I understand all of it. But the point you haven't answered is: WHERE IS THE LINE. Where is it? And who defines it? That's what YOU don't understand. The concept of "hate speech" is purposefully vague, murky, and subject to massive political interpretation. A death threat is a death threat. Slander and libel, fairly easy to discern. Hate speech? What is hate speech, exactly? Maybe you can define that for us.
And that's it. For every white guy calling blacks niggers, there's probably 2 blacks calling whites crackers. The white guy gets arrested, and the blacks forgiven because theyre poor, down-trodden victims of the white mans oppression. Fine, we can have hate speech laws. Just start rounding up blacks equally and throwing them in jail every time they utter cracker. In fact, any time I hear the phrase 'white privilege' used, I consider that prejudicial (which it is) and therefore, hate-filled. So start rounding up and arresting these sacks of shit too. You okay with that Ricter!??!
The left doesn't really want to stop free speech, just the speech they find offensive and/or objectionable. What is offensive/objectionable? Well, it's kind of subjective to their daily whims. They'll let us know. All anyone needs to know where the left stands on this issue can be found in how they shout down and even prohibit people from speaking on college campuses around the country. Judge them by their actions, not the gibberish they post on a message board about where the lines might be drawn. We all know where the line will be drawn. Wherever they want it.
Thing is, we’re not talking about hate speech. If we were, saying “I hate broccoli” would be outlawed. What we are really talking about is banning offensive speech, things other people find offensive. The (obvious) problem with that is that people choose what they are offended by. If I decide I am offended by some words, who has the right to tell me otherwise? Nobody. Who are you to decide if I am offended? If I say I am, I must be. There are no objective standards to being offended, indeed there are people that build successful careers out of being perpetually offended. If somebody kills somebody else, there are objective standards to say “Well shit, he’s dead. I mean, there’s no heartbeat, no brain activity, he’s not breathing and he smells bad.” Admittedly that would define a few posters to this forum, but I digress (and jest of course). However, when I say that I am offended by these drawings or that username, you cannot reasonably say no. And if several (Hundred? Thousand? Million?) other people say so, then now is it a right to never be offended?
BTW, if you required any evidence at all that the left runs this country, this is it. Liberals used to be about liberty, nonconformity and freedom from "the man". Now they can't wait to lay down the law, and make everyone do their version of the goose step. They expect they will be the ones who get to decide what speech is allowed and what speech is not.
No, you are 'Ready for Hillary', you have always been 'Ready for Hillary', and likely will always be 'Ready for Hillary. I am not going to let you slither your way out of it.
Right. Because a thinking person can't be expected to distinguish between (open, public) bigotry and a personal aversion to certain vegetables in the cruciferous family. There's only so much that you can be expected to do, and you have drawn your line in the sand.
You're really hold tightly onto that one, aren't you? It must have special meaning for you. I'm sure you're keeping it in a safe place under the bridge where you live.