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
Showing Original Post only (View all)Can We Stop Saying "Pam Geller Has Free Speech?" [View all]
What she has, is Constitutionally protected speech.
Hate speech carries a heavy, terrible, sometimes generations-long, price tag.
It is not, and never has been "free."
Someone always pays for it.
Usually innocents.
Constitutionally-protected speech, used to urge the denial of life, rights, and equity to others, has nothing to do with "freedom," so it's not "free" that way, either.
I'm willing to concede hate speech its Constitutional protection.
I am not willing to miscall it "free" in any way.
That is all.
obstinately,
Bright
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
158 replies, 12146 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (37)
ReplyReply to this post
158 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
someone decides that you can't wear the color green and will become violent if you do.
samsingh
May 2015
#28
beheading and shooting people is far more cruel than anything you've described
samsingh
May 2015
#73
Progressive nations like Britain are doing just fine without those amendments n/t
951-Riverside
May 2015
#47
at least one of the would be killers was known to be in contact with terrorists
samsingh
May 2015
#158
Yakno, Some day we will be able to ARREST people for saying stuff we don't like!
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#157
At the very least this incident should put her 'Freedom Defense Initiative' in a high risk category
tanyev
May 2015
#4
she hasn't or threatened to kill anyone. how is she in the same league as those disgusting
samsingh
May 2015
#61
because in the United States and Europe, "Islam" is heavily racialized, particularly by islamophobes
Scootaloo
May 2015
#43
islamists have beheaded thousands of people in the middle east. i don't have any support for that
samsingh
May 2015
#72
don't try to say i'm supporting geller. i hate atlas. your name calling is interesting and
samsingh
May 2015
#82
You have your facts wrong. In the United States for instance 30% of Muslims are whites.
totodeinhere
May 2015
#104
Because it nearly always goes hand in hand with prejudice against scary evil brown people.
nomorenomore08
May 2015
#109
should we link to islamist fundamentalist sites and isis? i would feel very dirty
samsingh
May 2015
#50
shooting people up in the name of a religion may prove the 'those' comments to have some truth
samsingh
May 2015
#26
What broadbrush? Implying that Muslims, as a group, are responsible for these atrocities.
nomorenomore08
May 2015
#112
So the other 80-85% should be lumped in with the terrorists and radicals, and treated accordingly?
nomorenomore08
May 2015
#114
For one thing, speaking out against extremism is punishable by death in some places.
nomorenomore08
May 2015
#118
The poster mentioned women's voting. Either it's allowed in Muslim countries or it is not. Facts
WinkyDink
May 2015
#126
It's wrong. If appears to not understand what the word 'freedom' means, and what 'free speech'
muriel_volestrangler
May 2015
#23
so what if it was? Our right to free speech is not limited to "non hate speech".
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#127
Much the same can be said of the Christian Bible. People were executed for "blasphemy" and "sodomy"
nomorenomore08
May 2015
#119
I think you underestimate the number of Christians who still take the Bible literally (or claim to).
nomorenomore08
May 2015
#151
I'm fairly certain that what the Founders were after was a protection from a tyrannical government.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
May 2015
#132
no. Freedom of speech - aka "free speech" is the exact language used to describe this right.
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#123
In case any body is curious, this was the winning cartoon: (warning-depiction of Mohammed)
EX500rider
May 2015
#142
Hatespeech is absolutely constitutionally protected,and I'm gonna engage in hate speech in this post
Shoulders of Giants
May 2015
#146