 2015 OP

I'm afraid I strongly disagree. Hate speech needs to be protected against state censure. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #1

You disagree that haters fight the hardest to protect hate speech? Turborama Jan 2015 #2

Anyone else who wants to add themselves to the list join the queue and sign up... nt Turborama Jan 2015 #3

Yeah, I'll add myself. GGJohn Jan 2015 #14

Let me ask a question. Do you support the right of an abusive spouse sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #19

Comparing apples to Edsels. cherokeeprogressive Jan 2015 #37

How so? Speech is speech. I am reading comments here stating that even the 'most vile and hateful sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #45

You're describing assault PeaceNikki Jan 2015 #50

So, some speech is assault. That's not the response I'm getting in this thread though. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #60

Do you know the difference between hate speech and assault? NuclearDem Jan 2015 #63

I know the difference, do you? sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #64

I don't think you do. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #65

Is verbal abuse speech that should be protected or not in domestic violence situations? sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #72

Ugh. Alright, clearly you don't know what assault is. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #73

You're making no sense whatsoever. Same old personal attacks. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #74

I have no "interest" in you. You post nonsense, and I reply. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #83

Youa are spot on. politicman Jan 2015 #78

Well, that's because that's what it is, GGJohn Jan 2015 #80

so please enlighten us then. politicman Jan 2015 #82

Sorry, but I'm not gonna play a gotcha moment with you. GGJohn Jan 2015 #88

I can't find any law against spousal verbal abuse. Can you please post something sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #97

As I told you before, GGJohn Jan 2015 #102

What 'gotcha' game? After you and couple of others stated that verbal spousal abuse was 'assault' sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #105

Here's my simple answer, GGJohn Jan 2015 #108

Those who claimed, in this thread, that spousal verbal abuse was legally defined as 'assault' were sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #110

I'm not upset with you. GGJohn Jan 2015 #112

Okay, sorry if I misunderstood you. I agree with you which is why I was surprised to be told sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #116

Maybe I should clarify my earlier posts, GGJohn Jan 2015 #118

Yes, my question was to try to find out if they really meant, as I have seen stated here, 'that all sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #81

Really, you would outlaw such speech? treestar Jan 2015 #89

You said that, I didn't say that. So you agree with those who say that all speech, 'no matter how sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #96

Yes. Deal with it other ways. It can't be banned. treestar Jan 2015 #98

I was told in this thread that spousal verbal abuse is legally considered 'assault' and illegal. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #111

I think they are wrong and it is not an assault treestar Jan 2015 #113

True, thankfully. I don't know if, on it's own, it is enough for a protection order. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #115

That's assault, which is already against the law. GGJohn Jan 2015 #66

I agree with the OP but I don't accept that all speech is free malaise Jan 2015 #86

That's not a free speech issue. cleanhippie Jan 2015 #90

Then you don't agree with those here who are claiming that 'all speech, no matter how vile, should sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #93

Lol cleanhippie Jan 2015 #95

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Verbal Spousal Abuse IS a free speech issue, and no, it is not illegal sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #117

Ha!!!! GGJohn Jan 2015 #16

Sign me up too. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #20

Lock me in. TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #21

Done. Turborama Jan 2015 #31

Good job, Inquisitor. Way to stand up for only the speech you like! TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #47

Who cares if we never have to deal with each other again? Turborama Jan 2015 #52

I'd like to be ignored twice, Thank You. cherokeeprogressive Jan 2015 #34

Because you are hateful and want to protect hate speech? Turborama Jan 2015 #39

I think the people who fight for it hardest are probably the ACLU. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #7

Has the ACLU defended abusive spouses for verbal abuse of their victims? Maybe they sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #22

That's not what most people use the words "hate speech" are talking about. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #30

So there are limits to vile, hateful speech? I'm seeing absolute statements that ALL speech sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #32

Of course there are. Here is a thread where I set out what I thought some of them should be. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #42

Assault is the overt act of intentionally trying to physically hurt someone. Rex Jan 2015 #104

Thank you, after being told in this thread that verbal abuse of a spouse was 'different' vile and sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #107

Yes, I agree strongly with the post you want to ignore. Yo_Mama Jan 2015 #84

Only two kinds of people will forcefully contest allegations against them -- the Guilty and Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #100

Who is this 'they' that is coming for us eventually? Don't you realize how silly that sounds? Rex Jan 2015 #99

