Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Philly buses ordered to accept ads featuring Hitler & 1941 Palestinian leader [View all]daredtowork
(3,732 posts)104. I take it seriously, too
Which is why I have been so irked here.
Though my particular peeve is SLAPP suits since individuals cannot hope to match corporations in terms of resources when it comes to defending their rights to speech.
It's also why I defend anonymous speech: I'm well aware that while rights are in theory equal, the ability to defend those rights are dramatically unequal.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
144 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Philly buses ordered to accept ads featuring Hitler & 1941 Palestinian leader [View all]
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
OP
You're certainly welcome to place ads that refer to Jew-hating in the New Testament,
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#6
Actually, I think you're vastly misinformed about the 1st Amendment, and you're also dragging out a
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#35
I get your drift - and you are saying this is "KKK giving march down mainstreet"
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#41
I didn't realize that the criteria of 'truth' was 'longevity at DU'. But no problem, now I know.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#143
I think it's more difficult than that to determine the limits of free speech
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#33
you have the 1st Amendment right to 'deliberate' about it all you want.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#36
Saying something offensive - even REALLY offensive - is not screaming fire in a crowded theater
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#53
You must have stopped following the First Amendment sometime in the 1920s I guess
onenote
Mar 2015
#58
My view is not that narrow - I'm outraged over how easy it is for corps to get away with SLAPP cases
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#61
I think if you're actually interested in the subject, you might consider actually reading some of
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#73
Again, it's not a reading list. It's SCOTUS decisions specifically pertaining to "incitement".
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#78
There's no privacy being violated when someone says "all frimhatzes are big stinky warbnozzles"
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#83
The privacy law doesn't have to be the specific "other law" in this case. nt
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#86
You seem to think that decided questions of law should still be brought for a judge every time.
onenote
Mar 2015
#112
Well people on both sides of the aisle take turns squealing about free speech
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#40
If you read those decisions, they were written by judges. On the supreme court.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#75
Okay, then, serious answer? Talk to a lawyer. Or talk to several lawyers.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#91
Brandenburg v. Ohio. Also Street v. New York (1969) Cohen v. California (71) Gooding v. Wilson (74)
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#68
A noose in the workplace could be a direct threat of bodily harm, for one.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#82
I think the answer is, pretty clearly, only a direct threat constitutes an actual direct threat.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#92
Well we're gonna have to disagree. But I suggest you take it up with experts in the law.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#99
There is no chance this Supreme Court is going to expand what constitutes incitement
onenote
Mar 2015
#108
The same level of Jew hating is found in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," for
KingCharlemagne
Mar 2015
#76
It's even scarier that guys like you are constantly projecting on to everyone else
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#93
I'm not familiar with that site, just picked it at random from the Google results.
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#14
i tried googling for the article and photo using various search terms but couldn't
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#16
interesting. I don't get any 'human events' results on the front page (haven't looked at
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#18
Didn't show up 4th, or 6th, or even on the front page when I googled it. And it's
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#129
Well, I suppose someone could always do a "Jews killed our savior" bus ad.
Comrade Grumpy
Mar 2015
#8
and officials of various faith groups, ethnicities, and nationalities cooperated with the
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#13
in the torah too; they're all 3 variations on the same texts and they all share the
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#51
I'd like to see some group try getting hate ads for other groups on. It would be
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#133
So we should do away with all public fora an only allow speech on private property?
onenote
Mar 2015
#65
Squaring the circle: Israel is operating its own system of apartheid in
KingCharlemagne
Mar 2015
#84
I don't see how the 1st Ammendment necessary implies that people need to be provided with a platform
redgreenandblue
Mar 2015
#101
The status of advertising on publicly owned buses under the public forum doctrine is contentious
onenote
Mar 2015
#115
Interesting. I was thinking it was more complicated than "this is free speech".
redgreenandblue
Mar 2015
#122
Whether its the OU incident, the Logan Act, charging Ernst with an Article 88 violation
onenote
Mar 2015
#125
I can see this being "discrimination at the work place" against Muslim bus drivers and therefore
redgreenandblue
Mar 2015
#121