- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
America does NOT need a hate speech law.
I quoted the only thing that matters from your post
America does NOT need a hate speech law.
Yes, the left is very vocal about their hate speech. You're right. They don't support the first amendment because they always try to shut down the free speech of those they oppose.
May I alter another viewpoint based on your words?
Suppose I argue something as benign as "Children are being inappropriately pressured to change their gender," or "Hormone treatments, puberty blockers, and surgeries can do irreparable harm." With the laws as they are in Canada (and the UK has similar laws), if my identity became known, any sufficiently motivated activist could use the courts here to destroy my life.
It's rare but not unheard of. I'm on a mailing list for an organization that crowdfunds to help pay the legal expenses for defendants in the worst of the worst abuses. They're now assisting in multiple cases every year.
After the war, Europe's civil institutions were systematically purged of right-wingers. This enabled the passage of "hate speech" laws, which allowed prosecution of political dissidents.
People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.
Have you ever considered you might be like a conversion therapist?..... That you might be like autism speaks?.... That you might be the baddie?
People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.
I
"hate speech" seems a dangerously vague and mutable definition to limit free speech with.
I've considered it and rejected it.Have you ever considered you might be like a conversion therapist?..... That you might be like autism speaks?.... That you might be the baddie?
I've considered it and rejected it.
But suppose I am "the baddie". The whole point of a so-called free society is that no one group or ideology is permitted to say, "You're the baddie, hence you don't get to make an argument."
Everybody gets to make their moral or political argument, and policy is decided based on the majority opinion on which argument is most persuasive, subject to the rules of a constitution or similar document.
Well, that is rather pat, isn't it, Phys251? Would you say that the ACLU only defended the Nazis marching in the Village of Skokie because the ACLU loved Nazis? Or is it because they believed that the government should not have the power of prior restraint to quash the public expression of opinions, no matter how vile? I defend the freedom of all these people to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions and political views publicly in words and writing, Phys251. I do not think that the government should be allowed so powerful as to restrict what political statements you, I or anyone else makes.
EDIT: I see that Ahlevah beat me to the punch.
:lamoBut the party of tolerance doesn't believe in tolerance. They want to silence anyone that opposes them. The party that has so hard fought for the first amendment, did so for shaping it in their image only.
As I said already, the ACLU is one of the few exceptions. But most people who use "free speech" as a smokescreen for their support for hate speech are trying to spread hate speech, not free speech. Otherwise why are they so loathe to support the free speech rights of those with whom they militantly disagree with, such as feminists and Black Lives Matter?
:lamo
Remind me again which side over the years has tried to censor feminists, LGBTQ rights activists, civil rights activists, and the like? Now all of a sudden your side is the "tolerant" one? :lol:
:lamoAnd who gets to determine that? When you think that way, most becomes all. Anytime someone makes a statement that could be taken as racist for example, is then deemed racist, though it might not be.
There are too many variable. Too many laws. We need to reduce the laws, and go back to what makes sense instead of trying to make people's thoughts illegal.
Censor... No.
Stop indoctrination, yes.
:lamo
So much fail in such a short post! Nothing even worth addressing in there. Git gud. :thumbs:
Your side wants to squash critical thinking. Critical thinking is anathema to fascism and hate speech, and that is why y'all hate it.
It seems the side that wants censorship laws wants to do that.
It was social liberals who stand for obscenity laws. And for restricting or banning violent video games. And for banning certain books. And for keeping science out of the classroom (something you would definitely know about ). And for prohibition.
Oh wait a minute...I meant social conservatives...
:lamoIt's no different that is having age appropriate anything.
As for prohibition?
Why doesn't the left learn from past mistakes?
:lamo
Did you miss the fact that it is social conservatives who have favored prohibition?
I've considered it and rejected it.
But suppose I am "the baddie". The whole point of a so-called free society is that no one group or ideology is permitted to say, "You're the baddie, hence you don't get to make an argument."
Everybody gets to make their moral or political argument, and policy is decided based on the majority opinion on which argument is most persuasive, subject to the rules of a constitution or similar document.