View Single Post
  #6  
Unread 03-27-2017, 01:29 PM
Mindless Mindless is on FIRE! 5+ wins in a row!
Staff Hall Of Famer
HEBREW BANHAMMER
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,578
Mentioned: 713 Post(s)
Tagged: 56 Thread(s)
Estimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 stars
Ranked Audio Record
3 Won / 1 Lost
Estimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.84/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.84/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.84/10 stars
Ranked Text Record
34 Won / 6 Lost
Exclusive Text Record
1 Won / 1 Lost
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant View Post
Are you saying that the freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want? It doesn't.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant View Post
There are caveats to the first amendment that deal with things like reputation.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant View Post
Racial slurs, and derogatory remarks have the capacity to weaken the reputation of entire subsects of society on a cultural level.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant View Post
Bigotry and dispiriting speech are not a constitutional right afforded to you by the bill of rights.
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz View Post
lol...hava nagila nigga
Reply With Quote
Unread 03-27-2017, 01:29 PM   #6
 
Mindless Mindless is on FIRE! 5+ wins in a row!
Staff Hall Of Famer
HEBREW BANHAMMER
Estimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 5.83/10 stars
Ranked Audio Record
3 Won / 1 Lost
Estimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 5.83/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.84/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.84/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.84/10 stars
Ranked Text Record
34 Won / 6 Lost
Exclusive Text Record
1 Won / 1 Lost
 
Join Date: May 2006
Voted: 95 audio / 718 text
Posts: 6,578
Mentioned: 713 Post(s)
Tagged: 56 Thread(s)


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant View Post
Are you saying that the freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want? It doesn't.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant View Post
There are caveats to the first amendment that deal with things like reputation.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant View Post
Racial slurs, and derogatory remarks have the capacity to weaken the reputation of entire subsects of society on a cultural level.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant View Post
Bigotry and dispiriting speech are not a constitutional right afforded to you by the bill of rights.
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz View Post
lol...hava nagila nigga
Offline   Reply With Quote