Half of democrats support hate speech laws.

[AmberSkyeF]

SirPuzzle

AmberSkyeF

YourNeighborsCat

Project 429

http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/

Not hate crime, hate speech.

To the 50% of democrats that support hate speech laws, and the 25% of republicans, and the 27% of independents: you're silly.

Oh one hand, it would be pretty funny to see the entire userbase of tumblr (and a good chunk of GAIA posters) be imprisoned for misandry - on the other hand illegal speech represents the ultimate corruption of intellectual freedom. As totally hilarious as it would be to see the SJWs get clobbered over the head with their own cudgel - I'd rather not sacrifice the most precious freedom to do so.

Aren't hate speech laws already a thing? Are you telling me that I can run around outside screaming "I hate niggers!" and NOT go to jail?

Yeah. It's your right, unfortunately. One Christian came to my university and spouted hate speech about how we were all going to hell and how God hated us because of certain aspects of ourselves. One girl got called a slut because she was wearing a bow, but his free speech was protected, and he was allowed to be on campus because of free speech.

Are you implying that this is a bad thing? That he shouldn't be allowed on campus if he says those things?

The simplest answer I can give is that we wish he had never come on campus, so, yes, his very presence on campus was a bad thing. You weren't there; therefore, you cannot know what happened or how others reacted and felt. In fact, most of what he said was damaging and triggering for some students, so I don't want to hear anyone downplaying what this guy did.

We have issues with physical violence, but somehow verbal violence is okay because it's free speech and doesn't leave bruises or marks?

[SirPuzzle]

AmberSkyeF

SirPuzzle

AmberSkyeF

YourNeighborsCat

AmberSkyeF

Yeah. It's your right, unfortunately. One Christian came to my university and spouted hate speech about how we were all going to hell and how God hated us because of certain aspects of ourselves. One girl got called a slut because she was wearing a bow, but his free speech was protected, and he was allowed to be on campus because of free speech.

I bet he got roasted all day on campus. Couldn't take all that shade being thrown at him.

People were about to get violent (justifiably so, I think), but campus police were in charge of protecting him.

Why am I not surprised?

"It's okay to be violent against people I disagree with" typical liberal mentality.

Let's not make this political now. This is blatant hate speech, not simply a disagreement in viewpoints, so don't downplay what occurred on my campus. There is a difference between hate speech and a disagreement between viewpoints. Telling everyone they're going to hell and calling a girl a slut because she wore a hair bow? You seriously think that's just him voicing his opinion and that's okay, because then we've got a problem. Plus, I'm tired of arguments degenerating into typical liberal or conservative thinking, because, in fact, you did absolutely nothing to contribute to my statement by calling it typical liberal thinking. You want to debate? Debate intelligently instead of throwing something out there that even a two-year-old can mimic.

Saying it's justifiable to be violent towards someone because of something they said is inherently political.

"You seriously think that's just him voicing his opinion and that's okay" yeah actually I do think that's okay. By "okay" I don't mean I agree with him, or that I don't think he's an a*****e. But what I mean by "okay" is that violence is not justifiable just because he said that. He should be allowed to say whatever he wants on a public campus without violence or other forms of force being thrown upon him.

Also you keep saying "You weren't there, you can't judge" well yeah actually I can. I go to a public University too, you don't think there's people just like him that go on my campus? Well there are, and guess what I don't care, and I'm a non believer so the crap he's saying is targeted towards people like me. I'd be upset if he and people like him were thrown out by some politically correct Orwellian group that wants to control speech like you do.

You say there's a distinction between hate speech and disagreement with view points, but the thing is that because the U.S. has become so polarized culturally, that many opinions people have are considered to be inherently "hateful" by left-wingers and are categorized to be hate speech and therefore it becomes legitimate to use force whether that means violence (as you said is justifiable), using the law, or silencing them in some other way like censorship.

It's this kind of slippery slope that scare people like me. I think there's a legitimate distinction between actually threatening people with violence (something that shouldn't tolerated, something people should be kicked off of campus for doing) compared to judging people in a very hostile way (like saying they're going to hell or something). The latter should be protected under free speech, I don't care how offensive, hateful, or discriminatory it is. Speech in my view only crosses the line when the person starts making threats or is harassing someone (and again, by harassing I don't mean "They said something I found offensive!" like you seem to think. By harassment I mean following a person around and screaming at them, or stalking them in real life or online, etc, etc).

