Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes thats how it works. Legislatures make the laws.I think the Texas and Tennessee legislators should be the ones to define harm. And anyone who believes in Christian Nationalism.
Well that's been proven in the UK.I think the proposed "hate speech laws" are only meant to be used against conservatives.
Yes it is because it causes harm to the person.Calling someone racist is not hate speech. Clearly.
That's right. And that is why we have freedom of speech. So Christian nationalists can't decide what you can say and what you can't.Yes thats how it works. Legislatures make the laws.
But only them. Not everyone else who believes x y and z.
Yes I agree. But despite the strict wording of the 1A, legislatures have carved out certain exception to absolute free speech. And we all pretty much are ok with this.That's right. And that is why we have freedom of speech. So Christian nationalists can't decide what you can say and what you can't.
Yes to the first one because it had significant consequence for an innocent young man. No to Joe Rogan because Joe Rogan is not a protected class. I don't know enough about the Lafayette incident. Was the claim ever retracted? What Trump said is a matter of record so I'm unclear where the lie or hate speech is there.I want everyone who spread rh3 misinformation on Nick Sandman thrown in prison. Along with everyone that said Rogan was taking horse deformed. I also want all people who claimed Trump Trump.put up a fence around Lafayette park for a photo op. In Jail. I want every single person who spread disinformation regarding what Teump said in Charlottesville in prison.
That should be easily resolved then. But then the well known idiom of any racist's utterances often start thusly: "I'm not racist but....."It's usually a false accusation that is meant to demean someone personally.
Evidence please. Let's see if we can have another round of 'who got there facts wrong this time?'.Well that's been proven in the UK.
The words ALL are the key. That and of course the courts which determine if a law is actually constitutional or not.Yes I agree. But despite the strict wording of the 1A, legislatures have carved out certain exception to absolute free speech. And we all pretty much are ok with this.
Yes I agree. Anything outlawing hate speech will have to be very "narrowly tailored" as the supreme court puts it.The words ALL are the key. That and of course the courts which determine if a law is actually constitutional or not.
And since free speech is established in the constitution just blithley claiming hate speech should be outlawed without thinking through the consequences of it is foolishness beyond measure.
The blatant ignorance of those who think that legislators have any idea anymore than the rest of us how to define hate speech in a way that still ensures our freedom of the 1st Ammendment is quite amazing.
They are citizens of the US and entitled to the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.Racists are not a protected class.
I'm sorry, I assumed you knew what a protected class is.They are citizens of the US and entitled to the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.
Not unless it's true. Saying "I'm not being racist but....." does not stop saying racist things being racist. If someone is accused of doing a crime (racist hate speech) and was guilty of doing a racist hate speech it stands to reason that would cause harm to them, just like if some is accused of doing a burglary and was guilty of doing a burglary.And calling someone a racist is harmful to the person, therefore it is hate speech.
I'm sorry I thought you understood what a citizen was.I'm sorry, I assumed you knew what a protected class is.
Make sense?
I do. But what does that have to do with US federal protections for all individuals from certain forms of discrimination or harassment?I'm sorry I thought you understood what a citizen was.
Definition of CITIZEN
a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it; a member of a state; an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
One thing "they" have learned is that once someone labels them as a racist, there's no convincing their accuser otherwise. Your post is an example.That should be easily resolved then. But then the well known idiom of any racist's utterances often start thusly: "I'm not racist but....."
So usually it's the racist thinking that saying racist things is fine when it's not. You'd think they would learn (even if its only by rote) but they don't.
So you think whether someone can speak freely or not is dependent on how others vote?The voting part.
You mean like labeling someone as a racist and then discriminating against them or harassing them based on the label you applied to them?I do. But what does that have to do with US federal protections for all individuals from certain forms of discrimination or harassment?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?