Judge Orders Trump Supporter to Remove Biden Attack Banners

A New Jersey Municipal Court Judge has ordered someone to remove 3/10 of her anti-Biden attack banners put up in her home on the grounds that they run afoul of local anti-obscenity laws:

Quote:

---

A Trump supporter is refusing a New Jersey judge’s order to take down her anti-President Biden banners, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Andrea Dick, a supporter of former President Trump, said she started hanging banners that displayed crude remarks toward Biden at her mother’s residence in Roselle Park, with one of the signs reading “Don’t Blame Me / I Voted for Trump.”

She added that her neighbors started to make complaints about the crude manner of her banners, specifically expressing concern about the fact that Dick lives close to a school, according to The Times.

Dick, 54, refused to take her banners down after local officials, citing an anti-obscenity ordinance, asked her to do so. She was subsequently fined and summoned to a court appearance.

Roselle Park Municipal Court Judge Gary A. Bundy last week ordered Dick’s mother, Patricia Dilascio, to remove three of her daughter’s 10 banners or be fined $250 daily, the Times reported.

“It’s my First Amendment right, and I’m going to stick with that," Dick said in an interview with the Times.

Roselle Park mayor Joseph Signorello III told The Times that he received complaints about Dick’s banners, saying that the town’s decision to remove them wasn’t “about politics in any way,” noting that they would do the same thing if a resident hung crude banners about Trump.

“It’s about decency,” Signorello told the newspaper.

US, Germany reach deal on controversial Russian pipe

---

Legally the Judge's decision is the correct one as obviously obscenity generally doesn't fall within the 1st Amendment's scope. But I still find the entire notion that preventing people from being exposed to obscenity is more important than allowing free political expression to be absolutely ridiculous. There's no compelling state interest in preventing obscenity, and the "if most people think it has no redeeming qualities, then it doesn't" standard is ridiculous. It doesn't cause any harm to anyone, and speech shouldn't need to demonstrate value to be covered by the 1st amendment. /rant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

A New Jersey Municipal Court Judge has ordered someone to remove 3/10 of her anti-Biden attack banners put up in her home on the grounds that they run afoul of local anti-obscenity laws:




Legally the Judge's decision is the correct one as obviously obscenity generally doesn't fall within the 1st Amendment's scope. But I still find the entire notion that preventing people from being exposed to obscenity is more important than allowing free political expression to be absolutely ridiculous. There's no compelling state interest in preventing obscenity, and the "if most people think it has no redeeming qualities, then it doesn't" standard is ridiculous. It doesn't cause any harm to anyone, and speech shouldn't need to demonstrate value to be covered by the 1st amendment. /rant

---

How do you reconcile all of this with your nonsensical argument that made up "hate speech" harms people? How come the word "Fuck" in the context of "Fuck you" doesn't harm anyone yet someone using homophobic slurs does and thus needs to be censored?

When I first heard this case I thought it was an HOA doing this and I just rolled my eyes and said who cares, when I found out it was actual local city officials doing this and a judge went along with the madness that's when I just about lost my shit. The government shouldn't be in the business of suppressing political speech, but that's where we are now after 4+ years of the left losing their minds because of Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

How do you reconcile all of this with your nonsensical argument that made up "hate speech" harms people? How come the word "Fuck" in the context of "Fuck you" doesn't harm anyone yet someone using homophobic slurs does and thus needs to be censored?

When I first heard this case I thought it was a HOA doing this and I just rolled my eyes and said who cares, when I found out it was actual local city officials doing this and a judge went along with the madness that's when I just about lost my shit. The government shouldn't be in the business of suppressing political speech, but that's what we have now after 4+ years of the left losing their minds because of Trump.

---

Even though it's clear they weren't targeting the banners for their political content, I absolutely agree that the interest in protecting political speech is far more important than any imaginary benefits of an anti-obscenity law. There are some good reasons to suppress political speech in some cases (libel, for example), but they are VERY few. And this is not one of them.


As far as obscenity vs hate speech goes: that comparison, in my mind, is exactly what makes it so obvious that anti-obscenity laws are ridiculous. To be clear though- hate speech isn't illegal. It has to be tied to acts of violence for that. And while I think there should be more legal controls on some versions of hate speech, it's really not totally clear to me where those lines would be drawn.

