Politicspolitics

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 03:26 AM

California Democratic Party: First Amendment Limited To Exclude Hate Speech

Think about the massive ignorance it takes to even say that.

WHEREAS, Protecting First Amendment rights is critical, but is also limited to exclude hate speech using the concept that offending statements first should be viewed through the lens of the party experiencing the hate, and that Jews, LatinX, African-American, Asian Pacific Islander, Muslims, Disabilities and LGBTI communities can be targets of oppression and hate speech for a variety of reasons.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/48156/california-democratic-party-first-amendment-josh-hammer

Freedom of Speech doesn't Protect the Speech you love. It Protects the Speech you Hate. ESPECIALLY what you call Hate Speech.

And Since Twitter, Facebook and other Public Communications Conveyances are the New "Public Square" they can't Censor Either.

This Man should be Kicked in the Balls for Stupidity:

17 replies, 322 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply California Democratic Party: First Amendment Limited To Exclude Hate Speech (Original post)
Gunslinger201 Jun 10 OP
Bozo Haram Jun 10 #1
Gunslinger201 Jun 10 #3
imwithfred Jun 10 #2
def_con5 Jun 10 #4
jh4freedom Jun 10 #5
Steelydamned Jun 10 #6
jh4freedom Jun 10 #8
Steelydamned Jun 10 #11
jh4freedom Jun 10 #12
KittyCatIdiots Jun 10 #9
Muddling Through Jun 10 #7
jh4freedom Jun 10 #10
Muddling Through Jun 10 #13
PrescientWon. Jun 10 #14
Badsamm Jun 10 #15
bfox74 Jun 10 #16
Badsamm Tuesday #17

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:13 AM

1. I'm a democrat, but this is ridiculous

It's amazing to me how many don't seem to understand what free speech is.

Who gets to define what "Hate Speech" is? And why limit it to ethnic minorities and religious groups? Once this door is opened, there's no telling how far it'll go. How about free speech except to criticise the government? That's not a long away from this point as history shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozo Haram (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:02 AM

3. I was raised in a Democrat Household

But John F. Kennedy Democrats not Bernie Sanders Commies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:59 AM

2. It would be good for the California Democrats to understand that a

blade cuts two ways.

I'm not in favor of any suppression of speech, but as long as they keep insisting, sooner or later it's going to happen without any encouragement or discouragement from me, and the California Democrats aren't going to like the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 09:27 AM

4. As a matter of fact Dean is wrong

Every Federal court has struck down every hate speech code. Not one survived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 03:39 PM

5. As a California registered Democrat I suggest

That a red state’s legislature pass a law that states that uttering the word “abortion” is hate speech against the unborn.
That would shut the limits on the First Amendment crowd down very quickly.
Obviously I’m a First Amendment absolutist type of liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 03:47 PM

6. There's no....

...such thing as "hate speech" so, there's no need for any new laws. Much like there are no such things as "Red" states...there's only states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 04:33 PM

8. That is basically true, however...

there can be case specific exceptions to the rule. For example: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the “fighting words” doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

On April 6, 1940, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. Upon seeing the town marshal (who had returned to the scene after warning Chaplinsky earlier to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion), Chaplinsky attacked the marshal verbally. He was then arrested. The complaint against Chaplinsky stated that he shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity.

For this, he was charged and convicted under a New Hampshire statute forbidding intentionally offensive speech directed at others in a public place. Under New Hampshire's Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

Chaplinsky appealed the fine he was assessed, claiming that the law was "vague" and that it infringed upon his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled: “A criminal conviction for causing a breach of the peace through the use of "fighting words" does not violate the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 04:45 PM

11. And yet....

...nowhere in the Wiki piece does it use the term 'hate speech' and should it ever become codified into actual law, in today's climate, it would be used and abused to criminalize anyone and anything not toeing the progressive line.

It's a ridiculous proposition that would be used as a weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 05:28 PM

12. However...

“Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952), was a case that came before the United States Supreme Court in 1952. It upheld an Illinois law making it illegal to publish or exhibit any writing or picture portraying the "depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion". It is most known for giving a legal basis to some degree that forms of hate speech which may be deemed to breach U.S. libel law are not protected by the First Amendment.”

“The defendant in Beauharnais distributed a leaflet "setting forth a petition calling on the Mayor and City Council of Chicago 'to halt the further encroachment, harassment and invasion of white people, their property, neighborhoods and persons, by the Negro.'" His criminal conviction by the trial court was sustained by the Illinois Supreme Court which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld after rejecting the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process challenge.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #6)


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 03:55 PM

7. Sounds great. Lets declare it "Hate Speech"

to call anyone, especially a conservative, a Nazi unless you have a picture of them in a Nazi uniform or waiving a Nazi flag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 04:36 PM

10. So we could lock up any righty

Who calls members of Antifa “Nazis?” COOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 06:00 PM

13. We'd lock up a bunch more Lefties for the same reason.

Ilhan Omar. Rashida Tlaib and Occasional Cortex for starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:44 PM

14. who gets to define HATE?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:52 PM

15. When Bernie calls Trump a racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot

Is he guilty of using hate speech?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 09:17 PM

16. That retard commie hater needs to be locked up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bfox74 (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 11, 2019, 01:53 AM

17. Much bigger fish to gut

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics