Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
du rec. Nt xchrom Sep 2012 #1
kr Robyn66 Sep 2012 #297
Alrighty then! How about a constitutional amendment repealing the 1st amendment. Hey Jude Sep 2012 #2
Let him or her go ahead and try to sell the repeal of the First Amendment to We the People. Zalatix Sep 2012 #7
You did not read and comprehend Jessy169 Sep 2012 #22
ROTFLMAO!!! You're living in denial. A re-do is a repeal. Zalatix Sep 2012 #72
Will membership on the peoples' committee that subjectively determines "truth", Riftaxe Sep 2012 #84
That's the way that it is done now & the reason is, in part, because it is assumed patrice Sep 2012 #92
Has nothing to do with the 1st A., and everything to do with slander, libel, and counter-points. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #172
Why stop at the 1st Amendment? There are lots of the COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #17
Just talking about limiting free speech to NOT include hate, lies Jessy169 Sep 2012 #25
I support the right to free unfettered speech, unequivocally. COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #32
Really. So it's okay that those with a voice constantly lie? Zoeisright Sep 2012 #63
What Is The Mechanism You Would Use To Remove FAUX Noise From The Air? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #69
This message was self-deleted by its author COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #76
It's their right as U.S. citizens. In fact, courts have held COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #102
Problem is that the only real way of countering the message is money Jkid Sep 2012 #282
I think you're absolutely correct. That's why COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #320
Yes- Freedom of speech especially protect speech you do not like Marrah_G Sep 2012 #322
Faux is the price we pay for living in a Democracy COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #332
How good is the concept of more speech if you have to pay for it. Jkid Sep 2012 #280
It's tough. But why can't we hit up donors like COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #321
Your 'lie' might be another's 'truth' B2G Sep 2012 #33
Exactly! MNBrewer Sep 2012 #39
You are looking at an armed rebellion that the WORLD will regret Zalatix Sep 2012 #87
you have been lied to Whisp Sep 2012 #123
If you want a dictatorship so much, then why not move? Zalatix Sep 2012 #196
I was in the lucky sperm club and born Canadian. Whisp Sep 2012 #208
Well, goody for you! Zalatix Sep 2012 #216
you are making yourself look very foolish! Whisp Sep 2012 #246
You're also making yourself look like an anti-American bigot. Zalatix Sep 2012 #248
you have a nice day too! Whisp Sep 2012 #253
You can crow all day about how superior you think you are. Zalatix Sep 2012 #254
:) Yes, you got it. ''America's freedoms bother me'' Whisp Sep 2012 #258
Your "lucky sperm club" comment constitutes hate speech under Canadian law. Zalatix Sep 2012 #262
no it doesn't and you are now just being silly Whisp Sep 2012 #264
Your "lucky sperm club" comment kicked off the silly hour. Zalatix Sep 2012 #265
Not sure why that bothers you so much. Whisp Sep 2012 #266
Not sure why America's freedoms bother you so much. Zalatix Sep 2012 #267
I like your President a lot Whisp Sep 2012 #269
I don't know why our freedoms bother you. Zalatix Sep 2012 #270
you have less freedoms than I do Whisp Sep 2012 #271
Okay so we let crazy people speak here without being sent to jail. Zalatix Sep 2012 #272
Why is it that the US is so different from most of the rest of western countries? Whisp Sep 2012 #274
But why does our freedom of speech bother you? After all, you're so superior! Zalatix Sep 2012 #275
it bothers me because it doesn't make sense Whisp Sep 2012 #277
It doesn't make sense to YOU. Zalatix Sep 2012 #316
Here is the problem DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #116
Yes, I do support the right to lie and I do support the right to speak hatefully. NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #143
Mass media must be responsible for truth and common sense and the individual must not incite to The Wielding Truth Sep 2012 #155
Actually I would point out that you would have to get rid of nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #273
I brought this exact point up the last time this crap happened and was nearly run off the boards. Initech Sep 2012 #186
And how do you define "hate," "lies"? JDPriestly Sep 2012 #231
That's a false choice jberryhill Sep 2012 #21
But Prohibiting "Hate Speech" Is Of A Whole Different Order DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #26
Simple assault jberryhill Sep 2012 #49
It Still Come Down To What Speech Is Verboten And What Speech Isn't DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #52
Absolutely jberryhill Sep 2012 #77
Please Read The Thread DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #90