The reality of the situation is that hate speech does cause direct harm. There's a good 60-80 years of research on this at least, and this is a fact that isn't in dispute. It causes psychological harm to direct recipients and also to members of the larger community even if there's no corresponding hate crime involved. But this is why Hate crimes (an extreme form of hate speech) warrant additional punishment, for example, because they actually cause more long-term psychological damage to victims than the same crimes without the hate speech component, and they cause harm to members of the community as well.

Think about domestic terrorism. Someone blowing up a local building for fun causes some community distress, but someone blowing it up as part of a planned terrorist attack against your country causes significantly more distress and to far more people. Same with blowing up a church vs blowing up a Walgreens. We treat the situations differently because the harm caused by one is far more significant than that caused by the other. Hate speech (including hate crimes) IS domestic terrorism. It explicitly attacks communities, not just individuals.

Now, in fairness, not all (or even most) hate speech involves a hate crime. But there's also a LOT of research that directly links hate speech to violence. As in people who are exposed to hate speech about others and who engage in it themselves become more likely to commit hate crimes against the communities the hate speech is directed at. When hate speech incidents increase, hate crimes increase. This is a well documented, observable, and sadly predictable phenomenon.

Meanwhile, as far as I know there's no real consensus (or even much evidence period) that exposure to obscenity (barring extreme forms like child pornography) has any negative impact on people. Nor that it somehow leads to people hurting others. The Courts have actually acknowledged that more than a few times. It's exempt from the 1st Amendment because it has "no value" as speech.

To which I say- fuck you SCOTUS. That's not your decision to make.

Imagine that, time4fun hates free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Even though it's clear they weren't targeting the banners for their political content

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

it's really not totally clear to me where those lines would be drawn.

---

Which is why the idea of hate speech is bogus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

The reality of the situation is that hate speech does cause direct harm. There's a good 60-80 years of research on this at least, and this is a fact that isn't in dispute. It causes psychological harm to direct recipients and also to members of the larger community even if there's no corresponding hate crime involved. But this is why Hate crimes (an extreme form of hate speech) warrant additional punishment, for example, because they actually cause more long-term psychological damage to victims than the same crimes without the hate speech component, and they cause harm to members of the community as well.

---

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

How do you reconcile all of this with your nonsensical argument that made up "hate speech" harms people? How come the word "Fuck" in the context of "Fuck you" doesn't harm anyone yet someone using homophobic slurs does and thus needs to be censored?

When I first heard this case I thought it was an HOA doing this and I just rolled my eyes and said who cares, when I found out it was actual local city officials doing this and a judge went along with the madness that's when I just about lost my shit. The government shouldn't be in the business of suppressing political speech, but that's where we are now after 4+ years of the left losing their minds because of Trump.

---

Don't lie, you wake up losing your shit erryday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo

Don't lie, you wake up losing your shit erryday.

---

k

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

I also thought it was important to show the abundance of attendees at the CNN town hall that Joe stumbled and bumbled through last night.

https://algulf.net/wp-content/upload...-Town-Hall.jpg

The judge in this case doesn't understand obscenity. Without even seeing the signs, I know that they are not obscene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

The judge in this case doesn't understand obscenity. Without even seeing the signs, I know that they are not obscene.

---

Easy enough to quote, she's got f*ck Biden signs, I guess that's the 3/10 they asked her to take down. If that sort of word is offensive, I guess...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

And by "it" I mean an intentional attack against a particular minority community.

---

Isn't that a convenient definition. Can't be having laws that protect people not part of a coveted "minority community."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

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.

---

I'm assuming the original request was for all the flags to be removed, thus, the intent was politically motivated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

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.

---

You seem to have missed the argument completely as there are some that may perceive the rainbow flag as a threat.

Erm Tgo:

1) They *only* went to court over the 3 banners that were obscene. There's nothing about the situation that suggests they were targeting the political elements of the speech. In fact, they were completely ignoring those elements. And in this case that's even worse. The political content *should* (in my mind) have made this Constitutionally protected speech. We're not really disagreeing on this point, I don't think.

2) Who is "clamoring" for more legal regulations on hate speech? That's not a huge platform for anyone, including myself. Just because Tucker Carlson tells you that's what Democrats and "the radical left" want doesn't actually mean it's true. (In fact you can pretty much guarantee it's not true when he says those things)

3) Someone showing up explicitly to a gay event and saying "fuck you, fuck you all" is a very different thing than "Fuck Biden", for one. Secondly, in that instance it's not the use of the word "Fuck" that's problematic. So this isn't an obscenity issue at all. It wouldn't even violate any anti-obscenity laws that I know of. And I don't agree that this would- or even should- legally qualify as hate speech that should be regulated. You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I haven't made and don't even agree with.