But I think as soon as you start categorizing certain opinions as "hate speech" then you're going to see a slippery slope happen where more and more people in the dominant/powerful group categorizing opinions they disagree with as "hate speech".

[Jeff the Kitten]

AmberSkyeF

YourNeighborsCat

AmberSkyeF

YourNeighborsCat

Project 429

http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/

Not hate crime, hate speech.

To the 50% of democrats that support hate speech laws, and the 25% of republicans, and the 27% of independents: you're silly.

Oh one hand, it would be pretty funny to see the entire userbase of tumblr (and a good chunk of GAIA posters) be imprisoned for misandry - on the other hand illegal speech represents the ultimate corruption of intellectual freedom. As totally hilarious as it would be to see the SJWs get clobbered over the head with their own cudgel - I'd rather not sacrifice the most precious freedom to do so.

Aren't hate speech laws already a thing? Are you telling me that I can run around outside screaming "I hate niggers!" and NOT go to jail?

Yeah. It's your right, unfortunately. One Christian came to my university and spouted hate speech about how we were all going to hell and how God hated us because of certain aspects of ourselves. One girl got called a slut because she was wearing a bow, but his free speech was protected, and he was allowed to be on campus because of free speech.

I bet he got roasted all day on campus. Couldn't take all that shade being thrown at him.

People were about to get violent (justifiably so, I think), but campus police were in charge of protecting him.

[Disc Horse Enthusiast]

Project 429

http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/

Not hate crime, hate speech.

To the 50% of democrats that support hate speech laws, and the 25% of republicans, and the 27% of independents: you're silly.

Oh one hand, it would be pretty funny to see the entire userbase of tumblr (and a good chunk of GAIA posters) be imprisoned for misandry - on the other hand illegal speech represents the ultimate corruption of intellectual freedom. As totally hilarious as it would be to see the SJWs get clobbered over the head with their own cudgel - I'd rather not sacrifice the most precious freedom to do so.

Any useful hate speech legislation would only criminalise hate propaganda against actually marginalised groups — no government attacks on activists for "misandry", "heterophobia", "cisphobia", "reverse racism", "posh-bashing", or any other ridiculous buzzwords used by crypto-reactionary "liberals".

But yeah, like, let's be serious here. They've already banned Nazi speech in a lot of countries, so why not go further and put consequences for any particularly violent rhetoric against marginalised identities? There's a long precedent for it, and in pretty much everywhere that isn't the US, there's a precedent for limits on free speech.

Absolute "free speech" favours the powerful and privileged. These things don't exist in a vacuum, and it's important to, where possible, deprive willful oppressors of all of their tools, speech included.

Oppression doesn't deserve a voice. It deserves to be ended.

[Project 429]

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/

Not hate crime, hate speech.

To the 50% of democrats that support hate speech laws, and the 25% of republicans, and the 27% of independents: you're silly.

Oh one hand, it would be pretty funny to see the entire userbase of tumblr (and a good chunk of GAIA posters) be imprisoned for misandry - on the other hand illegal speech represents the ultimate corruption of intellectual freedom. As totally hilarious as it would be to see the SJWs get clobbered over the head with their own cudgel - I'd rather not sacrifice the most precious freedom to do so.

Any useful hate speech legislation would only criminalise hate propaganda against actually marginalised groups — no government attacks on activists for "misandry", "heterophobia", "cisphobia", "reverse racism", "posh-bashing", or any other ridiculous buzzwords used by crypto-reactionary "liberals".

But yeah, like, let's be serious here. They've already banned Nazi speech in a lot of countries, so why not go further and put consequences for any particularly violent rhetoric against marginalised identities? There's a long precedent for it, and in pretty much everywhere that isn't the US, there's a precedent for limits on free speech.

Absolute "free speech" favours the powerful and privileged. These things don't exist in a vacuum, and it's important to, where possible, deprive willful oppressors of all of their tools, speech included.

Oppression doesn't deserve a voice. It deserves to be ended.

Threats are not hate speech.

[Disc Horse Enthusiast]

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/

Not hate crime, hate speech.

