General Discussion

EllieBC

(3,639 posts)

24. It sounds all well and fine until it gets used against you.

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 10:26 PM

Sep 2017

If you don't think that the RW wouldn't use "hate speech" laws to punish women's rights groups, BLM, SPLC, the ADL, and others you are living in a dream world.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If only we had European-style Hate Speech Laws on the books, we wouldn't have a white supremacist in [View all] jcmaine72 Sep 2017 OP

Where are you going wrong? Iggo Sep 2017 #1

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #4

You asked me. I answered. Iggo Sep 2017 #8

Can you please show me where I specifically called for getting rid of freedom of speech? jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #10

Just the speech you don't like? Baconator Sep 2017 #14

How do Europeans manage to have more robust political discourse than we do? jberryhill Sep 2017 #16

"more robust political discourse" is a matter of subjective opinion. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #22

Okay I'll bite jberryhill Sep 2017 #34

They weren't caused BY the 1st Amendment, either. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #41

Splinter groups, radical parties, and a weakened political center... Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #37

They don't. That's how. GulfCoast66 Sep 2017 #38

The cynical attitude among much of the US population elected Trump muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #47

They don't. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #94

That's merely dogmatic jberryhill Sep 2017 #5

the 18th Amendment has been repealed. And it wasn't part of the Bill of Rights. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #23

So was the third jberryhill Sep 2017 #30

how do you know what I have, or haven't done? Serious question. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #44

Erm.. Kentonio Sep 2017 #63

Yeah, and England wasn't exactly prime cotton-growing country, either. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #68

Why would you see a contradiction? Kentonio Sep 2017 #74

Because I do. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #76

Yet you should also recognize that propaganda and psychological manipulation are real Kentonio Sep 2017 #81

fine, it's "childish" to support the 1st Amendment. Bill of Rights? clearly written by toddlers. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #82

And there's the childishness in the argument Kentonio Sep 2017 #84

there is no ambiguity in "Congress shall make no law...". That is unambiguous language. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #85

Who cares about ambiguity or a lack of it in an amendment written 226 years ago? Kentonio Sep 2017 #87

And... so the westboro shitheads are allowed to broadcast to the world exactly how awful they are. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #89

The point is that these examples of misuse of free speech represent a larger picture Kentonio Sep 2017 #91

Yep. I don't want to fuck with the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #92

You have done yeoman's work here. Thank you. tritsofme Sep 2017 #105

Who says Europeans enforce the laws sensibly and logically? hack89 Sep 2017 #2

Yes we would. sarah FAILIN Sep 2017 #3

Oh, brother. To dismiss the 1st Amendment with "Yeah, I know...." WinkyDink Sep 2017 #6

You're entitled to your opinion, but if three words taken out of context are all you walked jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #7

'cuz this reflexive bullshit about going after the 1st Amendment as if THAT is somehow the problem Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #20

Oh, I see. So, that makes it okay to take what someone wrote out of context or to present their jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #35

It really seems you don't understand the 1st Amendment, but you're not happy with it as it stands. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #46

Can you remind me of your view of the Citizen's United decision? jberryhill Sep 2017 #39

Boy, you sure seem to know quite a bit about me. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #43

I was just asking the question jberryhill Sep 2017 #56

I don't think you understood. While I question "money is speech" and "corporations are people" Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #67

Neither of those formulations is what the decision was about, though jberryhill Sep 2017 #78

I'm not either, which is why I am not one of the people putting that decision on the front burner. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #79

Brevity is the soul of wit. It is YOU about whom I wonder, re: "bothered posting at all." NOTHING WinkyDink Sep 2017 #55

Despite such laws sarisataka Sep 2017 #9

You do realize there are far right parties in Europe right? mythology Sep 2017 #11

That's a fair point. I'm certainly not arguing that such laws are enforced flawlessly at all times. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #13

Germany in the 1930s didn't have the 1st Amendment, either. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #19

Freedom of Speech Piasladic Sep 2017 #12

lets get some of those old fashioned blasphemy laws here? no thanx nt msongs Sep 2017 #15

Oh, some people are just chomping at the fucking BIT for that. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #18

Ah, yes, the problem is clearly the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #17

Where did I call for the First Amendment to be "done away with"? jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #28

Because questioning things for discussion is blasphemy jberryhill Sep 2017 #31

What's to discuss? Oh, yes, lets chip away at the 1st Amendment because we have a would-be mussolini Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #42

When you ban some forms of speech for what is essentially political reasons, the first amendment Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #95

The great thing about the First Amendment bluepen Sep 2017 #21

It sounds all well and fine until it gets used against you. EllieBC Sep 2017 #24

but ....we might be able to get the full frontal nudity off HBO! Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #25

I never understand why anyone thinks this is a good idea. EllieBC Sep 2017 #29

course. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #45

If you have hate-speech laws, somebody gets to decide what is hate speech... brooklynite Sep 2017 #26

I think I would go the opposite direction and hit him hard with freedom of the press ProudLib72 Sep 2017 #27

Without getting into a philosophical argument, consider what happens when conservatives take power Azathoth Sep 2017 #32

If properly applied there would be no conservatives. ileus Sep 2017 #104

Probably very few, lest of all those here who have been the most vocal in attacking such laws. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #110

Scrapping the First Amendment is practically impossible and would destroy our nation LittleBlue Sep 2017 #33

That's pretty funny. I take it you've never actually been to Europe? Kentonio Sep 2017 #64

"I take it" blah blah blah, here's a Brit explaining why Britain would be our poorest state + stats LittleBlue Sep 2017 #65

That's hilarious. Kentonio Sep 2017 #66

Factoring that in, it's still much higher LittleBlue Sep 2017 #69

And yet again you focus straight in on money. Kentonio Sep 2017 #90

Because money is important LittleBlue Sep 2017 #96

As far as universities go: muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #71

Those are subjective rankings. I posted rankings by endowments LittleBlue Sep 2017 #73

Kerching! You are trying to measure intelligence and civilization with wealth. muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #75

The original question was about civilization LittleBlue Sep 2017 #80

Your system puts the money under private control muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #88

Of course we do. LittleBlue Sep 2017 #97

Swell idea. Let's give the Justice Department, headed by one Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III tritsofme Sep 2017 #36

I agree with you 100% Tumbulu Sep 2017 #40

So, out of curiosity: what's the FIRST thing you want censored? Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #48

i really like you Warren, so I will answer your question Tumbulu Sep 2017 #98

I understand. I'm against violence, too, but I don't think censorship is any way to fight/stop it. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #99

But we are a community of people and images are powerful...... Tumbulu Sep 2017 #100

I'll try to answer in as linear and rational a fashion as I can. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #101

Thank you Warren, I am going to think about all that you wrote Tumbulu Sep 2017 #108

Thanks Warren, I am back now and gave your excellent post a lot of thought Tumbulu Oct 2017 #121

I don't mind vigorous debate on this topic, nor do I begrudge someone for holding a different jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #49

So State yourself clearly: sarisataka Sep 2017 #52

I did state myself clearly. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #58

And you really think it is a good idea to give Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III tritsofme Sep 2017 #59

"Hate speech" sarisataka Sep 2017 #60

You accuse people of misrepresentation, while you yourself do the same thing: Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #70

As Voltaire once said ... dawg Sep 2017 #50

My favorite Voltaire quote! Dr. Strange Sep 2017 #62

Seriously. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #77

I'd like to task you with a thought exercise melm00se Sep 2017 #51

+100 Loki Liesmith Sep 2017 #54

Defined by title nine protections for state and federal elections, easy peasy uponit7771 Sep 2017 #72

Tell that to the Supreme Court and the trans-gender community. WinkyDink Sep 2017 #102

Trump is making a lot of people propose dumb ideas Loki Liesmith Sep 2017 #53

It might help if people voted struggle4progress Sep 2017 #57

I'm not a fan of criminalizing something that hasn't been defined onenote Sep 2017 #61

blasphemy and nudity. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #83

Oregon's state constitution contains even stronger free speech protections than the 1st Amendment Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #86

What protections does it contain? NobodyHere Sep 2017 #106

Here you go: Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #109

That is insane. I would not want to restrict speech...even speech I don't like. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #93

Our side should get to author what is hate speech. ileus Sep 2017 #103

I think you forgot the little sarcasm thingy (n/t) Seeking Serenity Sep 2017 #107

Frankly, it's easier just to ban the Republican Party Fluke a Snooker Sep 2017 #111

They certainly meet most if not all of the criteria laid out by the SPLC to designate them as a hate jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #112

What a disgusting totalitarian fantasy. tritsofme Sep 2017 #113

Why is it disgusting, totalitarian or illiberal to designate an organization that embraces jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #114

no one's buying the act Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #115

Yeah right. I refuse to engage you upthread because of the way you dishonestly portrayed my jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #117

mm hmmm Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #119

Sorry, but I think I have to block you now. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #120

I wouldn't mind if none was ever elected again, frankly. Why should I mind? For another murderous WinkyDink Sep 2017 #116

Why stop there? Imagine how great things would be if we just killed everyone who disagrees with us. name not needed Sep 2017 #118