NY Democrats Claim Free Speech is Privilege, Not a Right!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The First Amendment protects against Congress making any law that prohibits free speech or expression. This includes hate speech, or any speech or expression except those which create a clear and present danger. This right is protected.

The Community Team here at Tom's is not Congress. The forum, while welcoming to all, is privately owned and operated by a private business (like all forums) which may establish parameters as to what is and what is not acceptable on the premises. Just like you have a freedom of religion, you probably can't use the local Catholic church for a Wiccan mass. And though you have a right to assemble, Walmart is unlikely to allow you to host a pro-Union rally on Aisle 5 next to the rollback on candy bars.

Hate speech, as defined in our terms, is not permitted on our forums. That includes any attacks on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. I can more deeply define that in the terms, if required.

Now that this is clarified, please resume discussion of the original post.
 
Yea, Reynod... I really don't seem to get it. About 3 people have corrected you about the fact that Hate Speech/Freedom of such, of course doesn't apply on a private forum - not to mention one that isn't based in America. Anytime an American mentions 1st Amendment Rights, we are discussing an issue with regards to our own framework of Government.

The logic of why Hate Speech should be allowed (from an American POV) is fairly easy to comprehend. One is free to say whatever the hells they want, but one is NOT free from the repercussions of what was said. Sure, Neo-Nazis can get up in America and speak their mind, and at the same time can out themselves to the rest of the world and disgust enough normal people that they rally against them. Sure the Dixie Chicks can get on stage and use their platform to criticize a sitting President, and at the same time can lose tons of their fans and suffer boycotts.


Here in the US one might be free to say something, but no one should kid themselves that there are no consequences of that speech.
 
"We have a responsibility to defend their rights; even if we do not agree with them. However, they do not have a right to trample on others' rights by exercising their own. "

^ and therein lies equality

PS I'll add that not only is it the law, it also allows for grace, for appreciation of one another willing to stick up, or even fight for others rights
 



HA HA i second that! When i was in high school one of my best friends was picking on people so a slap him in the back of his head!
 
Every time I quote the president, I get voted down
Now, maybe the prez isnt popular, or his words are the wrong words
Or only certain ways of these words are to be interpreted, which can only mean, theyre very vague to begin with, which is my point, and are relevant here
 



Oldman that post was to send you a clear and frank message about your attitude in these forums ... which you still don't seem to get.

It wasn't hate speech ... I became sick and tired of you undeleting posts, reopening threads which I had closed and generally ignoring my comments about curbing your behaviour in these forums.

the fact that you reposted this clearly out of context says a lot more about you as a childish, petty and vindictive individual than it does about my apparently "dictatorial" approach in this forum area.

I consider that I am pretty tolerant and like to have a laugh just like everyone else.

You however seem to revel in negative, provocative and polarising topics which almost always ends up in most parties becoming angry.

Psychologically I don't consider that healthy.



 
As deplorable as the Westboro fv*knuts (aka, God Hates Fags) are, yes, we should defend their right to assemble. But Knarl said it well with his post...
...but no one should kid themselves that there are no consequences of that speech.
Click to expand...
...so, with that said, I'm going to organize a protest every time one of the Westboro fv*knuts dies. Wanna join my mailing list?
 