Not from a UK perspective, it doesn't. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #106

Anyone else who wants to add themselves to the list join the queue and sign up... nt Turborama Jan 2015 #4

Next? Turborama Jan 2015 #6

Sign me up, please. cheapdate Jan 2015 #8

Sure, bye! n/t Turborama Jan 2015 #9

Bunk, free speech is free speech, no matter how much it offends someone ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #5

So, if you walked into the home of an abused woman and heard her spouse sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #27

What ridiculous strawman bullshit. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #33

Speech is speech is what I am hearing here. Even the most vile 'must be protected'. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #38

Protection against state censorship is not the same as privately condoning or accepting. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #44

It is bizarre folks have such difficulty with this concept. TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #48

The guarantee of free speech protects the citizens against the government - you don't make sense. Yo_Mama Jan 2015 #85

I would tell the woman to get out, get a gun and shoot his ass dead if he touches her or the kids ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #87

But he can verbally abuse her so long as he doesn't touch her? Okay, that's all I wanted sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #92

I did not say that, she is in an abusive relationship with a psycho ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #119

Popular speech needs no protection- it's popular. X_Digger Jan 2015 #10

DU and Democrats already protected hateful speech aggressively when Rick Warren was anointed Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #11

!!! +1 wavesofeuphoria Jan 2015 #23

I LESS THAN THREE YOU. sibelian Jan 2015 #29

Yes, everyone has free speech treestar Jan 2015 #91

Bullshit. MohRokTah Jan 2015 #12

Let me ask you then, verbal abuse of a spouse in a home where domestic abuse is sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #40

Sure, what government definitions and sanctions do you want to set on verbal abuse? TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #53

I don't want anything, I just want to know what recourse those who are victims of sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #58

If the discussion isn't the right then what is the point? We've left policy behind and I've lost the TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #59

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ. TransitJohn Jan 2015 #13

You made me LOL! Coventina Jan 2015 #56

Like the ACLU? PeaceNikki Jan 2015 #15

It's mostly hateful people who try to protect "hate speech". Turborama Jan 2015 #17

Do you consider the ACLU to be "hateful people"? (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #28

Read up on the ACLU's representation of the Nazi's in Skokie, IL. branford Jan 2015 #71

Pure horsehockey. GGJohn Jan 2015 #75

We should set you as a new pope of free speech - then you can tell us what speech el_bryanto Jan 2015 #18

OK Turborama Jan 2015 #43

Those hateful folks at the ACLU, defending the right of the KKK to march (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #24

"However" is the rich cousin of "but" nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2015 #25

This is a joke, right? Your little 'quote' doesn't even make sense. n/t Avalux Jan 2015 #26

Which part don't you get? Turborama Jan 2015 #35

All of it. Go for it, blow my mind. n/t Avalux Jan 2015 #61

LOL. All I can say to that is... Turborama Jan 2015 #67

I'd have to know who you're talking about before I respond tularetom Jan 2015 #36

I consider people who defend free speech to be true patriots dissentient Jan 2015 #41

If it's "mostly" hateful people, who do you feel are the remaining people? Gidney N Cloyd Jan 2015 #46

Other than the hateful? Absolutists, of course. Turborama Jan 2015 #49

Hate speech Basic LA Jan 2015 #51

Thank you! One would have thought this is a normal conclusion in these parts. Turborama Jan 2015 #54

What's amusing is the same people who are jumping on the 'defend all speech no matter how vile' sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #62

Funny thing is that no one here is defending the hate, GGJohn Jan 2015 #76

"against powerless minorities" Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #101

I'm trying to unpack this Neon Gods Jan 2015 #55

Define "hate speech." LWolf Jan 2015 #57

Hahaha!!! Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #68

Protect it from whom? kiva Jan 2015 #69

Not even close. 99Forever Jan 2015 #70

Who are these hateful people trying to protect free speech? The Framers, ACLU, lawyers, judges? merrily Jan 2015 #77

Define "hate speech", is what the Pope said about same-sex marriage threatening... Humanist_Activist Jan 2015 #79

Trying to protect free speech is all very well and good. (n/t) Iggo Jan 2015 #94

The more hateful the speech the stronger I will defend it... NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #103

+1000. eom GGJohn Jan 2015 #109

Is the ACLU a bunch of hateful people then? chrisa Jan 2015 #114