Godwin's law, in full effect.
Please explain how we are already "bobsledding" down towards restricting free speech, Piezoe. How does unfettered hate speech mean we are racing down the finish line from the other direction?
Last edited:
41% of Americans want to abolish free speech
- Thread starter harami
- Start date
Godwin's law, in full effect.
Please explain how we are already "bobsledding" down towards restricting free speech, Piezoe. How does unfettered hate speech mean we are racing down the finish line from the other direction?
While unsurprising, it is nevertheless scary that such large numbers would apparently support repealing the First Amendment. Of course, the poll was constructed in such a way to get support for criminalizing so-called hate speech. If the question was, "Do you support government censorship of dissenting opinion?' or "Do you support overturning the First Amendment protections on free speech?", then the outcome would likely be far less encouraging to the PC nazis.
People have been indoctrinated through years of schooling and media propaganda that "hate" speech is intolerable and that "hate" crimes somehow are more worthy of punishment than "ordinary" crimes.
Hate crime laws are in effect institutional discirimination against victims who are not in a PC-recognized victim class. We all know that there are tens of thousands of racially motivated crimes in this country every year, but only a tiny minority of them, the ones committed by whites, are prosecuted as hate crimes.
One need only look where hate speech codes originated, ie university campuses, to see they are nothing but crude tools to stamp out the expression of dissenting views from the offical PC line. Now we see that a big target of such laws, in PC-controlled environments like government, the military, big business and universities, is...surprise.. religious freedom, particularly where it conflicts with the gay agenda or radical islam.
People have been indoctrinated through years of schooling and media propaganda that "hate" speech is intolerable and that "hate" crimes somehow are more worthy of punishment than "ordinary" crimes.
Hate crime laws are in effect institutional discirimination against victims who are not in a PC-recognized victim class. We all know that there are tens of thousands of racially motivated crimes in this country every year, but only a tiny minority of them, the ones committed by whites, are prosecuted as hate crimes.
One need only look where hate speech codes originated, ie university campuses, to see they are nothing but crude tools to stamp out the expression of dissenting views from the offical PC line. Now we see that a big target of such laws, in PC-controlled environments like government, the military, big business and universities, is...surprise.. religious freedom, particularly where it conflicts with the gay agenda or radical islam.
I never quite understood this law. While we have freedom of speech, if I get in front of the White House and start yelling I am going to kill the president, I can get arrested? So how is that any different than minority hate speech? The President is the ultimate minority, of one.
Clearly, we can't say anything we want _even_ under the current law.
Clearly, we can't say anything we want _even_ under the current law.
You believe that any hindrance to totally free speech is a trip down a slippery slope that may quash other freedoms. It's all or nothing for you. However, unfettered free speech that allows for hate speech is an invitation to demagoguery. Look how well that worked out historically. (Shall I name names?) And consider how completely unfettered free speech then became fully hobbled. As usual, the answer lies somewhere between the extremes. Just because it requires more thought doesn't make it unworkable. Hate speech belongs in the dustbin of history.
The dots are there. You need merely to connect them. Learn from the mistakes of the past or live to repeat them.
P.S. I think Piezoe has doubts about climate change. I do not.
Last edited:
There isn't anything slippery slopey about this.
When they say that a crucifix in a jar of urine is art, and a drawing of mohammed is hate speech, they want a law behind them to back it up.
And make no mistake. The people who are in favor of hate speech laws will demand to be the arbiters of what constitutes hate speech. And a crucifix in a jar of urine will be art, and a drawing of mohammed will be hate speech.
It's just another law to get conservatives. Nothing more.
And elected republicans will put up a little fight for show, and then go right along with it. They already go along with it in practice.
When they say that a crucifix in a jar of urine is art, and a drawing of mohammed is hate speech, they want a law behind them to back it up.
And make no mistake. The people who are in favor of hate speech laws will demand to be the arbiters of what constitutes hate speech. And a crucifix in a jar of urine will be art, and a drawing of mohammed will be hate speech.
It's just another law to get conservatives. Nothing more.
And elected republicans will put up a little fight for show, and then go right along with it. They already go along with it in practice.
That's a power we, as human beings, have to wield. It's not easy, but it needs to be done, and we do it every day.