Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. With that attitude I'd say it's you who Gobbels would love.
The guy hates free speech other then his own.
Better redefine what's really idiotic here.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Non-crime hate incidents - yet another not-at-all-Orwellian reality
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
The guy hates free speech other then his own.
Better redefine what's really idiotic here.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's clear if authorities go after 'hate speech' that definition will eventually expand in time to go on to other things the government declares as illegal speech.
In reality, we're winning some battles against authoritarianism
here & there.....just not everywhere. So people see what they
want to see, eg, Eurostanians seeing the worst here. (Still
beats living over there.)
Imo, the US free speech laws are not perfect, but they're the best in the world.
But if you have suggestions for how they could be improved, bring 'em on.
Wow… eye-opening of what is coming down the pike!
WOW! I think that is how “controlling speech” started… with false narratives to justify their efforts.
Governmental violence too?
Hate speech caused the murder of approx 6million Jews. As bad as undue censorship is do you really think it has a better track record?
PureX
Veteran Member
We aren’t talking about free speech, we’re talking about hateful speech. We’re talking about verbally attacking and insulting other people to the point where they feel a need for retribution. Giving them some nonviolent means of attaining that might be worth considering. Especiallly when the speech in question has nothing to do with anyone’s freedom.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Except it's ********. See post #3.
Last edited:
Secret Chief
Very strong language
"Complete freedom of speech" therefore could have no issue with the speeches of Goebbels.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Here's a crazy notion: maybe just maybe speech can inspire action. And once the action has occurred it cannot be undone. Mad huh.
Last edited:
I take it you have never been the victim of racist abuse.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
So if I come out with some hate speech (eg kill them) directed at say someone on this forum and then that person is killed what then? Find and prosecute the killer sure but the hate speech that inspired? Well, they were just words weren't they. No harm in words.
Dear god this is like kindergarten.
Not if you're female it doesn't.
Not if the far right politics makes you sick it doesn't.
Not if religious funnymentalism is rife it doesn't
And your favourite, not if the police are as you describe them it doesn't.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
So ... let's do absolutely nothing to help stop it. Is that the theory here?
If need be.though its usually right wing yobs who cause the trouble
PureX
Veteran Member
Three republican politicians just deliberately posted the photo online of a man that had nothing to do with the shootings in KC and who is not an illegal alien, claiming that he is an illegal alien and was one of the shooters. The reason they did this, of course, was to take the focus off the idiotic availability of guns in their state and put it on the pet republican issue of our phony broken border.
Was this free speech? Wasn't it deliberately intended to drum up hatred toward this man and toward anyone that looks like they might be an "illegal alien" even though he had nothing to do with the shootings or with illegal aliens, for their own political purposes? Should he have no recourse or protection from this? That idiot Curtis Sliwa recently did the same thing on live TV in New York.
No right can be absolute. That would be idiocy. So the only real question is how do we limit free speech and how will we enforce those limitations.
Was this free speech? Wasn't it deliberately intended to drum up hatred toward this man and toward anyone that looks like they might be an "illegal alien" even though he had nothing to do with the shootings or with illegal aliens, for their own political purposes? Should he have no recourse or protection from this? That idiot Curtis Sliwa recently did the same thing on live TV in New York.
No right can be absolute. That would be idiocy. So the only real question is how do we limit free speech and how will we enforce those limitations.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
So the premise is to attack speech preemptively assuming something is always going to happen? Paranoid much?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's how it works. It's called crime. You after those who commit actual crimes.
Speech is harmless weither you believe it or not.
If you don't like freedom of speech, go to a place where it's safe like some communist or totalitarian country.
You'll be plenty safe there and they preemptively do everything to stop speech they don't like because words are soo dangerous.
Problem solved, right?