General Discussion

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)

4. Defining hate groups is why we must not allow the government to crack down on...

Reply to cynatnite (Original post)

Sat Aug 19, 2017, 11:26 AM

Aug 2017

their speech alone.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hate groups: I will not defend your right to free speech [View all] cynatnite Aug 2017 OP

We will overwhelm their weak, cowardly voices with voices so loud MineralMan Aug 2017 #1

Sorry, can't agree... Wounded Bear Aug 2017 #2

I used to feel the same... cynatnite Aug 2017 #3

Then you simply don't support free speech. BostonianMagi Aug 2017 #29

Free clue: popular speech needs no protection- it's popular. X_Digger Aug 2017 #41

Agree with you and Bostonian. The vast majority of the Hortensis Aug 2017 #47

finally a voice of reason nt burnbaby Aug 2017 #35

Agreed. bluepen Aug 2017 #63

Defining hate groups is why we must not allow the government to crack down on... Weekend Warrior Aug 2017 #4

I will defend their right to free speech edhopper Aug 2017 #5

Also free speech does not mean without consequence. Egnever Aug 2017 #12

"Don't give them their freedom because they're not going to give you yours." johnp3907 Aug 2017 #6

I'm sympathetic to the impulse, but I can't go along with you. aikoaiko Aug 2017 #7

I support the first amendment taught_me_patience Aug 2017 #8

Not listening hasn't gotten us far... cynatnite Aug 2017 #9

Nor do you have to stand idly by and let them spew Egnever Aug 2017 #16

Free Speech can still be limited, when public policy demands it Mr. Ected Aug 2017 #10

The falsely screaming "fire" part of law is gone. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #11

The obscenity test is very strict and easy to overcome. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #13

Atlantic: It's Time To Stop Using "Fire in a crowded theater" Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #39

You're getting worked up by an infinitesimally small population of crazy people. Calista241 Aug 2017 #14

We didn't have a fucking Nazi in the WH either. n/t cynatnite Aug 2017 #15

I'm sorry but saying sarisataka Aug 2017 #17

Is Germany unable to conduct fair trials because of their limits on free speech? n/t cynatnite Aug 2017 #18

Equivalent, not dependent... sarisataka Aug 2017 #19

They do not in regards to hate speech. n/t cynatnite Aug 2017 #23

I will, until my last breath. That is all. tritsofme Aug 2017 #20

Good on you. OBenario4 Aug 2017 #21

Defending hate speech is like defending someone's right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater MrScorpio Aug 2017 #22

Understand your argument, but want to point out that shouting fire isn't illegal. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #24

People were using "fire in a crowded theater" to suggest censoring "blasphemy" here not long ago Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #45

Atlantic: It's Time To Stop Using "Fire in a crowded theater" Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #46

Meet free speech with free speech struggle4progress Aug 2017 #25

Yup Egnever Aug 2017 #27

free speech must be defended AlexSFCA Aug 2017 #26

I'll defend everyone's right to free speech. Iggo Aug 2017 #28

I will defend their right to free speech. It is the fundamental value of the America we aspire to. Squinch Aug 2017 #30

Excellent point. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #43

i thinks Abrams vs United States in 1919 gave the answer to.... samnsara Aug 2017 #31

Atlantic: It's Time To Stop Using "Fire in a crowded theater" Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #42

Brandenburg superceded that. You CAN. n/t X_Digger Aug 2017 #44

This is frightening and dangerous oberliner Aug 2017 #32

Probably not since we've got a Nazi-in-Chief... cynatnite Aug 2017 #33

Someone could argue that calling Trump a Nazi is hate speech oberliner Aug 2017 #34

This isn't about disagreeing over an issue like abortion, healthcare, etc... cynatnite Aug 2017 #36

Calling the President a Nazi can be defined as anti-American hate speech oberliner Aug 2017 #37

SCOTUS has consistently sided with free speech... cynatnite Aug 2017 #49

The 1st Amendment isn't the problem, here. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #38

Then you have a preference, not a principle. X_Digger Aug 2017 #40

It's easy to be a free speech absolutist if you're not being threatened cagefreesoylentgreen Aug 2017 #48

I come from a family of Jews who had people in Europe during the Holocaust. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #51

I don't believe there are any easy solutions cagefreesoylentgreen Aug 2017 #53

For one, respond to speech with more speech, which is what is happening already. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #54

Incitement is not protected free speech. L. Coyote Aug 2017 #50

There are those who would consider some DU posts to be incitement. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #58

And I've alerted on incitement here. L. Coyote Aug 2017 #59

That's a different issue. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #60

Do not agree. Free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. RelativelyJones Aug 2017 #52

If we don't defend hate speech... defacto7 Aug 2017 #55

That's the hardest part of defending the 1st Amendment nini Aug 2017 #56

Popular speech needs no such protection- it's popular. n/t X_Digger Aug 2017 #62

The answer to speech you disagree with is more speech, not less Rob H. Aug 2017 #57

"Freedom of speech" and the paradox of tolerance Spider Jerusalem Aug 2017 #61

Basically, the entire Republican Party should be banned by this definition Fluke a Snooker Aug 2017 #64