No he didn't Jessy169 Sep 2012 #121
Where's The Proof That Ann Coulter Is A Slut? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #126
+1 nt BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #79
Thanks jberryhill for your fabulous critique! Jessy169 Sep 2012 #118
It all depends on the details jberryhill Sep 2012 #80
Hmm tama Sep 2012 #133
More pro-censorship shit. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #3
Sounds like you support Glen Beck, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh Jessy169 Sep 2012 #16
I Support Their Right To Free Speech As I Support Your Free Speech And Mine DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #23
Who decides what's acceptable? Mz Pip Sep 2012 #35
^.^ This justiceischeap Sep 2012 #234
I support Glen Beck, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh. The KKK too. Xithras Sep 2012 #54
Exactly Major Nikon Sep 2012 #142
Another card carrying member here. Dash87 Sep 2012 #255
False dichotomy fail Major Nikon Sep 2012 #140
Who decides what is propaganda or not? Odin2005 Sep 2012 #191
Whoever is in charge Dash87 Sep 2012 #256
Is that your idea of a conversation? jberryhill Sep 2012 #24
Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #122
What the hell do you NOT grasp about the First Amendment? it is NOT up for repeal, FGS. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #177
Spam deleted by Hassin Bin Sober (MIR Team) kolayamilya Sep 2012 #4
If mocking religion was a criminal offense, DU would be a different place. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #5
In England, Canada and Germany people are free to mock magic underwear Jessy169 Sep 2012 #10
How Is Not Hateful To Make Fun Of Garb That Is Required By A Certain Religion? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #14
OFGS. Are you American? Because, seriously, dude. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #178
What's Your Point? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #181
Wait, what? Marrah_G Sep 2012 #323
The Point Flew Right Over Your Head If You Followed The Discussion Within The Discussion DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #325
You totally lost me Marrah_G Sep 2012 #329
You could be arrested and tried. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #15
I have rarely, indeed never, been arrested for mocking religion here. Posteritatis Sep 2012 #20
Where is "here"? (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #27
One of the countries where you think I'd be arrested and tried. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #38
It's pretty smart of you to choose to post on a US website, instead of one based in your country. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #62
LMFAO laundry_queen Sep 2012 #202
Ah, it's Canada. With its notorious Canadian Human Rights Tribunals. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #203
We on DU have our own self-inflicted kangaroo court, I suppose. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #236
Also, people who post unacceptable stuff on this board don't go to prison. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #237
Do you mean, Posteritatis, that you live in a country in which the JDPriestly Sep 2012 #232
You interpreted that in the exact opposite manner that I expressed it. Well done! (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #249
rarely arrested -- Good heavens. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #235
Christ on a crutch, people here need to learn what sarcasm is. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #250
I have no sympathy for these men MNBrewer Sep 2012 #43
Again, what about Christianity? Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #104
OR what about this? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #110
No thanks. former9thward Sep 2012 #6
I Think Some Of Our Guys Said Some Pretty Hateful Things About Right Wing Figures DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #8
Were they true statements -- then, ok Jessy169 Sep 2012 #11
Ed Schultz Called Laura Ingraham A "Right Wing Slut" DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #18
To be determined Jessy169 Sep 2012 #31
What Proof Do You Have That Ann Coulter Is A Slut? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #42
really, dear? you KNOW that Ann Coulter is a "slut". cali Sep 2012 #111
Except, Cali, I didn't really say what "I would ban", did I Jessy169 Sep 2012 #124
That's The Whole Problem With Abridging Freedom Of Speech DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #131
Exactly!!! And I've called Romney and the Repbs WORSE!!! liberallibral Sep 2012 #53
So we would constantly be in court proving statements Union Scribe Sep 2012 #165
The main issue is the lines between words, incitement, and actual actions Posteritatis Sep 2012 #9
Totally agree Jessy169 Sep 2012 #13
Good for you Herlong Sep 2012 #12
