Judge Orders Trump Supporter to Remove Biden Attack Banners

Why does bullshit like this even end up at a judge? How butthurt does someone have to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfster

Why does bullshit like this even end up at a judge? How butthurt does someone have to be?

---

Reported for hate speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfster

Why does bullshit like this even end up at a judge? How butthurt does someone have to be?

---

The question you should be asking is, why didn't the judge say "Get the fuck out of my courtroom with this bullshit."

Stupid. Absolutely fucking stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Why is that "clear"? Because they said so?



Which is why the idea of hate speech is bogus.



That's not what I asked. How come "Fuck you" isn't "hate speech which causes harm" yet someone saying "Fuck you, <insert whichever slur here you think should be outlawed>" is suddenly hate speech which requires civil and criminal penalties? There's a reason "slippery slope" is no longer a logical fallacy, it's a full blown legit counterargument, as you're displaying quite clearly here.

"Hate speech needs to be outlawed!"
"The word 'fuck' needs to be outlawed!"

---

1) Because the order was to remove 3 of the banners out of 10. If this were being done due to the political content, then the order would have been to remove them all. Actually, if it had been targeting because of political content, the Judge would have dismissed the whole thing.

2) The fact that it's difficult to regulate hate speech in a Constitutional way doesn't mean hate speech is "bogus". Hate speech is real, and its effects are real. That's what makes it so challenging to deal with. The hate speech itself does real damage, but it's also still someone expressing an opinion. The way we deal with it now is that we just ignore hate speech and focus on its most extreme consequences for individuals: i.e. hate crimes or overt incitements to violence that qualify as threats.

3) I'm confused about your question re: obscenity and hate speech. Hate speech is very specific- it's an intentional attack against a particular community or group based on their identity. It's also generally there to encourage others to engage in hostile behavior towards that group or to assert dominance over them.

Saying "Fuck you" has nothing to do with that. Obscenity isn't an attack on anyone. Again, I'll direct you to the terrorism analogy. Blowing up a Black Church to send a message is very different from blowing up your local Walgreens because you were bored. The consequences are different and the intent is different. And that's why they're treated differently.


Also no one is arguing for the outlawing of hate speech. The exact phrasing was: "MORE legal controls on SOME versions of hate speech".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

The question you should be asking is, why didn't the judge say "Get the fuck out of my courtroom with this bullshit."

---

Because obscenity doesn't fall under the purview of the 1st Amendment. The Judge made the right call legally.

But the fact that using obscenities during a comedy show is constitutionally protected while using obscenity during political speech isn't is exactly what is so maddening about the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

I thought it was important to supply an image of said "attack banner" so we had some more context.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021...isable=upscale

---

Erm this is a picture of a banner that the person was not required to take down.

It's the opposite of what you're trying to imply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

1) Because the order was to remove 3 of the banners out of 10. If this were being done due to the political content, then the order would have been to remove them all. Actually, if it had been targeting because of political content, the Judge would have dismissed the whole thing.

2) The fact that it's difficult to regulate hate speech in a Constitutional way doesn't mean hate speech is "bogus". Hate speech is real, and its effects are real. That's what makes it so challenging to deal with. The hate speech itself does real damage, but it's also still someone expressing an opinion. The way we deal with it now is that we just ignore hate speech and focus on its most extreme consequences for individuals: i.e. hate crimes or overt incitements to violence that qualify as threats.

3) I'm confused about your question re: obscenity and hate speech. Hate speech is very specific- it's an intentional attack against a particular community or group based on their identity. It's also generally there to encourage others to engage in hostile behavior towards that group or to assert dominance over them.

Saying "Fuck you" has nothing to do with that. Obscenity isn't an attack on anyone. Again, I'll direct you to the terrorism analogy. Blowing up a Black Church to send a message is very different from blowing up your local Walgreens because you were bored. The consequences are different and the intent is different. And that's why they're treated differently.


Also no one is arguing for the outlawing of hate speech. The exact phrasing was: "MORE legal controls on SOME versions of hate speech".

---

Your gay pride flag may offend others, take it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Actually, if it had been targeting because of political content, the Judge would have dismissed the whole thing.

---

And that's why the local officials' reasoning isn't so "clear." No shit they aren't gonna say "Yes we are totally doing this because we are big fans of Biden." I find it hard to believe they would have given a single shit if the only word difference was "Biden" and instead was "Trump" or "Republicans." We'll never know though because even if someone were to test this theory now they would be obligated to hold the same standards or else prove themselves to be the hypocrites that they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

2) The fact that it's difficult to regulate hate speech in a Constitutional way doesn't mean hate speech is "bogus".

---

You've had 4+ years since you and your fellow Democrats have been clamoring for regulations on "hate speech." It took less time to end WWII after the US got involved, I find it hard to believe it's more difficult and time consuming to define "hate speech" than it did to crush the war machines of Nazi Germany and Japan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Saying "Fuck you" has nothing to do with that.

---

You're really grasping here. Someone goes to a gay pride parade and says "Fuck you! Fuck all of you!" That's not hate speech because they didn't specifically use a homophobic slur? Am I understanding your position correctly? The "speech" part of "hate speech" has to be a specific word and the word "fuck" in the context of "fuck you" directed towards a "marginalized" group of people isn't included in said "hate speech"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Also no one is arguing for the outlawing of hate speech. The exact phrasing was: "MORE legal controls on SOME versions of hate speech".

---

A) You're wrong that "no one" is arguing for outlawing hate speech. There are plenty of Democrats calling for exactly that.
B) What is your idea of "MORE legal controls" that doesn't include criminal penalties exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

Your gay pride flag may offend others, take it down.

---

My gay pride flag? I don't have a gay pride flag.

You also seemed to have missed the argument completely. Being offended by something doesn't make it hate speech. It's not hate speech until it's abusive or threatening. And by "it" I mean an intentional attack against a particular minority community.

Obscenity, on the other hand, is legally defined in part by whether or not a "reasonable person" would find something to be obscene/have no value. I'm arguing against anti-obscenity laws specifically because I find the notion of outlawing something based on whether or not people are offended to be hugely problematic.

You just seem a little lost here.