General Discussion

Turborama

(22,109 posts) Sat Jan 17, 2015, 08:12 AM Jan 2015

Trying to protect "free speech" is all very well and good... [View all]

Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

However, it's mostly hateful people who try to protect "hate speech".

- Me

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trying to protect "free speech" is all very well and good... [View all] Turborama Jan 2015 OP

I'm afraid I strongly disagree. Hate speech needs to be protected against state censure. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #1

You disagree that haters fight the hardest to protect hate speech? Turborama Jan 2015 #2

Anyone else who wants to add themselves to the list join the queue and sign up... nt Turborama Jan 2015 #3

Yeah, I'll add myself. GGJohn Jan 2015 #14

Let me ask a question. Do you support the right of an abusive spouse sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #19

Comparing apples to Edsels. cherokeeprogressive Jan 2015 #37

How so? Speech is speech. I am reading comments here stating that even the 'most vile and hateful sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #45

You're describing assault PeaceNikki Jan 2015 #50

So, some speech is assault. That's not the response I'm getting in this thread though. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #60

Do you know the difference between hate speech and assault? NuclearDem Jan 2015 #63

I know the difference, do you? sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #64

I don't think you do. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #65

Is verbal abuse speech that should be protected or not in domestic violence situations? sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #72

Ugh. Alright, clearly you don't know what assault is. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #73

You're making no sense whatsoever. Same old personal attacks. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #74

I have no "interest" in you. You post nonsense, and I reply. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #83

Youa are spot on. politicman Jan 2015 #78

Well, that's because that's what it is, GGJohn Jan 2015 #80

so please enlighten us then. politicman Jan 2015 #82

Sorry, but I'm not gonna play a gotcha moment with you. GGJohn Jan 2015 #88

I can't find any law against spousal verbal abuse. Can you please post something sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #97

As I told you before, GGJohn Jan 2015 #102

What 'gotcha' game? After you and couple of others stated that verbal spousal abuse was 'assault' sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #105

Here's my simple answer, GGJohn Jan 2015 #108

Those who claimed, in this thread, that spousal verbal abuse was legally defined as 'assault' were sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #110

I'm not upset with you. GGJohn Jan 2015 #112

Okay, sorry if I misunderstood you. I agree with you which is why I was surprised to be told sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #116

Maybe I should clarify my earlier posts, GGJohn Jan 2015 #118

Yes, my question was to try to find out if they really meant, as I have seen stated here, 'that all sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #81

Really, you would outlaw such speech? treestar Jan 2015 #89

You said that, I didn't say that. So you agree with those who say that all speech, 'no matter how sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #96

Yes. Deal with it other ways. It can't be banned. treestar Jan 2015 #98

I was told in this thread that spousal verbal abuse is legally considered 'assault' and illegal. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #111

I think they are wrong and it is not an assault treestar Jan 2015 #113

True, thankfully. I don't know if, on it's own, it is enough for a protection order. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #115

That's assault, which is already against the law. GGJohn Jan 2015 #66

I agree with the OP but I don't accept that all speech is free malaise Jan 2015 #86

That's not a free speech issue. cleanhippie Jan 2015 #90

Then you don't agree with those here who are claiming that 'all speech, no matter how vile, should sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #93

Lol cleanhippie Jan 2015 #95

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Verbal Spousal Abuse IS a free speech issue, and no, it is not illegal sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #117

Ha!!!! GGJohn Jan 2015 #16

Sign me up too. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #20

Lock me in. TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #21

Done. Turborama Jan 2015 #31

Good job, Inquisitor. Way to stand up for only the speech you like! TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #47

Who cares if we never have to deal with each other again? Turborama Jan 2015 #52

I'd like to be ignored twice, Thank You. cherokeeprogressive Jan 2015 #34

Because you are hateful and want to protect hate speech? Turborama Jan 2015 #39

I think the people who fight for it hardest are probably the ACLU. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #7

Has the ACLU defended abusive spouses for verbal abuse of their victims? Maybe they sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #22

That's not what most people use the words "hate speech" are talking about. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #30

So there are limits to vile, hateful speech? I'm seeing absolute statements that ALL speech sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #32

Of course there are. Here is a thread where I set out what I thought some of them should be. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #42

Assault is the overt act of intentionally trying to physically hurt someone. Rex Jan 2015 #104

Thank you, after being told in this thread that verbal abuse of a spouse was 'different' vile and sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #107

Yes, I agree strongly with the post you want to ignore. Yo_Mama Jan 2015 #84

Only two kinds of people will forcefully contest allegations against them -- the Guilty and Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #100