No thanks. I'll choose freedom of speech over religious mob appeasement rollin74 Sep 2012 #19
No thank you. longship Sep 2012 #28
The likes of Limbaugh could be fixed with better radio licensing laws and Waiting For Everyman Sep 2012 #29
I agree, but Jessy169 Sep 2012 #34
It's The First Amendment To The Constitution. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #45
No offense intended, but you really should inform yourself a bit better for this argument. Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #65
This message was self-deleted by its author Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #66
Let me guess -- you're a lawyer Jessy169 Sep 2012 #134
You don't need to be a lawyer. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #224
Well said, Jim Lane. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #239
K&R. Well done. COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #333
Before you make this sort of OP kiva Sep 2012 #107
I'll agree with you on licensing laws malokvale77 Sep 2012 #162
Totally agree, and you may have hit on THE solution Jessy169 Sep 2012 #164
Thank you malokvale77 Sep 2012 #170
First of all, you have demonstrated poor knowledge of world media, MadHound Sep 2012 #30
Fox News is available in other countries Jessy169 Sep 2012 #44
Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of Fox and its worldwide reach MadHound Sep 2012 #112
But you're obscuring the main point and playing gotcha Jessy169 Sep 2012 #136
It does NOT include the 'freedom to incite riot.' elleng Sep 2012 #36
Yes, it does Jessy169 Sep 2012 #141
freedom of speech is stupid BOG PERSON Sep 2012 #37
Who's Freedom? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #47
in the main, freedom for perverts and douchebags BOG PERSON Sep 2012 #64
They don't in authoritarian societies either. Dash87 Sep 2012 #261
and they're usually right, too BOG PERSON Sep 2012 #268
Would you want to leave it up to a Republican Congress SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #299
You just criticized one of our government's founding documents. Dash87 Sep 2012 #260
Actually incitement to a riot is penalized under law nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #40
Is that only in Montana, or is that Federal law too? Jessy169 Sep 2012 #144
Here is one of the U.S. Code in question nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #200
I doubt that that section would apply to the anti-Muslim film. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #225
I agree with you, Jim Lane. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #241
Alas, at least to me this is about LIMITS TO FREE SPEECH nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #244
That movie insults a religion, but I have not heard that it incites to riot. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #240
There are complications nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #245
To say that you were 'wildly' misunderstood xchrom Sep 2012 #41
Who Gets To Judge? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #48
This isn't the Great Unknown. xchrom Sep 2012 #74
+1 & I resist the assumption that we are incapable of doing that reasonably so we must'nt do it in patrice Sep 2012 #78
What Infringements On Free Speech Beside Those Established By Case Law Would You Be Comfortable With DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #85
I'd like to see those "established by case law" more widely considered, relative to new technologies patrice Sep 2012 #99
Nicely said. 99Forever Sep 2012 #113
Paternalism. "People are bad. They are dumb, so they can't grow. Everything should be defined or not patrice Sep 2012 #117
Oh, REALLY? You mean like the UK, that censors articles about the royals because they'd be offended? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #175
Thank you xchrom! Jessy169 Sep 2012 #129
Careful now... Cause I'm a Left Wing Loonie. xchrom Sep 2012 #153
I'm a left-wing loonie too -- I use the term lovingly Jessy169 Sep 2012 #156
I'd worry more about the deliberate misinterpretation of the 2A going on. Loudly Sep 2012 #46
We've tryed this before Progressive dog Sep 2012 #50
And it led to the first Slander and Libel laws, some of which are still in the books nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #56
No one is defending lying about others as free speech Progressive dog Sep 2012 #67
I am familiar with the history nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #75
Not quite Jessy169 Sep 2012 #132
That is ok, and welcome to the club nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #201
Sorry, but I'm willing to die for our freedom of expression... liberallibral Sep 2012 #51
Then maybe you should ... frazzled Sep 2012 #71
How about we stay right here in America Zalatix Sep 2012 #82
Is posting something on YouTube a right? frazzled Sep 2012 #115
Youtube refused to take it down. So there. Zalatix Sep 2012 #195
No, that is a corporation nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #207
Yep, I'll fight and even DIE for those I disgree with, such as Glen Beck, etc.... liberallibral Sep 2012 #95
So when they riot because the US allows gay marriage hack89 Sep 2012 #138
bingo this seems to be were its all going loli phabay Sep 2012 #188
LOL! Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #55
Like any ideology, an absolute formulated as "We need more speech, not less" seems to be based patrice Sep 2012 #57
"assert one's own biases, i.e. fascism in one degree or another" BOG PERSON Sep 2012 #98
The will to power is fundamental to survival. It's agendas, more but usually way less, honestly patrice Sep 2012 #106
Here is the problem DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #279
Perhaps you could be the first cabinet head of the Ministry of Truth. MineralMan Sep 2012 #58
Imagine DU If That Law Was On The Books During The Bush* Administration DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #59
You know, you could always move to Iran. name not needed Sep 2012 #60
Thanks for your contribution Jessy169 Sep 2012 #145
Fits quite nicely with the OP. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #176
Under your proposed limits to our rights, I assume you would allow preachers Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #61
??? OP seems VERY much to be saying the opposite of what you think: patrice Sep 2012 #73
I note the OP refuses to respond, and no patrice the OP does not at all address Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #139
I'm not sure I understand how you get that from OP. Maybe one thing we could talk about would patrice Sep 2012 #159
OP is very much saying the opposite of what Bluenorthwest is saying Jessy169 Sep 2012 #147
Well why not simply respond to the questions you are being asked? Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #154
Responding Jessy169 Sep 2012 #167
You did not reply to a single question I asked you, nor to any point I raised. Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #197
James Holmes Was Set Off Because Of The Batman Franchise DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #211
Wrong. Other peoples in other places reaction to our Freedom of expression is. hobbit709 Sep 2012 #68
Would this bit of unvarnished mockery of religion be unacceptable in your new country? Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #70
Would you care if you were the subject of that mockery? What if that mockery progressed to patrice Sep 2012 #86
We Have Laws On The Book That Ban Discrimination On The Basis Of Race, Religion, And National Origin DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #96
You and I probably differ on that point of "curtail". I think it is possible to say almost anything patrice Sep 2012 #114
No, the solution is always more speech treestar Sep 2012 #81
Blame the victim? How about blaming the troglodytes who think killing is O.K.? nt Speck Tater Sep 2012 #83
Canadian or UK style restrictions would not preclude the filming or posting of Innocence of Muslims tifanyhunter Sep 2012 #88
Not a good idea lunatica Sep 2012 #89
Is it time to burn our RR, blues, hiphop and rap records yet? L0oniX Sep 2012 #91
excellent. Whisp Sep 2012 #93
What Would Have Happened If Attorney General Ashcroft Had The Power Of Those Laws Behind Him? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #101
Exactly. Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #103
I'm not sure exactly but Whisp Sep 2012 #120
Limbaugh Didn't Invent Nutters DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #137
If Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the price for the freedom to speak freely, NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #148
then explain why the US is in such a sorry state compared to others. Whisp Sep 2012 #212
You think all things are equal, except for that? NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #263
Totally agree, Whisp Jessy169 Sep 2012 #151
the herd is fattened, and now we see the the powerful feed on them. Whisp Sep 2012 #158
Some would argue that our freedom of expression silvershadow Sep 2012 #94
Defining what constitutes "hate speech" would be a nightmarish, never-ending debate. Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #97
This is a completely misguided approach abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #100
Hate speech laws are tempting M_M Sep 2012 #105
codswallop. cali Sep 2012 #108
I don't think so. ProSense Sep 2012 #109
FAIL. Religious nut jobs are killing us and you're trying to further empower them. trouble.smith Sep 2012 #119
Nope. abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #166
religious zealots do stupid things for stupid reasons trouble.smith Sep 2012 #193
Uh, card carrying ACLU member here Warpy Sep 2012 #125
But what about the right of those people not to be killed? Why is that less of a right than patrice Sep 2012 #135
Manson said he was told to kill by the Bible and the Beatles. Son of Sam said a dog Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #149
I operate on the basic assumptions of rational empiricism, which include the fact that patrice Sep 2012 #163
Please try to demonstrate cause and effect in this situation. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #183
I was responding to a post saying that Manson and Son of Sam claimed cause and effect in their cases patrice Sep 2012 #187
Keep up instead of just spouting. David Berkowitz recanted that claim long ago. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #290
I was speaking hypothetically in response to a claim made by someone else. And, if you'll patrice Sep 2012 #301
You do understand that the rational methods to which I refer only yield possibilities? patrice Sep 2012 #303
The hateful crap will always be with us in one form or another Warpy Sep 2012 #179
Take it up with the violent thugs. Oh, I forgot; they're "sensitive." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #289
Yeah, drug dealers have no part in the crimes committed for whatever high they propagate. nt patrice Sep 2012 #305
Are some people born certain ways that limit their choices or not? nt patrice Sep 2012 #306
Nope. Sorry. We let the courts decide when speech has gone so far as to actually harm someone. kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #127
The religious RW in this country would like nothing more than to limit free speech. n/t cynatnite Sep 2012 #128
People are always offended by new truths Yo_Mama Sep 2012 #130
But freedom is not served by what we are doing. Regressive feedback loops get going and patrice Sep 2012 #146
The point of allowing people to speak freely Yo_Mama Sep 2012 #169
WHO will be the arbiter? You? Me? Oh, wait; it would be THE US SUPREME COURT, TYVM. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #174
You assume that the only effective forms of control are external and, hence, hierarchical patrice Sep 2012 #189
What? I'm SAYING that the US Supreme Court has ruled against the OP's restrictive concept. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #288
Why is it that so many people who are allegedly so interested in freedom almost never think in any patrice Sep 2012 #308
You have an interesting defintion of "freedom." And of "free." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #291
Do you dispute that the post to which you are responding describes pretty much what is going on patrice Sep 2012 #298
Are you implying that the mere fact that some -one/thing expresses something because s/he/they WANT patrice Sep 2012 #300
If we're going to limit free speech, let's start with the people who want to get rid of it... Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #150
Amen. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2012 #168
I'm Actually More Concerned About An Expansive Construction Of The Second Amendment DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #152
Then you'd be better served leaving the 2nd alone... eqfan592 Sep 2012 #157
We do not have to change the First Amendment. RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #160
Free expression is not the problem. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #161
Take it up with the Supreme Court. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #173
Sure thing! Scootaloo Sep 2012 #180
Oh, haHA! At least these men are more apt to protect speech than YOU, apparently. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #184
At the expense of others, of course. Just like you. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #210
You are, alas, completely illogical. To equate rape with speech is, in a word, STUPID. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #286
Just Out Of Curiosity Did You Support Or Oppose The Supreme Court's Flag Burning Decision? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #185
"Beyond what case law proscribes," you say? Scootaloo Sep 2012 #209
Where Did I Suggest DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #217
In your response to my post Scootaloo Sep 2012 #218
And I Established That To Some Burning That Cloth Is "Heaping Abuse On Them" DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #220
And you seem to accept their argument wholly. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #221
Straight White Male DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #222
It may very well be abuse, but outside of specific venues (e.g., schools), "verbal abuse", if not a WinkyDink Sep 2012 #293
If burning a cloth is OK, then what about burning some paper, like a Koran? nt kelly1mm Sep 2012 #223
Free speech also protected Confusious Sep 2012 #233
Disgusting and risible at the same time. JUST WHOM DO YOU NOMINATE to "RE-DO" our Freedom of Speech? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #171
