Jump to content
heyyoudvd

Howard Dean: "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment."

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I don't think many here will agree with him.

 

Was this supposed to be a "gotcha" thread?

 

DVD is angry because his country doesn't have free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

DVD is angry because his country doesn't have free speech.

 

Just free healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

This guy was the governor of Vermont, the chair of the DNC, and ran for president...

I can see how this concerns you given that the only thing you follow is hate speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

Can you even imagine trying to enforce a law against "hate speech". What a stupid fucking thing to say.

 

You don't have to imagine it. The world exists beyond the borders of the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chairslinger said:

Can you even imagine trying to enforce a law against "hate speech". What a stupid fucking thing to say.

 

Oh you bet I can! :daydream:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well he's wrong re: "hate speech" but what Coulter said is more akin to incitement to violence which absolutely is not protected speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Well he's wrong re: "hate speech" but what Coulter said is more akin to incitement to violence which absolutely is not protected speech.

 

I don't think it falls under hate speech or incitement of violence. I hate defending Coulter here, but lamenting that a long since past act of violence did not encompass a specific thing that she strongly dislikes or hates even -while certainly despicable- is neither hate speech or incitement of/to violence. It's merely the disturbing lamentations of a crotchety hag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't get why "incitement to violence" isn't "protected" either.

 

If you're going to have these ridiculous, made-up, arbitrary "rights", then just go all the way with 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chairslinger said:

Can you even imagine trying to enforce a law against "hate speech". What a stupid fucking thing to say.

 

 

Very few countries have free speech in the way that the US does.

 

Even Canada doesn't have free speech. We have all sorts of ridiculous 'Human Rights Commissions' and 'Human Rights Tribunals', which can and have infringed on people's free speech.

 

Hate speech laws are a real thing and they're surprisingly common. It's scary because that idea is downright Orwellian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Lucian04 said:

 

I don't think it falls under hate speech or incitement of violence. I hate defending Coulter here, but lamenting that a long since past act of violence did not encompass a specific thing that she strongly dislikes or hates even -while certainly despicable- is neither hate speech or incitement of/to violence. It's merely the disturbing lamentations of a crotchety hag.

Neither Nor 

 

 

dumbass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really even see what Coulter said as hate speech. (Not that hate speech has a legal definition in the US, because it's not a legal concept) What she said was despicable, but it doesn't really even fall under incitement to violence. She just wishes that a terrorist would kill some journalists. It's terrible, but it's free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coulter wished death upon a group of people she doesn't like.  This is something that I do approximately every 30 minutes or so.  No big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, heyyoudvd said:

 

 

Very few countries have free speech in the way that the US does.

 

Even Canada doesn't have free speech. We have all sorts of ridiculous 'Human Rights Commissions' and 'Human Rights Tribunals', which can and have infringed on people's free speech.

 

Hate speech laws are a real thing and they're surprisingly common. It's scary because that idea is downright Orwellian.

Only hate speech, incitement, and threats of violence, you dishonest shitbag shill. And you have to go really goddamned far to get nailed for any of it, such as threatening to shoot up a mosque online.

 

Edit: And hate speech isn't calling a black guy a racist name, you have to get into preaching genocide and trying to gain followers to get nailed. Racist speech is not considered hate speech. 

 

Now, using racist language during a violent assault, that could get you a hate crime charge here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And anyone who thinks they can run around and scream "N****R" or "SAND N****R" at everyone who is different than them, really needs to be charged anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, apoc81 said:

Only hate speech, incitement, and threats of violence, you dishonest shitbag shill. And you have to go really goddamned far to get nailed for any of it, such as threatening to shoot up a mosque online.

 

Edit: And hate speech isn't calling a black guy a racist name, you have to get into preaching genocide and trying to gain followers to get nailed. Racist speech is not considered hate speech. 

 

Now, using racist language during a violent assault, that could get you a hate crime charge here. 

 

Just ask Ezra Levant and Jordan Peterson about the violent assaults they committed (they didn't).

 

You're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan Peterson should be allowed to speak in public again because his theories (as espoused on Sam Harris's podcast) are incomprehensible nonsense.  In fact, his tongue should probably be torn out and nailed to a wall as a warning to everyone else!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, apoc81 said:

And anyone who thinks they can run around and scream "N****R" or "SAND N****R" at everyone who is different than them, really needs to be charged anyway. 

 

Why should you be prosecuted just for calling someone a nigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×