To the 50% of democrats that support hate speech laws, and the 25% of republicans, and the 27% of independents: you're silly.

Oh one hand, it would be pretty funny to see the entire userbase of tumblr (and a good chunk of GAIA posters) be imprisoned for misandry - on the other hand illegal speech represents the ultimate corruption of intellectual freedom. As totally hilarious as it would be to see the SJWs get clobbered over the head with their own cudgel - I'd rather not sacrifice the most precious freedom to do so.

Any useful hate speech legislation would only criminalise hate propaganda against actually marginalised groups — no government attacks on activists for "misandry", "heterophobia", "cisphobia", "reverse racism", "posh-bashing", or any other ridiculous buzzwords used by crypto-reactionary "liberals".

But yeah, like, let's be serious here. They've already banned Nazi speech in a lot of countries, so why not go further and put consequences for any particularly violent rhetoric against marginalised identities? There's a long precedent for it, and in pretty much everywhere that isn't the US, there's a precedent for limits on free speech.

Absolute "free speech" favours the powerful and privileged. These things don't exist in a vacuum, and it's important to, where possible, deprive willful oppressors of all of their tools, speech included.

Oppression doesn't deserve a voice. It deserves to be ended.

Threats are not hate speech.

I'm aware. They're already covered by laws pertaining to threats.

There's literally no ethically defensible reason to defend hate speech, though. Like, when there's a clear precedent for muzzling specific types of bigots through legislative means, why not extend it to cover other sorts of bigots more pertinent to the modern era? You aren't weakening free speech at all; you're merely extending the same logic to new cases that match the same general form.

[Project 429]

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/

Not hate crime, hate speech.

To the 50% of democrats that support hate speech laws, and the 25% of republicans, and the 27% of independents: you're silly.

Oh one hand, it would be pretty funny to see the entire userbase of tumblr (and a good chunk of GAIA posters) be imprisoned for misandry - on the other hand illegal speech represents the ultimate corruption of intellectual freedom. As totally hilarious as it would be to see the SJWs get clobbered over the head with their own cudgel - I'd rather not sacrifice the most precious freedom to do so.

Any useful hate speech legislation would only criminalise hate propaganda against actually marginalised groups — no government attacks on activists for "misandry", "heterophobia", "cisphobia", "reverse racism", "posh-bashing", or any other ridiculous buzzwords used by crypto-reactionary "liberals".

But yeah, like, let's be serious here. They've already banned Nazi speech in a lot of countries, so why not go further and put consequences for any particularly violent rhetoric against marginalised identities? There's a long precedent for it, and in pretty much everywhere that isn't the US, there's a precedent for limits on free speech.

Absolute "free speech" favours the powerful and privileged. These things don't exist in a vacuum, and it's important to, where possible, deprive willful oppressors of all of their tools, speech included.

Oppression doesn't deserve a voice. It deserves to be ended.

Threats are not hate speech.

I'm aware. They're already covered by laws pertaining to threats.

There's literally no ethically defensible reason to defend hate speech, though. Like, when there's a clear precedent for muzzling specific types of bigots through legislative means, why not extend it to cover other sorts of bigots more pertinent to the modern era? You aren't weakening free speech at all; you're merely extending the same logic to new cases that match the same general form.

To use a bunch of ten dollar words: American common law has entirely different intellectual progenitors. We don't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech and we won't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech.

Do I think making hate speech illegal will inevitably lead to marshal law? No. That doesn't mean I'm super cool with making it illegal and it definitely doesn't mean that the people who think it's okay because 'it won't destroy freedom of speech' aren't still crazy.

[Disc Horse Enthusiast]

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/

Not hate crime, hate speech.

To the 50% of democrats that support hate speech laws, and the 25% of republicans, and the 27% of independents: you're silly.

Oh one hand, it would be pretty funny to see the entire userbase of tumblr (and a good chunk of GAIA posters) be imprisoned for misandry - on the other hand illegal speech represents the ultimate corruption of intellectual freedom. As totally hilarious as it would be to see the SJWs get clobbered over the head with their own cudgel - I'd rather not sacrifice the most precious freedom to do so.

