General Discussion

underthematrix

(5,811 posts)

81. If we had that law here most of the GOP candidates

Reply to Sunlei (Original post)

Mon Aug 31, 2015, 02:43 PM

Aug 2015

would be arrested and charged

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

92 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

25 Indicted for posts on far-right Stormfront website [View all] Sunlei Aug 2015 OP

Just out of curiosity, was Trump's name on that list? world wide wally Aug 2015 #1

If it was, you can bet that Walker's and Christie's names will be on there tomorrow. Still In Wisconsin Aug 2015 #16

A sensible hate crime law that purposely, clearly and enforceably defines and restricts violent hate speech, as most modern nations do. Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #2

You mean like Silvio Berlusconi? House of Roberts Aug 2015 #3

So what you're saying is you oppose the First Amendment? NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #4

I said what I said. Hate crime laws are restrictions on free speech freely chosen by the freely elected Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #6

This is because you foolishly believe you will always be on the winning side. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #8

Do you actually know what hate speech laws prohibit? NuclearDem Aug 2015 #9

Typically religious or racial bigotry. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #11

Yet, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK aren't Orwellian totalitarian hellholes. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #13

you are free to leave at any time. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #15

"Uphold the Constitution" doesn't mean keep it as it was in the 18th century. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #21

What you mention are intentional acts, not speech. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #56

You need to brush up on your constitutional history. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #63

You just reiterated my previous comments. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #64

Except for the part about child pornography being a speech issue NuclearDem Aug 2015 #65

The court held that child pornography was the intrinisic outcome of an illegal act (sexual abuse). NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #66

And we ain't any of those countries. GGJohn Aug 2015 #17

How about Malaysia? lumberjack_jeff Aug 2015 #25

Pretty much anything they want dumbcat Aug 2015 #22

Are guns members of a sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, or nationality? NuclearDem Aug 2015 #24

No, so what? dumbcat Aug 2015 #27

We already have restrictions on speech coexisting with the First Amendment. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #32

"samesex marriage has been legalized, and yet I still can't marry my dog." cleanhippie Aug 2015 #40

It was an awkwardly worded comment about slippery slope fallacies. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #55

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Capt. Obvious Aug 2015 #42

Are you and your dog the same sex? Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #51

Easy. Make Christians a "protected" group. Prosecute anyone who uses "hate speech" against them. Oneironaut Aug 2015 #85

Countries with hate speech laws deal with cases like those as a matter of course. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #92

police don't seem to pay attention to 'freedom of speech' when they bust out on 'mouthy' people. Sunlei Aug 2015 #33

- L0oniX Aug 2015 #38

Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #12

Canada seems to have done better on several citizens 'basic rights' For example, Sunlei Aug 2015 #23

That doesn't change the fact that he, as a Canadian citizen, GGJohn Aug 2015 #26

Sure he can comment and have a say. I think the USA can use some help from Canada on how to Sunlei Aug 2015 #29

He can comment all he wants, GGJohn Aug 2015 #31

this is kind of weird but even the stormfront website restricts the use of word nigger Sunlei Aug 2015 #35

Results, 2-5 leave Lancero Aug 2015 #50

Jury results. 4 to 3 to LEAVE IT. merrily Aug 2015 #43

Excuse, me. What is a BoR? thx! n/t Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #44

Bill of Rights, I think (nt) Babel_17 Aug 2015 #47

Given the context, the the poster seems to mean that Canadians get no vote on our Bill of Rights. merrily Aug 2015 #49

Was that 3 or 4 alerts because you had the "nerve" to post that a Canadian merrily Aug 2015 #52

Well it's a good thing he posted it, because no one realized that before. kcr Aug 2015 #79

I wonder how he knew, then? merrily Aug 2015 #82

Yes ...Hitler has a right to free speech. L0oniX Aug 2015 #37

Godwin. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #57

- L0oniX Aug 2015 #59

. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #60

Sorry you missed it. Hilter would have the right to free speech in this country. L0oniX Aug 2015 #61

Read National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), branford Aug 2015 #91

Psst. Godwin's Law was something made up to see how fast it would spread. merrily Aug 2015 #67

I know it's not a "law". NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #68

I find citing of Godwin's law, as thought it means something, potentially dangerous. merrily Aug 2015 #69

The Supreme Court has often been deferential to police to the point of ridiculousness. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #71

I disagree with some of the First Amendment decisions of the SCOTUS. However, the rights do merrily Aug 2015 #73

They just get weaker until they protect almost nothing. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #75

The 4th has scared the crap out of judges since 9-11. merrily Aug 2015 #76

Here is an example of the danger: NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #74

My post referred to the danger of citing Godwin's law as though it were meaningful. merrily Aug 2015 #77

I was reiterating my point about allowing regulation of speech. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #78

So basically, you would gut the 1A? GGJohn Aug 2015 #10

Yep. If only Germany had not had the First Amendment in the 1930s, Nye Bevan Aug 2015 #18

If only the world bank didn't hand over the banks of the first 2 countries hitler invaded..he would Sunlei Aug 2015 #36

Germany had the First Amendment in the 1930s? Who knew? merrily Aug 2015 #53

Yet, to quote to Tom Wolf, branford Aug 2015 #19

The founders weren't smart... Oilwellian Aug 2015 #30

I don't think anyone on DU would characterize me as a gun nut. merrily Aug 2015 #45

The poster I responded to referred to the Second Amendment Oilwellian Aug 2015 #87

The influx of refugees arriving in both Italy and Greece Aerows Aug 2015 #5

For the people questioning whether there should be limits on free speech: XemaSab Aug 2015 #7

I'm glad I read your post twice. mahatmakanejeeves Aug 2015 #41

You forgot DU! Some would make the site illegal if they could. Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #48

There are lots of limits. The SCOTUS sometimes refers to them as "unprotected speech." merrily Aug 2015 #54

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Aug 2015 #14

I think the FBI puts you in a special file just for Googling Stormfront. Initech Aug 2015 #20

I believe the Mancino Law was actually put into effect in 1993 JustAnotherGen Aug 2015 #28

I support our 1st Amendment 100% Jake Stern Aug 2015 #34

March 7, 1934: Mock Trial of Hitler at Madison Square Garden Nye Bevan Aug 2015 #39

This is great news malaise Aug 2015 #46

For a second I thought that some crackpot US district attorney TeddyR Aug 2015 #58

I should have known that would never happen in America. Jamastiene Aug 2015 #62

But McVeigh and Rudolph were stopped. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #70

Stopped would mean not allowed to bomb people. Jamastiene Aug 2015 #83

It's not that simple with McVeigh. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #84

They might say that, but these groups are always reforming and regrouping. Jamastiene Aug 2015 #88

"McVeigh and Rudolph did massive damage all in the name of free speech." Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #89

You seem to be conflating our freedom of speech with freedom to bomb and murder. Nye Bevan Aug 2015 #72

I sure hope it never happens in America. Throd Aug 2015 #80

If we had that law here most of the GOP candidates underthematrix Aug 2015 #81

Do you think that's a good thing? Oneironaut Aug 2015 #86

"Do you think that's a good thing?" Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #90