Hate Speech

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dotslashfuture, Apr 10, 2003.

  1. Many talk about freedom of speech.

    The left says that they have the right to protest the war while the war is happening ( even though that is in fact a form of treason ), but if the Right says anything against them or their cause then they are guilty of "HATE SPEECH"



    The left hides behind freedom of speech but they don't really believe in it. In fact, they don't even believe in democracy or the constitution at all, which begs the question of why they live here.
  2. Everyone has the right to protest as long as it doesn't interfere with another person's liberty.

    And why does everyone keep saying that the left doesn't really believe in free speech, democracy, and the constitution??? I'd like to hear any justification for these viewpoints.

    And protesting is never treason unless you're publicly divulging top secret information. That's just a silly idea.
  3. maxpi


    The only reason people have to protest is that their thinking is so far from the mainstream that they can't get representation from any politicians, they have no party to vote for.

    The current protesters are international communist oriented. Their weapon of choice is protesting internationalization of business because they cannot organize labor when it is spread all over the world. Their second weapon of choice is the environmental attorney. Third weapon of choice is attacking the administration that sees through them.

    If a protester advocates the violent overthrow of the government they are indeed open to a treason trial.

  4. If a protestor advocates the violent overthrow... in what way? What would be considered treason in this case? Could you please give me an example of an applicable law that would move any of the protestors we've seen into a court of law?
  5. dotslashfuture is spot on. The left hides behind the First Amendment, but then tries to deny it to anyone who disagrees with them. Want examples? How about campus speech codes, hate crimes legislation, draconian penalties for pro-life demonstrators, shouting down conservatives who try to make speeches at universities and destroying campus newspapers containing editorials they disagree with. Or how about the odious tactic of labelling anyone who disagrees with them on a policy matter rascist, homophobic, bigotted, anti-woman, or any of the other 47 terms of abuse they use to stifle debate? Just don't characterize any of them because then you will be called "McCarthyist". This is the country where you are free to burn the nation's flag but not a cross. You can display the peace symbol, the hammer and sycle, the black power symbol, the gay triangle, Fidel's picture, and enough pink, red, yellow whatever ribbons to break your back but no confederate flags and don't let a kid draw a picture of a gun.

    How about the Colombia professor who expressed his wish for a thousand Mogadishu's at an anti-war conference? If he had called for a thousand Diallo's or a thousand gay-bashing's or a thousand black guys dragged behind pickup trucks he would have been fired the next day, but this was protected speech.

    Good thing there's no media bias.
  6. Nicely said, AAA
  7. good post. I'd add that it's not confined to the left - there's a universal tendency to try to quash speech not agreed with or that threatens power. there is a reason the Founders codified it.
  8. Shouting down people you don't agree with is also free speech.

    Labelling people "rascist, homophobic, bigotted, anti-woman, or any of the other 47 terms" happens all the time in all political parties as a way to draw attention... not just on the left.

    Campus speech codes are in effect in many universities that are headed by people from all over the political spectrum. The truth is that both sides have extreme people that hate viewpoints that are different from their own.

    Hate crimes legislation means nothing unless you commit a crime, right? Anyways, this is a good link to look at the arguments. At worst, you'd say that the left is protecting innocent marginalized people, right? http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat5.htm

    As for the "draconian penalties", please post a link to a study that suggests that pro-life people get stiffer sentences for demonstrating.

    And you're right about one point, it's stupid to allow flag burning and not cross burning. It's both expression and as long as it doesn't infringe on others liberty then I don't think the government should step in at all.

    There are so many people on this board that watch so much Fox news that they have this crazy generalized view of all issues. This view that "the left doesn't play fair" and "the left is dead" is so overblown that most of the posters don't pay attention to any substantive facts when arguing a point. It's one thing to argue a point with facts, but it seems that many of the righties here tend to argue with empty rhetoric.
    #10     Apr 10, 2003