Using basic terms incorrectly...

[BotanyBoy]

Hate speech is not free speech.

Yes, it is.

It's a growing technique and a strategy for right wing blogosphere, which is where so many of the wingnuts on this board get all of their information from.

Used incorrectly every single day are the terms:
Socialism
Anarchist
Social Justice

along with many handful more.

These words are used by the RWCJ to mean vastly different things than their actual definitions.

Says the guy who thinks a corporatocrisy (facism) is capitalism.....and that Soviet Russia and Red China are right wing.

LMFAO!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Hate speech is not free speech.

Yeah. It basically is.

"Hate speech is a term ... " ... defined in law, no?

No. It basically isn't.

Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Starting in the 1940s U.S states began passing hate speech laws. In Beauharnais v. Illinois the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's hate speech laws. Illinois's laws punished expression that was offensive to racial ethnic and religious groups. After Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court developed a free speech jurisprudence that loosened most aspects of the free speech doctrine.[87] In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[88]

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s speech and created the "imminent danger" test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[89]

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of banning hate speech arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such expressions considered racist and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[90] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence.[91] The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."[92]

In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in an unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito writes:

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[93]

Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes:

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.[93]

Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Supreme_Court_case_law

Thus, wherever states keep enacting "hate speech" laws based on liberal sensitivities, SCOTUS will keep striking them down.

Another way of making the point is that when people show up at protest rallies with bats, knives, guns and other weapons, it isn't their "speech" you have to worry about; therefore their speech need not be regulated beyond the standard set in Brandenburg.

 

[Rightguide]

So Antifa and the Nazis are the same thing? All "leftists", huh?

I think the Nazis that were walking in Charlotteville, under the moniker of "Unite the Right" have different opinions than you on this.

You have been schooled on this topic dozens of times, but you continue to repeat the same lies.

You've never "schooled" me on a damn thing, we've hardly interacted and besides, you aren't smart enough or informed enough to do so. So you can douse that pipe dream.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So Antifa and the Nazis are the same thing? All "leftists", huh?

From a liberal perspective, not the same, but both in left field....yea.

I think the Nazis that were walking in Charlotteville, under the moniker of "Unite the Right" have different opinions than you on this.

And most of them are uneducated retards who probably think Democrats are left and Republicans are right.

 

[water505]

When you forget to log in to one of your alts to back you up.

You're asked this question a lot: what in the hell are you talking about?

 

[hsnh]

Why don't you all say aloud that the Charlottsville demonstrators were antisocial thugs?
So that you can finally make up and fuck

 

[water505]

You've never "schooled" me on a damn thing, we've hardly interacted and besides, you aren't smart enough or informed enough to do so. So you can douse that pipe dream.

Dick has a vivid imagination to make up for his lack of brains.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Why don't you all say aloud that the Charlottsville demonstrators were antisocial thugs?
So that you can finally make up and fuck

Eew.

 

[phrodeau]

Why don't you all say aloud that the Charlottsville demonstrators were antisocial thugs?
So that you can finally make up and fuck

Eew.

No no, they need that. If they keep trying to suck their own dicks, they'll develop spine and neck problems.

 

[phrodeau]

May I ask you a hard question?

Why do you think that people who hold racist views should be given political power?

What "statutes" were replaced?

I could have guessed that these would stay unanswered.

 

[Aglaopheme]

You're asked this question a lot: what in the hell are you talking about?

No, I've never said any such thing before.

 

[OldJourno]

Words have meanings. They don't mean what you simply want them to mean. They don't mean what you hope they mean. They don't mean what you really, really want them to mean.

Right wing media has done a great job of confusing these folks and conflating basic terms. Right wing media has convinced its audience that nazis are "left wing fascists", and that anyone who they disagree with is a "socialist".

I concur that words have meanings. I also believe the German Nazis were left wing. Rather than rely on the right-wing media to brainwash me, though, I'll just offer this quote from Adolf Hitler:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

 

[Lancecastor]

And in fact, most of the countries considered the Top 10 places to live are considered Social Democracies.

But of course, Americans aren't open to even talking about that.

Stupid fuckers.

 

[butters]

You had a point?

only that head of his....

 

[richard_daily]

I concur that words have meanings. I also believe the German Nazis were left wing. Rather than rely on the right-wing media to brainwash me, though, I'll just offer this quote from Adolf Hitler:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Try to read more than the cliff notes, buddy...

The nazis were firmly right-wing, and I can post about 100 things that prove it. You won't listen though, because you have feelings about it. And your feelings can't be wrong.



http://historyandpolitics77.********.com/2011/03/we-are-socialists-debunked.html

 

[richard_daily]

only that head of his....

http://www.asset1.net/tv/pictures/1140/380/movie/coneheads-1993/Coneheads-LB-1.jpg

 

[Lancecastor]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9c/44/20/9c4420e23a9d385c54138e906ffd7300.jpg

 

[contrifan32]

Try to read more than the cliff notes, buddy...

The nazis were firmly right-wing, and I can post about 100 things that prove it. You won't listen though, because you have feelings about it. And your feelings can't be wrong.



http://historyandpolitics77.********.com/2011/03/we-are-socialists-debunked.html

I would like to see just a few please.

 

[richard_daily]

I would like to see just a few please.

Will you agree to change your outlook on it if I do? Will you agree to never again claim that Nazis are left wing, and own that they are firmly right wing? If so, I'd be happy to.

Let me know. I'm assuming your word as a man is good.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would like to see just a few please.

He thinks being mean = right wing and government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services = free market capitalism.

He also thinks Stalin and Mao were RW'ers.

So don't hold your breath.

 

[irksomesauce]

Term:

sexually deviant woman abuser

Meaning:

Dick who gets off punching women in the mouth in public

 

[contrifan32]

Will you agree to change your outlook on it if I do? Will you agree to never again claim that Nazis are left wing, and own that they are firmly right wing? If so, I'd be happy to.

Let me know. I'm assuming your word as a man is good.

First of all you don't know my outlook on it. Second I have not (yet) claimed anything to you.

You are correct in that my word as a man is good.

 

[richard_daily]

First of all you don't know my outlook on it. Second I have not (yet) claimed anything to you.

You are correct in that my word as a man is good.

Answer my questions please.

 

[contrifan32]

I did, your turn.

 

[contrifan32]

He thinks being mean = right wing and government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services = free market capitalism.

He also thinks Stalin and Mao were RW'ers.

So don't hold your breath.

You were right... I am glad I didn't