Yes, and private property damage is covered by other laws.
-
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!
Should hate speech be counted as free speech?
- Thread starter Ashoka
- Start date
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
And inciting people to commit private property damage is covered by other laws. This law would be for someone who didn't commit any property damage, but encouraged others to do so.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Nope.
"San Marino lays claim to being the oldest extant sovereign state, as well as the oldest constitutional republic." - San Marino - Wikipedia
Still older than the modern France state! And who cares about San Marino, anyway. Lol.
And which law is that?
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Presumably the Sammarinesi.And who cares about San Marino, anyway. Lol.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I've been burgled and "censorship", as you call it, wouldn't have helped me with that either.
But if you had been Mexican and due to stories put about that Mexican are rapists you had found nobody would repair your car, or serve you in a bar, then the sorts of laws we have in the UK would help put a stop to it.
We don't need laws for that. They can just complain on social media and/or local news and make it go viral. Then people will protest for/against it and turn up the heat against the owners, forcing a response either way. But America isn't as racist as you seem to think, even "white trash". Somebody will serve you drinks or fix your car, even if only for your money. This is America, after all.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Think, read, write, watch and wear, that is clearly a massive stretch when we look at places like Canada, England or France.
It's like the Second amendment nuts saying we need guns to keep us free and safe despite that claim having no correlation in real life in many countries that have cracked down on or even practically eliminated nearly all guns. Like Japan. It's very rare for anyone to be legally allowed a gun, yet they are still a free country that guarantees freedom of ideology.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You may have to shop around, however, especially in small town rural America, like in Indiana where a pizza joint said they would utilize Pences RFRA to discriminate against gays, someone left them a threatening phone message and next thing they are receiving millions in aid and support for sticking to their guns and being "good" Christians.We don't need laws for that. They can just complain on social media and/or local news and make it go viral. Then people will protest for/against it and turn up the heat against the owners, forcing a response either way. But America isn't as racist as you seem to think, even "white trash". Somebody will serve you drinks or fix your car, even if only for your money. This is America, after all.
They still ban things, like violent video games. I don't want any ruler telling me I can't own a gun, either. If someone's trying to hurt me, I want to be able to defend myself. The police only respond after the fact. I'm not into authoritarianism.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
That would be laws against inciting a riot.
18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots - Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu › ... › CHAPTER 102
(1). to incite a riot; or ; (2). to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or ; (3). to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a ...
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Those things are unfounded. Like, you can still defend yourself.
The issue is Americans thinking America is unique and changing things, even in ways that have been successfully implemented, can only lead to authoritarianism. That's just nit much of point when it's so easy to find examples to the contrary.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
One of the problems with defining hate speech can be seen with the group of young people, who have been labeled snowflakes. The snowflakes are high school and college students who feel the need for safe spaces away from harsh speech, or else they will emotionally short circuit. The question is how do you deal with such as these? What most people can handle in terms of speech, may be too much for them. Do we use the lowest common denominator as the standard of hate speech?
First and foremost, the snowflakes are in this vulnerable emotional condition, because their Left wing indoctrination is harming them. This group is specific to the Left wing. There is a cause and affect. Religion is always picked on yet there is less tendency to censor due to hate speech; emotionally stable.
The indoctrination of the snowflakes is based on hate speech about the other side. Trump was hitler in the playbook. These claims get way overdone. This defies the common sense of these young people. However this indoctrination has to be learned to belong and/or their can become prey for their own kind. They can see the harassment of those who try to stay level headed or avoid the indoctrination.
This indoctrination hate speech, by making the snowflakes less emotional stable, then uses their emotional instability as an excuse to silence the opposition, via the ambiguous hate speech. Many females; mothers, fall for this second half of their scam. because they are sensitive and concerned for their emotional well being of these young people. However, they do not realize the real problem is their indoctrination into angry or insecure victimhood. The result is a dual censorship standard.
Another example is critical race theory which is hate speech. It dwells in the past and tries to paint a picture that this hateful past is the center piece of America, that is still alive; systemic racism. This is part of the indoctrination that defies common sense, since one can look around and compare now, to even 20 years ago to see lots of progress, in all walks of life. Instead they try to dwell deeper in the past, so the common sense of the present is cheated leading to emotional and psychological conflict. They is a fear of something that is exaggerated.
Every election season the Democrats use the same racist playbook to scare minorities about the boogeyman. The goal is both to create both snowflakes; flight, and criminals; fight. After the election they do nothing to change anything except add things that make the situation worse, such as reverse discrimination.
If you think logically, reverse discrimination assumes races and sexes are not equal and some need a golf handicap. This perpetuates the perception of differences between people. Minorities who have done well but were part of that system will not get full credit for achievements due to he implied golf handicap. This is part of systemic racism.
In golf, one does not get a handicap unless you are a lower level player than a pro. If you feel someone is equal to you in golf, then neither of you get any extra handicap. This handicap is seductive and is how the Democrats use their systemic racism to undermine minorities, under the guise of helping them. But the golf handicap undermines their achievement since it become part of the equation.
This subliminal messaging is used as pretense for hate speech censor, since this leads to insecurity in minorities and resentment for cheating. They create psychological damage and use these pawns as a firewall to censor free speech, via the term hate speech around emotional unstable people. We are better off rooting this out by not allowing it in public schools. This will allow for healthier students and less emotional and psychological need to label free speech as hate speech. When comedy is hate speech then we are dealing with very insecure people who would benefit by less indoctrination.