Poll: Majority Says First Amendment Goes Too Far

[BeholdenGlory]

Or otherwise filed under, "Reasons for another civil war".

Majority of Americans Want to Scrap First Amendment, Polling Finds - Campaign for Free Speech

Here is how the poll results, released Wednesday, break down:

• 57% of millennials say the First Amendment goes too far, while 35% disagree.
• 47% of baby boomers say the First Amendment goes too far, compared to 48% who disagree.
• 57% of all those polled say the government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations for biased content, compared to 35% who disagree.
• 48% say hate speech should be against the law, while 31% say it should be allowed.

Read Newsmax: Poll: Majority Says First Amendment Goes Too Far

 

[pc_76]

Too bad that half of my own generation (millennial) are lost in trash and the stain of Western civilization.

 

[Silverback]

Or otherwise filed under, "Reasons for another civil war".

Majority of Americans Want to Scrap First Amendment, Polling Finds - Campaign for Free Speech

Here is how the poll results, released Wednesday, break down:

• 57% of millennials say the First Amendment goes too far, while 35% disagree.
• 47% of baby boomers say the First Amendment goes too far, compared to 48% who disagree.
• 57% of all those polled say the government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations for biased content, compared to 35% who disagree.
• 48% say hate speech should be against the law, while 31% say it should be allowed.

Read Newsmax: Poll: Majority Says First Amendment Goes Too Far

This is how democracy dies.

 

[Brightmoon]

Well if they’ll remove a child from your home for verbal abuse and it’s also caused marriages to fail , I absolutely think hate speech should be made illegal . It harms people and encourages others to cause more harm

 

[Silverback]

Well if they’ll remove a child from your home for verbal abuse and it’s also caused marriages to fail , I absolutely think hate speech should be made illegal . It harms people and encourages others to cause more harm

Define hate speech?...If I say that per capita Black Folks in the US murder each other at the rate of 10 per 100,000, and White/Latino's are around 1.6 per 100,000, is that hate speech? What if I have good sources that differ from your sources, does that make what I say hate speech?

See what I'm saying?

 

[Brightmoon]

I’d say that using a statistic to claim that all black peoples are like that is just bias . We have different cultures. West Indians don’t act like Americans. Black Southerners have more in common with white southerners than they do with Black northerners . Yet you’re trying to stick all people of recent African descent into an amorphous crowd that doesn’t exist

 

[SimplyMe]

I want to go on record as being a firm supporter of the First Amendment -- and not just Free Speech. Hate Speech, as it is commonly defined (saying something negative about a minority), should not be illegal -- though the current limits, where you can be prosecuted for "inciting violence" seem about right.

At the same time, free speech only protects you from the government; it doesn't mean YouTube has to promote your video, it does not mean that you can't be fired if your employer doesn't like your comments, etc.

 

[JackRT]

Part of the problem here may be in the definition of hate speech. Here are the relevant passages from the Criminal Code of Canada:

Section 318: Advocating genocide
Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section.

Section 319(1): Publicly inciting hatred
Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment.

Section 319(2): Promoting hatred
Section 319(2) makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.

Section 319(3) provides specific defences to the offence of promoting hatred. A person will not be convicted if:

the person establishes that the statements communicated were true;

• in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
• the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or
• in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Defined narrowly in this way I am content with such a limitation on free speech.

 

[rambot]

This is how democracy dies.

There's plenty of democracies around the world thriving with hate speech laws

 

[BeholdenGlory]

No, they're all going down the dystopian orwellian technocratic hellscape we all find ourselves staring at.

 

[BeholdenGlory]

A sampling from the U.K.

Police investigating 'hate crime' after transgender woman turned down for porn role 'because she has a penis'

A big social media following could earn you a harsher sentence if you're convicted of hate crime

Hate Speech: U.K. Political Leader Arrested for Quoting Winston Churchill

It's important to understand Americans will never put up with this. I would employ lethal self defence against a state looking to ruin my life because someone doesn't like my opinions. That is a hard red line that millions of us will not abide the crossing of.

The tyranny of leftist speech and thought suppression will ultimately end in violence. Suppression always leads to violence.

 

[evoeth]

Too bad that half of my own generation (millennial) are lost in trash and the stain of Western civilization.

Oh yeah? How's non-Western civilization working out?

 

[evoeth]

Define hate speech?...If I say that per capita Black Folks in the US murder each other at the rate of 10 per 100,000, and White/Latino's are around 1.6 per 100,000, is that hate speech? What if I have good sources that differ from your sources, does that make what I say hate speech?

See what I'm saying?

Weird how you went immediately to complaining about how you're not allowed to talk about how black's are statistically inferior to whites.

SUPER WEIRD. Isn't it?

 

[BeholdenGlory]

Saying there exist only 2 genders is hate speech these days.

Hate speech is all the speech leftists hate. That's the definition, whenever someone asks for it.

 

[Silverback]

Weird how you went immediately to complaining about how you're not allowed to talk about how black's are statistically inferior to whites.

SUPER WEIRD. Isn't it?

It was to make a point...and it is the truth!

 

[JackRT]

This is how democracy dies.

The times change and the Constitution and its Amendments need to change with it. That is exactly why the Constitution has already been amended 27 times.

 

[BeholdenGlory]

Usually we don't amend it to LESSEN the rights of the people. And the one time we did, we undid it like a decade later because we saw how bad of an idea it was.

 

[rambot]

No, they're all going down the dystopian orwellian technocratic hellscape we all find ourselves staring at.

 

[rambot]

Home - GlobalGoodness

Good news only.

 

[Albion]

The times change and the Constitution and its Amendments need to change with it. That is exactly why the Constitution has already been amended 27 times.

Amending the Constitution (which has been referred to several times today) is not an issue. The Constitution provides for it and it can be done. What is a problem is the incessant effort on the part of some people to circumvent the Constitution.