Any useful hate speech legislation would only criminalise hate propaganda against actually marginalised groups — no government attacks on activists for "misandry", "heterophobia", "cisphobia", "reverse racism", "posh-bashing", or any other ridiculous buzzwords used by crypto-reactionary "liberals".

But yeah, like, let's be serious here. They've already banned Nazi speech in a lot of countries, so why not go further and put consequences for any particularly violent rhetoric against marginalised identities? There's a long precedent for it, and in pretty much everywhere that isn't the US, there's a precedent for limits on free speech.

Absolute "free speech" favours the powerful and privileged. These things don't exist in a vacuum, and it's important to, where possible, deprive willful oppressors of all of their tools, speech included.

Oppression doesn't deserve a voice. It deserves to be ended.

Threats are not hate speech.

I'm aware. They're already covered by laws pertaining to threats.

There's literally no ethically defensible reason to defend hate speech, though. Like, when there's a clear precedent for muzzling specific types of bigots through legislative means, why not extend it to cover other sorts of bigots more pertinent to the modern era? You aren't weakening free speech at all; you're merely extending the same logic to new cases that match the same general form.

To use a bunch of ten dollar words: American common law has entirely different intellectual progenitors. We don't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech and we won't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech.

Do I think making hate speech illegal will inevitably lead to marshal law? No. That doesn't mean I'm super cool with making it illegal and it definitely doesn't mean that the people who think it's okay because 'it won't destroy freedom of speech' aren't still crazy.

You already have laws that make posting certain prime numbers on the Internet a criminal offence (DMCA with respect to DRM encryption keys, etcetera), so... you can make an exception to free speech on far more reasonable grounds than that. I'm entirely aware that I'm stretching this quite far, but even just basic reasoning on the part of an average decent person should suggest that calling for the murder of a marginalised group is a far worse thing than compromising the DRM for some form of storage media, right? Like, if copyright warrants exceptions to freedom of speech, surely protecting the lives of the oppressed and vulnerable from propaganda which seeks to bring about their death is a good reason to be placing some kind of reasonable limit on an already non-absolute freedom of speech.

PS: it's kinda problematic of you to be associating ideological opponents with mental illness. It's a common, harmful trope that disagreeable ideology correlates with mental illness, and its only actual effect is stigmatising the mentally ill further. Like, just, use an insult other than mental illness or cognitive impairment when dealing with people whose ideas you don't like.

[Fermionic]

No one is free.

[Project 429]

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/

Not hate crime, hate speech.

To the 50% of democrats that support hate speech laws, and the 25% of republicans, and the 27% of independents: you're silly.

Oh one hand, it would be pretty funny to see the entire userbase of tumblr (and a good chunk of GAIA posters) be imprisoned for misandry - on the other hand illegal speech represents the ultimate corruption of intellectual freedom. As totally hilarious as it would be to see the SJWs get clobbered over the head with their own cudgel - I'd rather not sacrifice the most precious freedom to do so.

Any useful hate speech legislation would only criminalise hate propaganda against actually marginalised groups — no government attacks on activists for "misandry", "heterophobia", "cisphobia", "reverse racism", "posh-bashing", or any other ridiculous buzzwords used by crypto-reactionary "liberals".

But yeah, like, let's be serious here. They've already banned Nazi speech in a lot of countries, so why not go further and put consequences for any particularly violent rhetoric against marginalised identities? There's a long precedent for it, and in pretty much everywhere that isn't the US, there's a precedent for limits on free speech.

Absolute "free speech" favours the powerful and privileged. These things don't exist in a vacuum, and it's important to, where possible, deprive willful oppressors of all of their tools, speech included.

Oppression doesn't deserve a voice. It deserves to be ended.

Threats are not hate speech.

I'm aware. They're already covered by laws pertaining to threats.

There's literally no ethically defensible reason to defend hate speech, though. Like, when there's a clear precedent for muzzling specific types of bigots through legislative means, why not extend it to cover other sorts of bigots more pertinent to the modern era? You aren't weakening free speech at all; you're merely extending the same logic to new cases that match the same general form.

To use a bunch of ten dollar words: American common law has entirely different intellectual progenitors. We don't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech and we won't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech.

Do I think making hate speech illegal will inevitably lead to marshal law? No. That doesn't mean I'm super cool with making it illegal and it definitely doesn't mean that the people who think it's okay because 'it won't destroy freedom of speech' aren't still crazy.

You already have laws that make posting certain prime numbers on the Internet a criminal offence (DMCA with respect to DRM encryption keys, etcetera), so... you can make an exception to free speech on far more reasonable grounds than that. I'm entirely aware that I'm stretching this quite far, but even just basic reasoning on the part of an average decent person should suggest that calling for the murder of a marginalised group is a far worse thing than compromising the DRM for some form of storage media, right? Like, if copyright warrants exceptions to freedom of speech, surely protecting the lives of the oppressed and vulnerable from propaganda which seeks to bring about their death is a good reason to be placing some kind of reasonable limit on an already non-absolute freedom of speech.

PS: it's kinda problematic of you to be associating ideological opponents with mental illness. It's a common, harmful trope that disagreeable ideology correlates with mental illness, and its only actual effect is stigmatising the mentally ill further. Like, just, use an insult other than mental illness or cognitive impairment when dealing with people whose ideas you don't like.

Once again, threats are not hate speech.

[Disc Horse Enthusiast]

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Threats are not hate speech.

I'm aware. They're already covered by laws pertaining to threats.

There's literally no ethically defensible reason to defend hate speech, though. Like, when there's a clear precedent for muzzling specific types of bigots through legislative means, why not extend it to cover other sorts of bigots more pertinent to the modern era? You aren't weakening free speech at all; you're merely extending the same logic to new cases that match the same general form.

To use a bunch of ten dollar words: American common law has entirely different intellectual progenitors. We don't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech and we won't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech.

Do I think making hate speech illegal will inevitably lead to marshal law? No. That doesn't mean I'm super cool with making it illegal and it definitely doesn't mean that the people who think it's okay because 'it won't destroy freedom of speech' aren't still crazy.

You already have laws that make posting certain prime numbers on the Internet a criminal offence (DMCA with respect to DRM encryption keys, etcetera), so... you can make an exception to free speech on far more reasonable grounds than that. I'm entirely aware that I'm stretching this quite far, but even just basic reasoning on the part of an average decent person should suggest that calling for the murder of a marginalised group is a far worse thing than compromising the DRM for some form of storage media, right? Like, if copyright warrants exceptions to freedom of speech, surely protecting the lives of the oppressed and vulnerable from propaganda which seeks to bring about their death is a good reason to be placing some kind of reasonable limit on an already non-absolute freedom of speech.

PS: it's kinda problematic of you to be associating ideological opponents with mental illness. It's a common, harmful trope that disagreeable ideology correlates with mental illness, and its only actual effect is stigmatising the mentally ill further. Like, just, use an insult other than mental illness or cognitive impairment when dealing with people whose ideas you don't like.

Once again, threats are not hate speech.

I'm not talking about threats, I'm talking about hate speech. Hate speech itself puts people at risk. ._.

[Project 429]

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Threats are not hate speech.

I'm aware. They're already covered by laws pertaining to threats.

There's literally no ethically defensible reason to defend hate speech, though. Like, when there's a clear precedent for muzzling specific types of bigots through legislative means, why not extend it to cover other sorts of bigots more pertinent to the modern era? You aren't weakening free speech at all; you're merely extending the same logic to new cases that match the same general form.

To use a bunch of ten dollar words: American common law has entirely different intellectual progenitors. We don't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech and we won't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech.

Do I think making hate speech illegal will inevitably lead to marshal law? No. That doesn't mean I'm super cool with making it illegal and it definitely doesn't mean that the people who think it's okay because 'it won't destroy freedom of speech' aren't still crazy.

You already have laws that make posting certain prime numbers on the Internet a criminal offence (DMCA with respect to DRM encryption keys, etcetera), so... you can make an exception to free speech on far more reasonable grounds than that. I'm entirely aware that I'm stretching this quite far, but even just basic reasoning on the part of an average decent person should suggest that calling for the murder of a marginalised group is a far worse thing than compromising the DRM for some form of storage media, right? Like, if copyright warrants exceptions to freedom of speech, surely protecting the lives of the oppressed and vulnerable from propaganda which seeks to bring about their death is a good reason to be placing some kind of reasonable limit on an already non-absolute freedom of speech.

