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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To a a certain, small but nevertheless significant portion of modern American conservativism, what was revolting about the Nazis was not their antisemitism, their racism, or their notions of ethnic and genetic purity, but the fact that Hitler didn't immediately abolish Bismarck's welfare state when he had the chance.
Excellent! We are all (ideally) a work in progress.
Too bad. To change minds is better accomplished by
To be honest I've never heard of him. Sorry.
I often encourage people to check out his success at
I think the word "tolerate" gets used in different ways in this discussion, and it's important to say which question we're talking about:
Just realized. I have come across him. An ex kkk member right? His methodology certainly seems productive. With face to face confrontation, its easier to communicate effectively. With the medium of text alone, not so easy.
Ex KKK member?
Ah. Maybe not then. I am thinking of someone else, a Caucasian American. Obviously..Ex KKK member?
I don't think so.
Unless the KKK had a really aggressive affirmative
action campaign. He just doesn't look like he'd belong.
Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."Have you heard of the shouting fire in a theatre thing?
With freedom comes responsibility. Or, at least, it should.
"Woke" is so last year.
The <funny> rating notwithstanding, I agree with the quoted text.Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
Using the "shouting fire in a theatre" argument is so last century.
I admit it's lazy shorthand, but I think the point is made. Freedom of speech does not exist alone in a vacuum. No amount of extra extra free speech would have prevented the Blitzkrieg. The Amendment/Constitution aspect I wouldn't know about, not being an American.Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
Using the "shouting fire in a theatre" argument is so last century.
Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
Using the "shouting fire in a theatre" argument is so last century.
Hate speech is curbed in the UK. I completely support all measures taken to silence Nazis and their kind. In the public sphere. Since I see no reason to value the so called freedom to spout hatred and incite violence over the freedom to walk down the street, without fear of some piece of crap, exercising their right to free speech by abusing and denigrating people in public.
Hehe. Indeed.
No Platform is a real horse to beat for the tories in their culture war.