Who is this 'they' that is coming for us eventually? Don't you realize how silly that sounds? Rex Jan 2015 #99

Not from a UK perspective, it doesn't. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #106

Anyone else who wants to add themselves to the list join the queue and sign up... nt Turborama Jan 2015 #4

Next? Turborama Jan 2015 #6

Sign me up, please. cheapdate Jan 2015 #8

Sure, bye! n/t Turborama Jan 2015 #9

Bunk, free speech is free speech, no matter how much it offends someone ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #5

So, if you walked into the home of an abused woman and heard her spouse sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #27

What ridiculous strawman bullshit. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #33

Speech is speech is what I am hearing here. Even the most vile 'must be protected'. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #38

Protection against state censorship is not the same as privately condoning or accepting. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #44

It is bizarre folks have such difficulty with this concept. TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #48

The guarantee of free speech protects the citizens against the government - you don't make sense. Yo_Mama Jan 2015 #85

I would tell the woman to get out, get a gun and shoot his ass dead if he touches her or the kids ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #87

But he can verbally abuse her so long as he doesn't touch her? Okay, that's all I wanted sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #92

I did not say that, she is in an abusive relationship with a psycho ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #119

Popular speech needs no protection- it's popular. X_Digger Jan 2015 #10

DU and Democrats already protected hateful speech aggressively when Rick Warren was anointed Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #11

!!! +1 wavesofeuphoria Jan 2015 #23

I LESS THAN THREE YOU. sibelian Jan 2015 #29

Yes, everyone has free speech treestar Jan 2015 #91

Bullshit. MohRokTah Jan 2015 #12

Let me ask you then, verbal abuse of a spouse in a home where domestic abuse is sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #40

Sure, what government definitions and sanctions do you want to set on verbal abuse? TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #53

I don't want anything, I just want to know what recourse those who are victims of sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #58

If the discussion isn't the right then what is the point? We've left policy behind and I've lost the TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #59

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ. TransitJohn Jan 2015 #13

You made me LOL! Coventina Jan 2015 #56

Like the ACLU? PeaceNikki Jan 2015 #15

It's mostly hateful people who try to protect "hate speech". Turborama Jan 2015 #17

Do you consider the ACLU to be "hateful people"? (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #28

Read up on the ACLU's representation of the Nazi's in Skokie, IL. branford Jan 2015 #71

Pure horsehockey. GGJohn Jan 2015 #75

We should set you as a new pope of free speech - then you can tell us what speech el_bryanto Jan 2015 #18

OK Turborama Jan 2015 #43

Those hateful folks at the ACLU, defending the right of the KKK to march (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #24

"However" is the rich cousin of "but" nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2015 #25

This is a joke, right? Your little 'quote' doesn't even make sense. n/t Avalux Jan 2015 #26

Which part don't you get? Turborama Jan 2015 #35

All of it. Go for it, blow my mind. n/t Avalux Jan 2015 #61

LOL. All I can say to that is... Turborama Jan 2015 #67

I'd have to know who you're talking about before I respond tularetom Jan 2015 #36

I consider people who defend free speech to be true patriots dissentient Jan 2015 #41

If it's "mostly" hateful people, who do you feel are the remaining people? Gidney N Cloyd Jan 2015 #46

Other than the hateful? Absolutists, of course. Turborama Jan 2015 #49

Hate speech Basic LA Jan 2015 #51

Thank you! One would have thought this is a normal conclusion in these parts. Turborama Jan 2015 #54

What's amusing is the same people who are jumping on the 'defend all speech no matter how vile' sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #62

Funny thing is that no one here is defending the hate, GGJohn Jan 2015 #76

"against powerless minorities" Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #101

I'm trying to unpack this Neon Gods Jan 2015 #55

Define "hate speech." LWolf Jan 2015 #57

Hahaha!!! Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #68

Protect it from whom? kiva Jan 2015 #69

Not even close. 99Forever Jan 2015 #70

Who are these hateful people trying to protect free speech? The Framers, ACLU, lawyers, judges? merrily Jan 2015 #77

Define "hate speech", is what the Pope said about same-sex marriage threatening... Humanist_Activist Jan 2015 #79

Trying to protect free speech is all very well and good. (n/t) Iggo Jan 2015 #94

The more hateful the speech the stronger I will defend it... NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #103

+1000. eom GGJohn Jan 2015 #109

Is the ACLU a bunch of hateful people then? chrisa Jan 2015 #114