• 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!

Should it be legal to use ethnic slurs as insults? (1 Viewer)

Should it be legal to use ethnic slurs as insults?

  • Total voters
    67
CLAX1911 said:
Viral moment that could possibly be a stunt where a young mother supposedly called a black child the n word.
Click to expand...
ladies and gentlemen, there's that conservative conspiracy theory!
 
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
Your Nanny State can't handle free speech !

Our SUPERIOR Constitution is allows for free thought and speech, and makes for stronger individuals!
Why do you think America has been leading the world for so long, and canada is just there....

USA for the win!
Click to expand...
dude, we are as free as Canada is.
 
Moon said:
I agree and will go one step further. No one in government should be able to declare what is legal speech and what is not.
Click to expand...

That's a cool opinion. But they already have.
 
stealthycat said:
"in that community" ?

who's the say/decide the meanings? Maybe "in that community" offends me .... doesn't that count ?


see above - a black man calling another black man N word being highly offensive to someone ... isn't that a "my problem" thing?


or learn to ignore it ?



go top youtube

search for the Star Trek episode with Abe Lincoln and how he addressed Ohura ...... Star Trek - "The Savage Curtain" episode

in 1968 Roddenberry understood ... and yet in 2025 people still don't
Click to expand...
Why are you so vigorously defending racial slurs, @stealthycat ?
 
Grand Mal said:
It's simple. The First Amendment only limits what Congress can do. The language couldn't be clearer. A state government or city government can't violate the first. Only Congress could.
Why is this a problem?
Click to expand...
yeah, i think you're on to something. Just look at gun laws in many democratic states. They do put limits on firearms
 
rahl said:
Nope. I would have to touch you in order for it to be assault and/or battery. Calling you a name is protected speech.
Click to expand...
Go ahead . We know you want to. Go ahead and get it all out. Feel free to get every slur out against anyone who you don't like.
 
madman said:
yeah, i think you're on to something. Just look at gun laws in many democratic states. The do put limits on firearms
Click to expand...
The US Constitution is intended to delineate the powers of the federal government. That's my understanding. States hold onto their powers, the Fed can't infringe on State jurisdictions. That's my understanding.
The Constitution protects States jurisdictions.
 
rahl said:
Nope. I would have to touch you in order for it to be assault and/or battery. Calling you a name is protected speech.
Click to expand...
Go ahead. Call me offensive names. The worst names you can think of. See if the First Amendment protects your position on this board.
 
tharock220 said:
Yes it should be legal. That doesn't mean you should do it.

I support restaurants being able to have "White Men Only" policies, but as a white male I wouldn't eat at one.
Click to expand...
said by "very conservative"

:cautious:
 
I just want to point out that having the 1st amendment does not make the US more superior than other countries. It can only make us look ignorant and deplorable.
 
rahl said:
Correct, because it’s protected speech.

There is no legal ramifications for doing so. The 1st amendment is perfectly clear.
Click to expand...
some say that the 2nd amendment is perfectly clear, but here we are.
 
Noodlegawd said:
No, because the president should not be able to unilaterally declare what is legal or not.
Click to expand...
all he/she needs to do is hold up a book with his signature. I mean, that's happening now
 
aociswundumho said:
Regarding free speech it's not even close. The USA is really the only country on the planet that permits free speech.
Click to expand...
then i would say those other free countries are more civilized.

Freedom of speech really does not enhance everyone's daily lives.
 
madman said:
I just want to point out that having the 1st amendment does not make the US more superior than other countries. It can only make us look ignorant and deplorable.
Click to expand...

It’s not about being superior, it’s just a fact: the U.S. protects speech other countries would throw you in jail for. Whether that is "superior" depends on how much you value individual liberty.
 
Grand Mal said:
The only body that can 'override' the First Amendment is Congress. The First Amendment limits what Congress can do. Nobody else. No mention of any other authority.
I thought you guys were 'originalists', believing in what the Constitution actually says? You're trying to stretch and twist the First Amendment into what you think it should have said, what you wish it said.
Click to expand...
Jeez, going for a strawman. I never claimed to be an originalist as far as that goes. You are missing the point. State and municipal lawmakers are not able to broach constitutional rights because it violates the rights of citizens due to the 14th amendment spelling exactly that out in regard to the 1st amendment.
 
madman said:
then i would say those other free countries are more civilized.
Click to expand...

If censoring speech to protect feelings is the standard for "civilized", then authoritarian regimes must be downright enlightened.

A society that trusts its people to handle offensive ideas like adults is more mature, and therefore more civilized.
 
madman said:
then explain gun laws
Click to expand...
SCOTUS are cowards in regard to some amendments versus others. As a for instance, they do not ascribe strict scrutiny to the 2nd amendment, but they do to the 1st, when it comes to speech--religion, not so much.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Jeez, going for a strawman. I never claimed to be an originalist as far as that goes. You are missing the point. State and municipal lawmakers are not able to broach constitutional rights because it violates the rights of citizens due to the 14th amendment spelling exactly that out in regard to the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the First Amendment. I was told it protects the right to use racial slurs and I point out that it does nothing of the kind.
 
It's your choice to be a racist, bigot, asshole or not. Own it proudly. Those who disagree feel free to be chastised and called racists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom