• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
K-Dog said:
Don't know a thing about the guy, but the quote is quality.
Click to expand...
He's extremely controversial and many consider him un-American.

You and I disagree on many things, but I'd never say you don't have a right to voice it. But as I said a few times above, on the side of neo-Nazis, they're trying to voice their own superiority and want to take away the rights of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, etc. and that is not okay under Freedom of Speech.
 
rossihunter2 said:
it's a prosecutable offence in the UK which means you have a right to fair trial either way and the police have a right to prosecute - it's just fearmongering to think that a government will 1) decide what constitutes hate speech and 2) that the government deciding is a bad thing given that supposedly they are elected by a majority (albeit that is not actually true in the US...)
Click to expand...
Our common law system obviously borrows a lot off yours so we've got similar provisions for libel and discrimination/hate speech. The devil is in the details obviously, and the laws have been implemented and adjusted over time (mainly through the courts trying to strike a balance between free expression and other people's rights to not be discriminated against) and it's safe to say there isn't some kind of Big Brother database of what people can and can't say. We've still got blasphemy laws, for example, but it would take a brave judge to convict someone these days - and generally if someone clarifies that something odious is their own opinion then they get a lot more legal leeway. Some of the troglodytes we've got dominating the airwaves depress me a little (and I remember a pundit in your part of the world called for a "final solution" to deal with Islamist terror) and it's safe to say the concept of free expression is alive and well.
 
29BmoreBird22 said:
I'm sure the US has Hate Laws, too, and it's also naive to believe that Free Speech has no limitations whatsoever.

Free Speech loses its "freedom" when it begins to infringe on the rights of others. Guess what these neo-Nazis want? They want to take away all the rights and voice of Asians, Mexicans, Blacks, Jews, etc. That becomes an issue. That is not okay and is not protected under Free Speech.
Click to expand...

It is protected under free speech. They can want all they want. Doesn't mean they gonna get it.

rossihunter2 said:
Difference is these "speakers" aren't just despicable they're harmful
Click to expand...

What about people that say they want the president assassinated or they want to blow up the white house or depict violence against the president in broadway shows. Should we outlaw that or is that ok. Sounds like hate speech to me. Get what I'm saying.
 
Willbacker said:
It is protected under free speech. They can want all they want. Doesn't mean they gonna get it.



What about people that say they want the president assassinated or they want to blow up the white house or depict violence against the president in broadway shows. Should we outlaw that or is that ok. Sounds like hate speech to me. Get what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
Protesting and advocating for the stripping of other people's rights is not protected.
 
29BmoreBird22 said:
He's extremely controversial and many consider him un-American.

You and I disagree on many things, but I'd never say you don't have a right to voice it. But as I said a few times above, on the side of neo-Nazis, they're trying to voice their own superiority and want to take away the rights of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, etc. and that is not okay under Freedom of Speech.
Click to expand...

rossihunter2 said:
Difference is these "speakers" aren't just despicable they're harmful
Click to expand...

Sure hate is a learned thing. No one is born that way.
These people are a huge minority. I don't think the group in Virginia even made it to four digits. There are no laws they ever enact with their protests. Legality aside.
They are harmful as individuals or in a small group but so is a bunch of drunks after a huge division loss at a football game. Are there not people here who "hate" people just because they are steeler fans or patriots fans?
Don't misunderstand my analogy. I am NOT saying the level of hate of football fans compared to racists is even in the same ball park ( HA !! see what I did there ? ) , but there is hate there. If you have been to games you have seen it.
I am also not saying all hate is equal. Dumping a beer on someone is pretty different than bashing someones skull in.

Not sure where I was going with this. My train of thought derailed and dinner is ready.
Maybe my train will find its way back to the tracks.

or not....
Hate is wrong.
 
K-Dog said:
Calling for is an infringement ?
Click to expand...
They're openly protesting for the removal of the rights of groups that aren't a certain type of white.

I guess the bigger picture would be that many other rallies of these sorts are being shut down across the US and they couldn't actually appeal to have them allowed. As in, it's okay to say that these rallies will not happen.

But yes, there are limitations to what you can say. I can't run into a crowded store and yell fire and then not expect to get in trouble if there wasn't a fire. Calling for or trying to incite harm toward an individual or a group is not protected.
 
Willbacker said:


Is this hate speech in your opinion.

Obama never condemned these. Actually he invited them to the White House.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't make out the audio, but yes, if you are calling for the death of a group of individuals, yeah, that's hate speech.

This is another instance where free speech isn't so protected. Calling for the harming or trying to incite harm toward any individual or group is not protected.
 
29BmoreBird22 said:
They're openly protesting for the removal of the rights of groups that aren't a certain type of white.

I guess the bigger picture would be that many other rallies of these sorts are being shut down across the US and they couldn't actually appeal to have them allowed. As in, it's okay to say that these rallies will not happen.

But yes, there are limitations to what you can say. I can't run into a crowded store and yell fire and then not expect to get in trouble if there wasn't a fire. Calling for or trying to incite harm toward an individual or a group is not protected.
Click to expand...

So legally no.
I understand what you are getting at.
"Freedom of speech is not free from consequences. " is that what you are saying?
If so I agree completely. However, the first amendment reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing I see in that text that refers to the limitations you speak of. That said, stores are independently owned. ( see also pretty much every other business in the USA including football teams ) and are able to set and enforce whatever limitations to free speech that they desire as they are not a government entity but independently owned. No one can be arrested and jailed, but businesses and employers can and do set limitations and that is well with in their rights.
 
K-Dog said:
So legally no.
I understand what you are getting at.
"Freedom of speech is not free from consequences. " is that what you are saying?
If so I agree completely. However, the first amendment reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing I see in that text that refers to the limitations you speak of. That said, stores are independently owned. ( see also pretty much every other business in the USA including football teams ) and are able to set and enforce whatever limitations to free speech that they desire as they are not a government entity but independently owned. No one can be arrested and jailed, but businesses and employers can and do set limitations and that is well with in their rights.
Click to expand...
There was literally a Supreme Court case about what I referenced (clear and present danger), so uh, yeah, you can be arrested for it.

I also can't go around your neighborhood saying you're a registered sex offender. You could sue me in a heartbeat.
 
29BmoreBird22 said:
There was literally a Supreme Court case about what I referenced (clear and present danger), so uh, yeah, you can be arrested for it.

I also can't go around your neighborhood saying you're a registered sex offender. You could sue me in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Point taken. My point with regard to business's still stands however, and that is still different from the example you cited.

I missed the post about any supreme court decision.
 
[
29BmoreBird22 said:
There was literally a Supreme Court case about what I referenced (clear and present danger), so uh, yeah, you can be arrested for it.

I also can't go around your neighborhood saying you're a registered sex offender. You could sue me in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Clear and present danger is no more. In 1969 imminent lawless action became the law of the land. Carefully read this. No you cant yell fire cuz you're causing "intentional instant harm and danger to individuals".

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/what-constitutes-imminent-lawless-action/


And since they was saying "Now" in the BLM video that could be considered as to directing instant harm. Surprized you didn't know about this chant. There's a lot more directed threats to the cops too. Seriously what you read doesn't cover this?
 
Willbacker said:
[


Clear and present danger is no more. In 1969 imminent lawless action became the law of the land. Carefully read this. No you cant yell fire cuz you're causing "intentional instant harm and danger to individuals".

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/what-constitutes-imminent-lawless-action/


And since they was saying "Now" in the BLM video that could be considered as to directing instant harm. Surprized you didn't know about this chant. There's a lot more directed threats to the cops too. Seriously what you read doesn't cover this?
Click to expand...
Point still stands that you cannot say anything that is likely to bring harm to otuer people. Clear and present danger wasn't ousted so much as the boundaries and definition were clarified and constricted.

If I sit in front of 1,000 armed white supremacist and wave a gun around saying how we need to kill blacks, I'm going to get arrested really fast.

What I read about what? If you're referring to the chants, it's a first for me hearing it, but then again, doesn't surprise because of the protests in large cities. If you mean would I think they'd get charged with a crime? Yes, I would.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top