No, it's not. Iggo Sep 2012 #182
What a crock. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #190
We have always had to put up with crap to have our right to free speech. Jennicut Sep 2012 #192
To everyone reviling OP in this thread, do you consider Citizens United free speech? Why not? patrice Sep 2012 #194
Free speech applies to people Confusious Sep 2012 #238
The ACLU defends Citizens' United. patrice Sep 2012 #251
So my next point is Confusious Sep 2012 #287
I believe the ACLU discusses modification of the Constitution for this & is against it. nt patrice Sep 2012 #304
Well, I'll have to disagree with them about it. Confusious Sep 2012 #318
If you think our freedom of expression is killing us - lynne Sep 2012 #198
And the ONLY reason you were able to post this NashvilleLefty Sep 2012 #199
You can add all "bad" speech to the Patriot Act. hack89 Sep 2012 #204
^^^This.^^^ nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #206
Oh, snap. Quantess Sep 2012 #226
Nope, can't get behind this. JoeyT Sep 2012 #205
Do you think that simply muting people will make them go away? Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #213
What is "offensive" is entirely in the ears of the beholder. Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #214
US freedom of speech MellowDem Sep 2012 #215
You and the 22 who have so far rec'd this thread may support appeasing the fundies SpartanDem Sep 2012 #219
I disagree with all three foreign laws you mention. Citizens United is a different matter. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #227
There are people all over the world fighting for free speech sitting in a jail cell davidn3600 Sep 2012 #228
Facts are objective. Truth is subjective. How one uses facts can be subjective. cali Sep 2012 #229
Jessy169, who among us should decide whose speech, what speech incites to riot? JDPriestly Sep 2012 #230
Jessy169's post #122 was hidden, so they cannot reply to you muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #243
That poster was simply rude and non responsive. I asked specific questions and that Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #247
I like be Canadian riverbendviewgal Sep 2012 #276
Canada may have some graces DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #281
I know this but so far it is not like the USA right now riverbendviewgal Sep 2012 #283
I hope so DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #317
Sorry - I refuse to give volent people veto power over my civil rights. hack89 Sep 2012 #242
+1 X_Digger Sep 2012 #315
speech can be abusive and even scar for life... it is a psychic weapon... trailmonkee Sep 2012 #252
I am wondering what you would think if there were more and better counter-weapons. patrice Sep 2012 #257
See all the above responses to this argument. The U.S. does NOT have laws against "hate speech." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #285
The U.S. has laws against speech which increases danger to vulnerables beyond what they would patrice Sep 2012 #307
There are no laws against hate speech in the United States SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #302
Speech that increases danger to vulnerables beyond what they would otherwise patrice Sep 2012 #309
Nice try, but no cigar SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #319
Perhaps the principle should not be applied by law, but by community assent instead. You've heard patrice Sep 2012 #324
hate crimes more specifically... sorry, speech can be part of that... trailmonkee Sep 2012 #311
"A hard look at freedom of expression?" Never Dash87 Sep 2012 #259
I'm afraid your wrong GordonHide Sep 2012 #278
I strongly disagree with your viewpoint. Marrah_G Sep 2012 #284
I think I've got it: The OP doesn't like "Saturday Night Live." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #292
The solution to speech you don't like is more speech, not restricting speech. alarimer Sep 2012 #294
Sorry, but our freedom of expression has saved us and will continue to save us. eom yawnmaster Sep 2012 #295
I think this OP was an exercise in dragging a shiny thing under the water behind a boat... cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #296
I think whenever people talk with one another about important stuff that's good, who cares patrice Sep 2012 #310
Inciting violence? I just don't see it. michaelslomo Sep 2012 #312
No it isn't. 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #313
Man I miss that unrec button. nt Skip Intro Sep 2012 #314
This is an astonishingly stupid post. WilliamPitt Sep 2012 #326
Bullshit--how about we have a re-do of the live and let live principal? librechik Sep 2012 #327
Sigh...unrec Taverner Sep 2012 #328
Dumbest. Thread. Ever. Alduin Sep 2012 #330
Under The Broad Hate Speech Laws DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #331
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Our Freedom of Expression...»Reply #19