I think that perhaps there is a key difference being overlooked here. Anonymity (I hope I speeled that right, lol) ..while protesting or even rallying , in person, you are face to face with those you are opposing or 'hate speaching on' ..while in the cyber world. you are granted a mask of being Anonymous ..in real life (for the most part) you dont get to hide your name and face while interacting with the rest of society. I wonder how much of the 'cyber-bullying' would be affected if people were required to use their real names and real pics, and maybe even real home addresses and phone numbers ? I think this leads to a difference in actual behaviour of people. It is one thing to say something behind someone's back, when they are not around (ie anonymously , in cyberspace, from 3,000 miles away) than to say the same thing up front to their face standing right next to them (as there may be more consequences when it's face to face 😉) ..
I am reminded of a story after 9/11 ..the Military is about to go off to war, on the drive to the base , the streets are lined with protesters and signs denouncing everything from the president to foreign policy to wall street to the military men themselves. One officer looks around says "I cant believe they are doing this, I cant believe what they are saying, I cant believe this is what we are fighting for" ..another officer turns to him and says "THIS is EXACTLY what we are fighting for" ...In other countries they have opened fire on people for less (Iran, Syria etc comes to mind in recent events) ..I also think that the comparisons to Hitler, Stalin etc ..are thrown around way too much, and are becoming cliche, and ineffectual. as well greatly misplaced in 98% of their uses (I mean do you really think that someone is in the same category as the man who would genocide an entire race, take over the entire world, enslave millions, and bring about the greatest and costliest and deadliest war in history ?? really ?) it just doesnt make any logical sense to me, unless you are Pol Pot, ok then I will compare you to Hitler..Speaking of logic, it's kind of like those who calim that Bush was the 'Dumbest President Ever' and in the next breath claim that he was behind 9/11 and was the mastermind of the greatest double-blind conspiracy/cover-up in history. Well which is it, is he a Mastermind or an Idiot? maybe you think he is the 'rain-man' of conspiracies..you cant have it both ways..logically..you can emotionally.
But back on topic , most of hate speach is emotionally based not rational or logical. And while the vast majority of Americans (and I would even say indeed the rest of world do not support or condon it) this would put the hate-speachers , into the minority catagory, and thus would still have rights. But as most cyber-forums are privately run, they also have the right to setup their own rules for what is acceptable speach. that being said , I do think that anonymity plays a factor in how and what people say.
 
As they say, "Popularity breeds contempt."

Before 2008 and when MSNBC actually supported President Bush, they too were criticized for their reporting style and support of conservative politics. But since, MSNBC has done a 180 degree turn and denounces Bush and is enjoying an ongoing love affair with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. I used to watch Chris Matthews regularly, but he turned out to be the biggest hypocrite because as soon as Obama got into office, he got "chills down his leg" and forgot all about Bush. Heck, even the token MSNBC Republican Joe Scarborough has softened his delivery to be less conservative and more center/left.

So, while folks make fun of Fox news for its conservative reporting, at least Ailes and Fox have remained consistent with their support and not pulled a "flip-flop-forget" like other mainstream media outlets and pundits.

Ironically, news channels like CurrentTV and CNN get a pass for their obvious progressive political bias.
 

im ready for the government to wipe my a$s for me. god what ever happened to independence. it was what this country was built on. we have people protesting because they wont work for 7$ an hour when he has no job at all (btw someone said that people should be paid 20$ an hour whether they work or not). the sense of entitlement is ridiculous! there are plenty of skilled jobs open. we need plumbers, electricians and other skill positions. but people these days dont want to work.
 
mjmj , very true , I hate to say it , but I think that MTV has raised a generation spoiled whiny brats, who think they deserve everything handed to them.(I think a few years actually working , while watching thier buddies party on at the protest , will change their minds, it's what changed mine, I got tired of working while others partied, then expected me to pay for their concert tickets)..and while it may not be the job of your dreams, or the best paying job, or even an easy job, it's still better than nothing. I have friend whose oldest son a few years ago, basically chose to go homeless and steal rather than work a 'crappy job' ..and EVERY one who tried to help him, he just stole from them, to the point that ran of any one helping him, and had to leave town. My Uncle who works for the DoT building roads, says the same thing, he says these kids will call in sick, and at the same time , ask him to clock them in so they can they still get paid for the day.
again I blame the Media for its terrible influence, ever notice how the media will, on everything from Movies to Sitcoms , will ridicule jobs like fast food, and promote anything in the 'Media Industry';..ooh you could be a Model, or an Actor, or Rock Star..they NEVER say anything good about certain jobs (Fast Food or Janitor or dam near anything that isnt in the 'Media Industry') . the Characters aspiring goal of being a Rock Star or Screenplay writer, or Fashion Designer, is ALWAYS promoted as preferable to ANYthing else. I dont care what your job is, I respect that , and having actually worked those jobs, I respect them even more.
 


As far as "hate speech" is concerned, it depends on your defintion. I have been accused of Muslim bashing when I linked to news articles and quotes from the Qu'ran.
 

Have you been paying attention for the last 3 years? There is a distinct lack of jobs. It isn't that people don't want to work. Who wants to be homeless or on the way there?
 

Actually the founders left it open enough for the 5th Congress to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts and for the 65th Congress to pass the Sedition Act of 1918. It was only in the 1960s that the people won the freedom of speech we have today.
 

not in the sector of trades. and in total there are millions of jobs open. there are lots of jobs open just a lot of people arent qualified. people dont want to be mechanics electricians plumbers anymore.
 

I'd love to see your source.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom