There's no hate speech exception to the first amendment

Yell fire in a crowded movie theater and cause a stampede? That's like a classic example
Yeah, but you're not really free to do that are you? Try it and I guarantee you'll be arrested.
 
Yeah, but you're not really free to do that are you? Try it and I guarantee you'll be arrested.

You asked for speech that puts people in danger, there you go. You only proved my point that'd you be arrested just for using your free speech
 
You asked for speech that puts people in danger, there you go. You only proved my point that'd you be arrested just for using your free speech
No, I already pointed out why that's not the same. I have the right to assemble and protest what I want to. I have no right to cause a public disturbance by yelling fire in a theatre. That's not the same thing.
 
No, I already pointed out why that's not the same. I have the right to assemble and protest what I want to. I have no right to cause a public disturbance by yelling fire in a theatre. That's not the same thing.

The issue in both cases is, is there a limit to to free speech protection when it incites violence or creates physical danger. And the answer is overwhelmingly yes in both cases, as it should be.
 
Yes there is some restrictions on speech but they are and should be as small as possible.

And you are free to hurt someone's feelings but not to incite violence.

Fuck hate speech laws 1st amendment for the win.
 
How does speech put people in physical danger?

If someone giving a speech were to say "go outside today and punch anybody who looks Asian in the face," that would put people in physical danger.
 
A big distinction that people are missing is that people have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that you are protected from consequences of said speech. Losing advertisers or being pulled from a private platform for expressing your opinion are consequences and not protected.
 
quote-goebbels-was-in-favor-of-free-speech-for-views-he-liked-so-was-stalin-if-you-re-really-noam-chomsky-50-6-0614.jpg


bmKHIVI.png
 
A big distinction that people are missing is that people have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that you are protected from consequences of said speech. Losing advertisers or being pulled from a private platform for expressing your opinion are consequences and not protected.

Employee: "I support gay marriage."
Employer: "You're fired."

Totally acceptable to you people.
 
There are no hate speech exceptions in the 1st amendment because the founding fathers didn't define speech as hate or non-hate. It was ALL just speech, which they believed every citizen should be free to voice or write.
 
Just a quick reminder to all those who think defending the KKK and white supremacists is wrong. The constitution says very clearly, hate speech is absolutely protected.

While morally it is wrong to defend racists and white supremacists, it is not wrong to protect their right to spew hate speech. That is unless you believe the constitution should be amended and ban hate speech.

The real issue at the heart of this whole Charlotsville circus, is who incited physical violence, who was acting in self-defense, etc. I don't think anyone in their right mind is defending the guy who crashed into the crowd of antifa protesters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bo...rst-amendment/q9m4IqfQvbo24nnlnPor1O/amp.html

Well he didn't crash into antifa protesters so I'll defend the innocent teachers and students he did crash into.
 
A big distinction that people are missing is that people have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that you are protected from consequences of said speech. Losing advertisers or being pulled from a private platform for expressing your opinion are consequences and not protected.

People are absolutely not protected from the consequences of free speech. But they are protected from any type of violence or physical threats that come to them due to that free speech.

That's the heart of this issue, who started any violence, and who were defending themselves.

Of course, the guy who ran over innocent people had no right to do what he did, and deserves the death penalty. But aside from that, the other chaos or violence caused could very well have been instigated by those on the left. I don't know what really happened.
 
Employee: "I support gay marriage."
Employer: "You're fired."

Totally acceptable to you people.
As others have said, there's a difference between what's right an what's legal. At the very least you can always bring a civil suit against your employer if you think you were fired unjustly.
 
I really don't care who started the violence. Humans in conflict are going to be violent, that's just how "people" are. Violence shouldn't be accepted and it should be punished, but only because you can't let that sort of thing get out of control.

What REALLY matters to me is who is the morale standing of those involved in the conflict--and to a lesser extent who started the conflict.

If you just focus on violence alone, the US is far worse than just about every "enemy" it's ever fought.
 
Whatever you say i have also the right to disagree. (Counter protesters)

If i own my own business then i can set the rules on work etiquette.
( youtube,facebook policies)

Legally you can talk shit but its a 2 way street.
 
Employee: "I support gay marriage."
Employer: "You're fired."

Totally acceptable to you people.
Privatly owned businessess can do that.

If you hired a plumber and he kept calling your wife a squating bitch...you wouldnt get rid of him? Legally you can...moraly you should..
 
When you show up armed with guns, mace, bats, spears, body armor, shields..., you aren't there to peaceably assemble. Cops should have shut it down way earlier.
 
@KONE and @SensaiRambo off the top of my head. Bunch of others also claimed it was self-defense at first, but they kept at it.
You can also tag the guys that Liked their posts defending them. People that don't have an argument or don't want to say it themselves but agree anyways.
 
Back
Top