Judge Orders Trump Supporter to Remove Biden Attack Banners

[Tgo01]

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."

[Neveragain]

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.

[Neveragain]

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.

[time4fun]

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.

[time4fun]

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.

[Tgo01]

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.

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."

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"?

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.

[time4fun]

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.

[Tgo01]

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?

[Tgo01]

Here is what the UN defines hate speech as:

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."

[Gelston]

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.