The Trump DOJ goes "woke" and will target free speech.

[Hentenza]

Maybe you can remind me when any other DOJ, other than this one, stating they were going to criminalize free speech?

“The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated in guidance documents that "intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment" and is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

States Are Banning Preferred Pronouns at Work, but Federal Guidelines Promote Inclusion. What Should HR Do?

As more states are restricting certain workplaces from being required to use pronouns that don't correspond to someone's biological sex, the federal government has advised against intentionally misgendering others.

www.shrm.org

People lost their jobs and been vilified because their freedom of speech rights were trampled on for political gain.

 

[Say it aint so]

“The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated in guidance documents that "intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment" and is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

States Are Banning Preferred Pronouns at Work, but Federal Guidelines Promote Inclusion. What Should HR Do?

As more states are restricting certain workplaces from being required to use pronouns that don't correspond to someone's biological sex, the federal government has advised against intentionally misgendering others.

www.shrm.org

People lost their jobs and been vilified because their freedom of speech rights were trampled on for political gain.

Guidance statements of something that "could" is not the same as the DOJ targeting you for your speech. Nor is, in the case of the firing the University of Michigan Health-West; the government.

 

[Hentenza]

Guidance statements of something that "could" is not the same as the DOJ targeting you for your speech.

But it was heading that way. There had been plenty of talk about making it “hate speech” to not follow the guidance. Still, even without the DOJ, many free speech rights were stepped on and in some states, they still are,

 

[Oompa Loompa]

“The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated in guidance documents that "intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment" and is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

States Are Banning Preferred Pronouns at Work, but Federal Guidelines Promote Inclusion. What Should HR Do?

As more states are restricting certain workplaces from being required to use pronouns that don't correspond to someone's biological sex, the federal government has advised against intentionally misgendering others.

www.shrm.org

People lost their jobs and been vilified because their freedom of speech rights were trampled on for political gain.

Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from any consequences of speech. You will not be arrested, fined, or killed because of your speech, but you sure can be fired, black listed, and ostracized from society because of it. What happened to Charlie Kirk was the true violation of his free speech rights, and the left celebrated it. So this country is rising up against woke leftist, and nature is healing.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I’m sorry, I was reporting people who weren’t upset over Robert Redford’s death to their employers.

What were we talking about?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe you can remind me when any other DOJ, other than this one, stating they were going to criminalize free speech?

"going to criminalize speech" is a misrepresentation.

Forms of speech have always been criminalized.

The shell game politicians play with it is leveraging the concept of "interpreting what constitutes incitement".

And even reducing it to "what's officially criminalized" is perhaps too shallow. There's lots of other ways the government punishes people for speech outside of official legal proceedings.

Even the implied threat of "hey, platform provider, all that stuff we don't like that's on your platform, you should probably think about restricting that...if not, it could end poorly... it'd be a real shame if you lost those Section 230 protections, capiche?"

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I’m sorry, I was reporting people who weren’t upset over Robert Redford’s death to their employers.

What were we talking about?

Not Robert Redford.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Not Robert Redford.

You’re kidding.

 

[Say it aint so]

But it was heading that way. There had been plenty of talk about making it “hate speech” to not follow the guidance. Still, even without the DOJ, many free speech rights were stepped on and in some states, they still are,

Yes. Given the current US AG statements, it may be heading that way.

 

[Say it aint so]

"going to criminalize speech" is a misrepresentation.

Forms of speech have always been criminalized.

The shell game politicians play with it is leveraging the concept of "interpreting what constitutes incitement".

And even reducing it to "what's officially criminalized" is perhaps too shallow. There's lots of other ways the government punishes people for speech outside of official legal proceedings.

Even the implied threat of "hey, platform provider, all that stuff we don't like that's on your platform, you should probably think about restricting that...if not, it could end poorly... it'd be a real shame if you lost those Section 230 protections, capiche?"

I believe I qualified what is considered hate speech given accompanying actions.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes. Given the current US AG statements, it may be heading that way.

Missed the context of my post. Was not talking about the present US AG but about where the old DOJ was heading to.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You are accusing conservatives of being hypocrites on free speech.

If the other poster wasn't doing that, I am.

Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from any consequences of speech.

But that sure has been how the right has argued for it in the past. That's exactly what the push back against "cancel culture" tries to do.

You will not be arrested, fined, or killed because of your speech, but you sure can be fired, black listed, and ostracized from society because of it.

aka "cancel culture"

What happened to Charlie Kirk was the true violation of his free speech rights, and the left celebrated it. So this country is rising up against woke leftist, and nature is healing.

And some on the right are threatening to use the power of the state to enforce violations of free speech in response:

Pam Bondi faces rightwing backlash for saying she’ll target ‘hate speech’ after Kirk killing

People across political spectrum, including prominent US conservatives, criticize attorney general’s comments

www.theguardian.com

US attorney general Pam Bondi’s pledge that the Trump administration will “absolutely target” people who use “hate speech” in the wake of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has prompted criticism of the idea from across the political spectrum, including from prominent conservatives.

