• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Hate Church Makes a Case for Free Speech


Once again -- this is obviously over your head and I'm not interested in engaging you.


The "honest, educated, objective posters" disagree with you.

If you ever manage to get that chip off your shoulder, come back and try again. More folks would be likely to give you a chance. As it is -- it's simply not worth it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Whether they are a hate group or not, the SPLC is just another soros funded alt-left hack organization. They are so bad, the fbi dropped them from a list of sources.
Click to expand...

This is another good point -- what is the political purpose behind the SPLC?

They certainly do seem to fall into the alt-left category, but I wasn't aware they were one of Soros' pets.

I did read that the FBI was discounting them as a valid source in some instances, and that makes sense, if they're going to be showing blatant bias.

At the end of the day, they're just not a great group and I'm wondering how the lawsuit against them will go.
 

Translation: you still cant support any of your claims with any facts that make them true or even logical since multiple posters have destroyed them. LMAO. That's what I thought!
Also please list these "honest,educated and objective posters that agree with your false claim that free speech is infringed on by labels. We would LOVE to read it

Dont forget, as always, when you can show one fact that this infringes on free speech and you are ready to stop posting lies and dodging the questions that prove your claims wrong, please let us know, thanks!
 

Please show where the FBI discounted them as a valid source because of blatant bias
This will be good, I bet this question is dodged too LMAO
 

Indeed, way over people’s head who disagrees with you. :roll:

You’re right, why would anyone negate your arguments? The world should revolve around your opinions and beliefs. Very few people, like yourself, are capable of grasping such complex issues like hate crimes and freedom of speech issues like you.

By the way, did you happen to read my post #60? It was actually a reply to you and AO’s Post #53 and #59.

From one of your previous post, I’d like to point out....

There is a difference between deaths or being harmed (hitting someone in the head with a instrument of some kind) resulting from one having immutable characteristics that others hate - versus having what is opined by a bigot to be an offended by a hairstyle.

A person who is considered by a bigot to have an offensive or bad hairstyle can be coerce by the bigot into changing it to avoid harm or death. At least that offers a person with an offensive hairstyle a choice as to whether or not they want to be harmed or even killed. Say a person of color, who is hated solely for their skin color, isn’t capable of possibly saving themselves from being harmed or killed, regardless.
 
1A. They can believe that crap if they want. Same as the Identity and KKK bunch.
 
By SPLC's own standards can be identified as a hate group.
 
vesper said:
By SPLC's own standards can be identified as a hate group.
Click to expand...

You mean by YOUR opinions and feelings of their standards LOL
 
AGENT J said:
You mean by YOUR opinions and feelings of their standards LOL
Click to expand...

No I mean exactly what I said. By their own standards they do not pass the smell test.
 
vesper said:
No I mean exactly what I said. By their own standards they do not pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

Once again based on your feelings and opinions of their standards
 

Grow thicker skin.

You're on the wrong side of the old childhood saying, "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names can never hurt me."

Millions of mothers have imparted wisdom to snowflake children with those words. And, they're still true today.

The First Amendment protects the words of those we find repulsive due to their beliefs. The SPLC is circumventing the Constitution in order to label groups with which they disagree.

I never stated the SPLC didn't have the "right" to do that. I simply asked if they were infringing on the free speech of others (through social shaming) with their labels. The Church in the OP appears to think that's what's happening to them.

We've had some good thoughtful posts on the topic (including yours), and then we've had some flighty, non-thinking posts. That's the way most threads go so it's not surprising, but in order to maintain the topic, I'm not addressing the posters who simply want to throw mud.
 

Your argument is as follows:

SLPC designates groups as a “hate group.” Some entities and people will review SLPC designations to determine whether to provide money or associate in a formal or professional capacity with the group. Such a designation has resulted in some entities, for sure one, to lose funding of some kind. This has the effect of infringing upon free speech as groups will modify their speech to avoid the undesirous consequences of the label “hate” group. In other words, there is a “shaming” of these groups and this has the potential to chill speech.

A component of free speech of course includes the liberty to use labels to describe and characterize things, objects, people, groups, etcetera. This is especially true in regards to matters of pure opinion. Excluding defamation and other forms of speech exceptions under the law, speech in the form of opinion should be protected. Whether some entity is a “hate” group because of its views is purely subjective, it is an opinion as opposed to a statement asserting facts that could harm a reputation. So, for example, falsely claiming someone to be a member of the KKK is an assertion of fact that is more amenable to validate or falsify.

But labeling some group as a hate group is mere opinion, as there isn’t any objective facts unequivocally demonstrating whether some group is a “hate” group. Pure opinion should be permitted. If some group dislikes the opinion of another, such as a label, then the proper remedy is for the group to respond with speech denouncing the label, its use, applicability, and publicly deride those using the label, as opposed to seeking to take away free speech of others to give a pure opinion.

As you’ve acknowledged, there may be societal consequences for speech. One such consequence is the use of labels in a pure opinion manner. Labels such as the speech was racist, sexist, unpatriotic, ant-American, anti-religion, hate speech, and I’d include the labels they’re commies, they’re fascists, they are a of “hate” group, is an inherent part of a society valuing free speech. Free speech undoubtedly permits the use of labels to demonize the opposing point of view and those expressing the message. Those are the unavoidable consequences of free speech, the use of labels to demonize the message and messenger.

And the “social engineering” argument is to unpersuasive quite simply because social engineering is an inherent quality of society, and speech is indispensable to it. Indeed, your own opinion is part of “social engineering” as you express a vision of what should occur in society and in expressing your views, hope to so influence others and society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

I've thought about this question extensively, and any attitude that the label "hate" creates, is very much the option of the perceiver to accept it is hate, or reject it as hate.

Of course it is social engineering, and in a social environment where the constitutional PURPOSE as allowed by the 9th Amendment is NOT defined, such social engineering is to be expected as a default. Or, if the opposite is not defined, then the extreme can be effectively defined.

When the ultimate constitutional PURPOSE of free speech is defined, then Americans will automatically know that such speech now labeled "hate" is really the opposite of constitutional.

My thread here;

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-c...ee-speech-re-established-through-9th-amd.html

Is about this and for creating an understanding of HOW the living document, lives through us and our need of its service to fix, generation and after generation, principles that are indeed timeless and always serving humanity, and firstly that humanity that lives under its natural law doctrines as they respect all humanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…