Regarding "Hate Speech"

[H2O Man]

14. Respectfully disagree.

Let's take this OP, for but one example. My choice of the recent "cartoon" conflict was entirely conscious. There were several good reasons for that. Let's consider but two.

First, it is quite obviously an issue that has currently been reported on in the media, and thus discussed on DU:GD. It has been a central discussion recently, in large part due to the obvious context: there is a substantial conflict being played out around the globe, that includes a segment of the Islamic faith against western society, including the USA. The US military, as well as "private contractors" being paid in large part by tax dollars, is involved with that violence, including the increased level since 2001.

Second, my primary focus was the shifting nature of Constitutional Law. I selected the three cases that are included for very specific reasons. My OP was a bit longer than I originally intended, or else I would have included several-to-many other important, related cases. Instead, I made the conscious choice to focus upon those three, because I think they have the best chance of indicating how what many good people think that Amendment 1 provides for, in actuality, the USSC often interprets it in a curious and different manner.

The issue of the potential for violence in response to "hate speech" has played a role in how various USSC justices have ruled in the past. As noted in the OP, this includes the potential for immediate violence, and includes the potential for either side to initiate gross violence. I would suspect that in the current environment, most people would identify a cartoon "contest" aimed at insulting the most violence-prone segments of the Islamic community is more likely to result in violence than any of the dozens of other types of "hate speech" that degrade our society.

I also feel safe in speculating that the USSC -- and republicans in Washington, DC -- would be far more likely to attempt to institute new laws to "protect" society, based upon the potential threat from violence-prone Islamic people, than any of the dozens of other groups of good people who are daily the targets of "hate speech." The clearly unconstitutional "Patriot Act" is an obvious example that illustrates this reality.

This is much like other issues, in which a person could fail to focus upon the central discussion, and instead attempt to make everything about him/herself. For example, there are numerous discussions about police officers across the country shooting and killing black men. I could contribute a whine about my non-black cousin and his son being shot by an off-duty cop on each and every one of those OP/threads. Likewise, sometimes we see OP/discussions about the very real issues of domestic violence, specific to males hitting females. Again, a person could mark their spot on each and every one, by pointing out the incidents of females battering males, or females battering females.

While such things are important -- be it a law enforcement official shooting two non-black men, or virtually all incidents of domestic violence -- I do not believe that there is an ethical compulsion to include every victim in each and every post.

The person who raised the issue that you responded to has, for a reason that I have no interest in speculating about -- found it to be his duty to attack me over the years for a variety of reasons. He was terribly insulted when I said that I opt to read non-fiction, and haven't read fiction since high school (note: I have actually read books about several republicans over the deacades, and suppose they could be called "fiction.&quot And he is just terribly upset that I am a student of the Great Sport of boxing -- which he refers to as a "blood sport." In recent months, he has added his current complaint on almost every OP I have posted here.

As this is a public forum, I respect that is his right. But that is the only thing that I find that I can "respect" about him. His opinion is of no more significance to me than a tiny drop of urine in a mighty ocean. His demands play no role, in terms of influencing what I may or may not write about on DU:GD. In this sense, he fits snuggle in the small group of females who I previously enjoyed communicating with, but who I believe add toxicity to discussions on DU about women's issues. It doesn't change my concerns about those issues, simply because I may find a few individuals to be bitter.