Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

It's the definition. And who are you to complain about being non pc when you make fun of handicapped people? Just last night in chat. Besides, you pretended to be black. Painted your online face black, you of all people shouldn't have shit to say. :grass:

Where did I complain?

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Mindless

As long as the words you're saying don't put people in harm's way it absolutely does. The right to free speech gives anyone the right to say anything that they want. Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? No. That puts people into potential harm, but calling people names does them no physical damage and, as such, can not and should not be limited by the government.

Hate speech is criminal speech, and as such cannot be considered free. And SHOULD not be considered free.

I'm not so sure unless you're talking about the ability to take a civil case against someone. In which case, it's not the government limiting the speech as much as it is giving a person who has been harmed by false statements an opportunity to recoup those damages financially. It's not the same thing at all though. A civil case is one citizen against another. You're talking about the government being able to charge people with a crime for speech and that is a dangerous road to take. Once that Pandora's box is open it can't be closed.

There is no difference between a civil case in which a single party brings charges to another, and that in which a governmental body does so.

I don't think so. You can make the argument that people calling blacks niggers or other slurs in the past is why their situation got so fucked up but I'm going to argue that you're wrong because it wasn't the words themselves that caused slavery, segregation, lynching etc. It was the ideas that lead to the use of those words and you don't need those words to spread those ideas. Look, at what Trump has done. He's not out there screaming "The sand niggers need to go" but he's done a REALLY good job of getting that same ignorant and despicable idea across with out it.

Positions of power bring with them an inherent "stroke"(obligatory wrestling terminology.) And as such have the capacity to influence a large group of people with their words and actions. By many, hate speech can be seen as advocacy of hateful acts. If the president of a country were to condemn an entire sect of the populous a large percentage of people in the country would likely follow suit.

Yes they are. The bill of rights neither prohibits or protects you from assholes and idiots. People are allowed to be cunts, legally, as long as they aren't causing damage to persons or property. You can not like that. That's fine. However, you cannot assert that the Constitution doesn't protect fucking dickheads and speech you don't like because that's not the way it works.

The bill of rights is not a pass to make defamatory remarks. Hate speech is obscene, and slanderous. As such, it can be considered as constituting the same legal restrictions as any other forms of these examples of behavior.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

It's the definition. And who are you to complain about being non pc when you make fun of handicapped people? Just last night in chat. Besides, you pretended to be black. Painted your online face black, you of all people shouldn't have shit to say. :grass:

Where did I complain?

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Mindless

As long as the words you're saying don't put people in harm's way it absolutely does. The right to free speech gives anyone the right to say anything that they want. Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? No. That puts people into potential harm, but calling people names does them no physical damage and, as such, can not and should not be limited by the government.

Hate speech is criminal speech, and as such cannot be considered free. And SHOULD not be considered free.

I'm not so sure unless you're talking about the ability to take a civil case against someone. In which case, it's not the government limiting the speech as much as it is giving a person who has been harmed by false statements an opportunity to recoup those damages financially. It's not the same thing at all though. A civil case is one citizen against another. You're talking about the government being able to charge people with a crime for speech and that is a dangerous road to take. Once that Pandora's box is open it can't be closed.

There is no difference between a civil case in which a single party brings charges to another, and that in which a governmental body does so.

I don't think so. You can make the argument that people calling blacks niggers or other slurs in the past is why their situation got so fucked up but I'm going to argue that you're wrong because it wasn't the words themselves that caused slavery, segregation, lynching etc. It was the ideas that lead to the use of those words and you don't need those words to spread those ideas. Look, at what Trump has done. He's not out there screaming "The sand niggers need to go" but he's done a REALLY good job of getting that same ignorant and despicable idea across with out it.

Positions of power bring with them an inherent "stroke"(obligatory wrestling terminology.) And as such have the capacity to influence a large group of people with their words and actions. By many, hate speech can be seen as advocacy of hateful acts. If the president of a country were to condemn an entire sect of the populous a large percentage of people in the country would likely follow suit.

Yes they are. The bill of rights neither prohibits or protects you from assholes and idiots. People are allowed to be cunts, legally, as long as they aren't causing damage to persons or property. You can not like that. That's fine. However, you cannot assert that the Constitution doesn't protect fucking dickheads and speech you don't like because that's not the way it works.

The bill of rights is not a pass to make defamatory remarks. Hate speech is obscene, and slanderous. As such, it can be considered as constituting the same legal restrictions as any other forms of these examples of behavior.