PS: it's kinda problematic of you to be associating ideological opponents with mental illness. It's a common, harmful trope that disagreeable ideology correlates with mental illness, and its only actual effect is stigmatising the mentally ill further. Like, just, use an insult other than mental illness or cognitive impairment when dealing with people whose ideas you don't like.

Once again, threats are not hate speech.

I'm not talking about threats, I'm talking about hate speech. Hate speech itself puts people at risk. ._.

Sunlight puts people at risk. If you explicitly isolate threats and still ban hate speech because 'it puts people at risk' the threat clause was entirely pointless to begin with. Stop and think about what you're asking for: people to be arrested for nonviolent behavior. It's you that's introducing violence to the system, not the people you decry.

[Disc Horse Enthusiast]

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

Kakubunretsu

Project 429

To use a bunch of ten dollar words: American common law has entirely different intellectual progenitors. We don't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech and we won't have precedent for muzzling bigoted speech.

Do I think making hate speech illegal will inevitably lead to marshal law? No. That doesn't mean I'm super cool with making it illegal and it definitely doesn't mean that the people who think it's okay because 'it won't destroy freedom of speech' aren't still crazy.

You already have laws that make posting certain prime numbers on the Internet a criminal offence (DMCA with respect to DRM encryption keys, etcetera), so... you can make an exception to free speech on far more reasonable grounds than that. I'm entirely aware that I'm stretching this quite far, but even just basic reasoning on the part of an average decent person should suggest that calling for the murder of a marginalised group is a far worse thing than compromising the DRM for some form of storage media, right? Like, if copyright warrants exceptions to freedom of speech, surely protecting the lives of the oppressed and vulnerable from propaganda which seeks to bring about their death is a good reason to be placing some kind of reasonable limit on an already non-absolute freedom of speech.

PS: it's kinda problematic of you to be associating ideological opponents with mental illness. It's a common, harmful trope that disagreeable ideology correlates with mental illness, and its only actual effect is stigmatising the mentally ill further. Like, just, use an insult other than mental illness or cognitive impairment when dealing with people whose ideas you don't like.

Once again, threats are not hate speech.

I'm not talking about threats, I'm talking about hate speech. Hate speech itself puts people at risk. ._.

Sunlight puts people at risk. If you explicitly isolate threats and still ban hate speech because 'it puts people at risk' the threat clause was entirely pointless to begin with. Stop and think about what you're asking for: people to be arrested for nonviolent behavior. It's you that's introducing violence to the system, not the people you decry.

Hate speech is violence, though. It's a calculated, deliberate attempt to dehumanise marginalised groups for the purposes of keeping oppressive structures alive and well.

The violence is already in the oppressive social structures at place. Criminalising hate speech deprives these structures of a tool with which they maintain their existence. Your notion of free speech being absolute, and any exceptions to it being violence, only works in an already perfectly equal society; we do not have an equal society. We have one absolutely full of structural oppression; systematic violence.

And I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to inhibit attempts made at keeping those systems alive. We need to litigate and prosecute the vocal defenders of oppression and marginalisation out of expressing their opinions.

We need to extinguish their ideology.

[Wraith of Azrael]

What the...hell.

******** libtard SJW crap...

ANYWAYS....

The only covers are incite to riot and incite to violence, that should be about it.
Free speech does not exist for you to say, "the sky is blue" it exists for people to say rather controversial and critical things.

Also, 429 might want to recheck on the whole bit about American law not having things againt "hate speech".
In previous generations America had what was known as the "fighting words doctrine" which basically falls under that category.

Do I agree with it? No but I'm just pointing it out to you.

[Keltoi Samurai]

About the only way to explain the idea of why "hate speech" laws are bad to the kind of person who thinks it's a good idea is to try and get them to imagine a world in which the Democrats manage to get hate speech laws passed . . . But only by allowing the Republicans the sole ability to define what will and will not qualify as hate speech.

Much like how Republicans were all for domestic spying and invasions of privacy while Bush and his ilk were running the show, but freaked the ******** out over the concept when Obama took the reigns, the Democrats who favor hate speech laws only favor them because they think it's their side that'll be in control of those laws. If the Republicans took control of those laws, then suddenly they'd forget their stance on the issue and be all about free speech.