Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Gelston]

Who gives a flying fuck?

Black supremacists give speeches all the time about how backwards and inferior whites are. You don't see me showing up to their rallies with baseball bats.

Feminists give speeches all the time about how all men are rapists and we need to outlaw being male, you don't see me showing up their rallies with pepper spray.

Do what most rational adults do; laugh at them on the internet and move on with your life.

It is because Back is retarded, doesn't know anything about Civil Rights or the Constitution, and thought that "hate speech" wasn't protected.

[Tgo01]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

This quote needs to be updated:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death other people's rights to destroy you.

[Tgo01]

Hate speech isn't protected.

Yes hate speech is protected. That's why we have freedom of speech!

Do you think we would even need freedom of speech if it only pertained to nice words and speech everyone agreed with who?

Also who is the ultimate arbiter of who decides what is hate speech and what is not? You?

[Gelston]

Yes hate speech is protected. That's why we have freedom of speech!

Do you think we would even need freedom of speech if it only pertained to nice words and speech everyone agreed with who?

Also who is the ultimate arbiter of who decides what is hate speech and what is not? You?

Basically what the Supreme Court said is that the Government isn't capable of fairly policing Speech as far as what is and isn't "Hate speech", and so the Government can not.

[Back]

Yes hate speech is protected. That's why we have freedom of speech!

Do you think we would even need freedom of speech if it only pertained to nice words and speech everyone agreed with who?

Also who is the ultimate arbiter of who decides what is hate speech and what is not? You?

Yes since they were granted the permit to hold the rally in the first place. Speech towards an individual that is directly insulting, fighting words, so that any reasonable person would react is not protected. Some of them definitely crossed that line with counter protesters. Thats where I drew a hazy distinction.

So, yes, their rally was protected by the First Amendment.

[Tgo01]

Basically what the Supreme Court said is that the Government is capable of fairly policing Speech as far as what is and isn't "Hate speech", and so the Government can not.

Should the bold word be isn't? Not trying to be a smart ass, it would just make more sense if so

[Gelston]

Yes since they were granted the permit to hold the rally in the first place. Speech towards an individual that is directly insulting, fighting words, so that any reasonable person would react is not protected. Some of them definitely crossed that line with counter protesters. Thats where I drew a hazy distinction.

So, yes, their rally was protected by the First Amendment.

Rofl, bringing up "fighting words" now. That is a protection for someone that gets into a fight with someone because of what they said, not an excuse for the Government to arrest people for using them.

Should the bold word be isn't? Not trying to be a smart ass, it would just make more sense if so

Stop editing my posts, it is isn't.

[Tgo01]

Speech towards an individual that is directly insulting, fighting words, so that any reasonable person would react is not protected.

Quote for me the law/legal opinion you are referring to.

[Gelston]

Quote for me the law/legal opinion you are referring to.

Fighting words is a thing, but it is protections for person in court. They can prove the other person was the aggressor due to his words, kinda saying he was the first person to throw a punch, even though it was speech. Not something a cop can arrest you for.

Like:

Person A: All niggars must hang!
Person B punches person A.
Person B's charges are dropped due to the fighting words clause.

This is a state by state thing, not all have it.

[Back]

Quote for me the law/legal opinion you are referring to.

Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words