But let's be clear here: if someone followed a random group of people around screaming "Fuck you, fuck you all" repeatedly, that would potentially get that person arrested for harassment (and I doubt anyone here would disagree with that outcome). But when someone does it with the intention of harassing a minority community it's actually legally permissible. And there are obviously reasons for that, but it's worth reminding ourselves that your scenario would largely be illegal in any situation other than trying to verbally abuse a minority community or ideological group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

You seem to have missed the argument completely as there are some that may perceive the rainbow flag as a threat.

---

Sorry, how is this related at all to what we're discussing?

Neither hate speech nor obscenity are defined by the reception or perceptionof a few specific individuals.

Obscenity is (partially) defined by the "reasonable person" standard.

Hate speech isn't defined by the perception of any external audience at all. Not only does "feeling threatened" not make something hate speech, but someone NOT feeling threatened doesn't mean it's not hate speech. It's completely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

We're not really disagreeing on this point, I don't think.

---

We surprisingly do agree on the issue that political speech shouldn't be curtailed by the government. I spent 4+ years looking at dumb and obscene shit directed towards Trump and Republicans and I never once thought "Gee I sure wish the government would curtail their right to political speech!"

Where we disagree on is that this family was "clearly" not targeted for political speech and they were only targeted for the obscene speech of the word "fuck." I'm not buying it. The local officials being somewhat smart enough to not tear down all signs and to not openly admit they are engaging in targeted censorship in regards to political speech isn't swaying me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

2) Who is "clamoring" for more legal regulations on hate speech?

---

Come on. You're not even attempting to be serious if you're telling me there hasn't been a big push by Democrats (INCLUDING YOU!) to introduce penalties for people engaging in "hate speech."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

3) Someone showing up explicitly to a gay event and saying "fuck you, fuck you all" is a very different thing than "Fuck Biden", for one.

---

I agree. Like I said we surprisingly agree on something in regards to censoring political speech. My question is why does your distaste for censoring political speech not also extend to so called "hate speech" which you said, and I quote, needs "MORE legal controls"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

And I don't agree that this would- or even should- legally qualify as hate speech that should be regulated.

---

That's great. My question is WHY? How come "Fuck Biden" shouldn't be censored but saying "Fuck <insert whichever slur you think should be met with MORE legal controls here>" should be censored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

We surprisingly do agree on the issue that political speech shouldn't be curtailed by the government. I spent 4+ years looking at dumb and obscene shit directed towards Trump and Republicans and I never once thought "Gee I sure wish the government would curtail their right to political speech!"

Where we disagree on is that this family was "clearly" not targeted for political speech and they were only targeted for the obscene speech of the word "fuck." I'm not buying it. The local officials being somewhat smart enough to not tear down all signs and to not openly admit they are engaging in targeted censorship in regards to political speech isn't swaying me.



Come on. You're not even attempting to be serious if you're telling me there hasn't been a big push by Democrats (INCLUDING YOU!) to introduce penalties for people engaging in "hate speech."



I agree. Like I said we surprisingly agree on something in regards to censoring political speech. My question is why does your distaste for censoring political speech not also extend to so called "hate speech" which you said, and I quote, needs "MORE legal controls"?



That's great. My question is WHY? How come "Fuck Biden" shouldn't be censored but saying "Fuck <insert whichever slur you think should be met with MORE legal controls here>" should be censored.

---

Tgo, just because people who aren't ultra conservative don't WANT people engaging in hate speech and actively work to apply social pressure to reduce instances of it doesn't mean that they're arguing for additional legal penalties for it.

And to be clear, saying "Fuck <insert minority here>" doesn't, in and of itself, qualify as hate speech. It's not illegal, nor should it be.

Showing up to a Black Church, pointing at the black people and screaming "FUCK BLACK PEOPLE" repeatedly, on the other hand, does start heading into hate speech territory.

Likewise, saying "Fuck Gay People" while walking down the street isn't illegal. Nor should it be.

But showing up to Pride to scream "FUCK GAYS. FUCK ALL OF YOU GAYS" with the intention of harassing a whole community IS hate speech. (It's also not actually illegal)

Again, blowing up a building doesn't make something terrorism. Blowing up a building to instill fear in Americans, on the other hand, does.