When asked about Bondi’s comments on Tuesday, Trump told an ABC News reporter: “We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll come after ABC.”

That's your ~president~ threatening to go after a reporter. So, yes, there is absolutely a whole lot of hypocrisy on the right regarding free speech.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

That's your ~president~ threatening to go after a reporter. So, yes, there is absolutely a whole lot of hypocrisy on the right regarding free speech.

Libel and defamation is not protected free speech. So no hypocrisy there.

 

[Say it aint so]

Missed the context of my post. Was not talking about the present US AG but about where the old DOJ was heading to.

The old DOJ under Garland was not heading that way.

The new DOJ under Bondi just made statements they were. As much as she wanted to, moot point now after she got blasted with push back and has now backed off those statement. Yet her statements echo what other Trump officials have said about going after speech.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Libel and defamation is not protected free speech. So no hypocrisy there.

What, exactly, is libelous or defamatory about this question?

JON KARL: What do you make of Pam Bondi saying she's gonna go after hate speech? A lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech

 

[iluvatar5150]

Libel and defamation is not protected free speech. So no hypocrisy there.

Legally speaking, being "unfair" to a public official is not libelous or defamatory.

https://www.justia.com/injury/defamation/defamation-and-public-officials/

 

[childeye 2]

Head of the DOJ, America's top law enforcement and not just some woke lib:

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society," Bondi said.​

​

"Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them some action is better than no action?" Miller asked in response.​

​

"We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech -- and that's across the aisle," Bondi responded.​

I could have sworn throughout the existence of time the right railed against the idea that a type of speech, not criminal, could itself be a crime. Yes, that speech accompanying a crime can indeed be; but they detest that. Not only that, the other thing the right railed against is cancel culture. Something they are quite actively conducting given universities, law firms, school books, museums, and any other thing they don't like. This is not the "me too" movement where it was the private sector. This is the US government going "me too". Not just canceling, but promising to go after you and jail you (what charges, who knows) for invoking your constitutional right of free speech.

​

"Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment,"--Charlie Kirk. ​

What gives?

​

​

How does deception work? Specifically, how is it that when some people speak out against hate speech, they end up getting criticized as hypocrites using hate speech?

Devil=accuser/slanderer. <-- Bad character trait, born of the devil.
Slander is when something bad is said about somebody else without evidence. It qualifies as negative prejudice. It therefore violates Love others as yourself. Every lie of the devil is meant to undermine Love God with all your heart mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself.

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. The ad hominem attack is slander. It is qualified as an attempt to avoid the substantive issue of a valid argument by attacking the character of the person making that argument.

Those who use the ad hominem attack logical fallacy exhibit a bad character trait. When the bad character trait is pointed out, a person of bad character will then accuse the one pointing out the bad character trait of being a hypocrite, when in fact they were just pointing out the bad character trait. <--This is another logical fallacy called false equivalence. <-- This is a falsehood built on a falsehood. <--At this point some people who are easily deceived can't distinguish the difference between the one spreading hate speech and the one pointing out the hate speech <-- This is called getting lost in the semantics.

When a person attempts to point out that someone is believing or spreading slander, they can expect to be counted as a slanderer, even though pointing out slander doesn't qualify as slander.

Hence speaking out against hate speech is called hate speech. <-- A contradiction in reasoning.

 

[Say it aint so]

How does deception work? Specifically, how is it that when some people speak out against hate speech they get criticized as hypocrites using hate speech?

Devil=accuser/slanderer. <-- Bad character trait, born of the devil.
Slander is when something bad is said about somebody else without evidence. It qualifies as negative prejudice. It therefore violates Love others as yourself. Every lie of the devil is meant to undermine Love God with all your heart mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself.

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. The ad hominem attack is slander. It is qualified as an attempt to avoid the substantive issue of a valid argument by attacking the character of the person making that argument.

Those who use the ad hominem attack logical fallacy exhibit a bad character trait. When the bad character trait is pointed out, a person of bad character will then accuse the one pointing out the bad character trait of being a hypocrite, when in fact they are just pointing out the bad character trait. This is another logical fallacy called false equivalence. Some people can't distinguish the difference <-- This is called getting lost in the semantics.

When a person attempts to point out that someone is believing or spreading slander, they can expect to be counted as a slanderer, even though pointing out slander doesn't qualify as slander.

Hence speaking out against hate speech is called hate speech.

Well ok now.

 

[childeye 2]

Well ok now.

Any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction.

Is this response meant to indicate you don't understand this? --> Pointing out hate speech is being "accused" of being hate speech. <-- A contradiction in reasoning.

Deception is about turning positives into negatives, negatives into positives, or making them look the same so that no one can tell the difference.

 

[Hentenza]

The old DOJ under Garland was not heading that way.

It was just a matter of time before they started heading that way.