It's the exact same principle here. And in both situations, it's not the fact that people are or aren't terrorized or do or don't feel threatened that defines things. It's 100% defined by the intention of the person engaging in the act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

Tgo, just because people who aren't ultra conservative don't WANT people engaging in hate speech and actively work to apply social pressure to reduce instances of it doesn't mean that they're arguing for additional legal penalties for it.

And to be clear, saying "Fuck <insert minority here>" doesn't, in and of itself, qualify as hate speech. It's not illegal, nor should it be.

Showing up to a Black Church, pointing at the black people and screaming "FUCK BLACK PEOPLE" repeatedly, on the other hand, does start heading into hate speech territory.

Likewise, saying "Fuck Gay People" while walking down the street isn't illegal. Nor should it be.

But showing up to Pride to scream "FUCK GAYS. FUCK ALL OF YOU GAYS" with the intention of harassing a whole community IS hate speech. (It's also not actually illegal)

Again, blowing up a building doesn't make something terrorism. Blowing up a building to instill fear in Americans, on the other hand, does.

It's the exact same principle here. And in both situations, it's not the fact that people are or aren't terrorized or do or don't feel threatened that defines things. It's 100% defined by the intention of the person engaging in the act.

---

You are absolutely not being honest if you think people out there only define hate speech as showing up at a black church and screaming "FUCK BLACK PEOPLE" repeatedly. People out there defining hate speech as merely saying a word they don't like.

And again what do you mean by "MORE legal controls" if not more legal penalties?

Here is what the UN defines hate speech as:

Quote:

---

In the context of this document, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.

---

That is so broad and vague it can mean almost anything. And this is the problem with made up "hate speech."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

You are absolutely not being honest if you think people out there only define hate speech as showing up at a black church and screaming "FUCK BLACK PEOPLE" repeatedly. People out there defining hate speech as merely saying a word they don't like.

And again what do you mean by "MORE legal controls" if not more legal penalties?

---

I only have to look at the UK arresting people for FB comments to know I will always be against Hate Speech laws. Glad they are unConstitutional here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

I only have to look at the UK arresting people for FB comments to know I will always be against Hate Speech laws. Glad they are unConstitutional here.

---

Racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

I only have to look at the UK arresting people for FB comments to know I will always be against Hate Speech laws. Glad they are unConstitutional here.

---

I saw they are going to start arresting reporters for articles that embarrass the gov't. That's some fascist shit right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drauz

I saw they are going to start arresting reporters for articles that embarrass the gov't. That's some fascist shit right there.

---

We're usually 10-15 years behind Europe..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Racist.

---

Imagine being thrown in jail for having a different opinion from someone else. “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Here is what the UN defines hate speech as:



That is so broad and vague it can mean almost anything. And this is the problem with made up "hate speech."

---

We're talking about legal remedies and legal definitions.

The UN is defining hate speech more broadly because they're concerned with speech that leads to negative social consequences (rise in violence, etc).

But we're only talking about legal definitions here in the US. And that requires it to be threatening or abusive.

Quote:

---

The United States paid about $10 billion to UN entities in 2018

---

Quote:

---

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness in the United States.

---

Imagine what we could do for our own citizens if we stopped giving our tax dollars to people who generally don't like us anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

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.

---

Can straight white males be victims of hate speech? Asking for Jesse Jacksoff.

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".

---

I bet you think it would end there too, don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

You are absolutely not being honest if you think people out there only define hate speech as showing up at a black church and screaming "FUCK BLACK PEOPLE" repeatedly. People out there defining hate speech as merely saying a word they don't like.

And again what do you mean by "MORE legal controls" if not more legal penalties?

---

According to some of the extra mentally ill fringe segment of the left, if you won't fuck a trans person then that's also hate speech and you're transphobic. And is probably somehow violence too.

Honestly, who gives a fuck?

The fuck give'age is as much, or should I say not as much for there being signs on that dilapidated mobilization unit or not.

This is a pretty good post, love you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanley Burrell

Honestly, who gives a fuck?

The fuck give'age is as much, or should I say not as much for there being signs on that dilapidated mobilization unit or not.

This is a pretty good post, love you guys.

---

He should replace all his signs with goatse signs.

And tubgirl. For equality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

He should replace all his signs with goatse signs.

And tubgirl. For equality.

---

This is really what I'm talking about. The truth.

The city backed down after even the ACLU said the city was crazy and got involved.