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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Trying to protect "free speech" is all very well and good... [View all]Let's talk salary...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm afraid I strongly disagree. Hate speech needs to be protected against state censure.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2015
#1
Anyone else who wants to add themselves to the list join the queue and sign up... nt
Turborama
Jan 2015
#3
How so? Speech is speech. I am reading comments here stating that even the 'most vile and hateful
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#45
So, some speech is assault. That's not the response I'm getting in this thread though.
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#60
Is verbal abuse speech that should be protected or not in domestic violence situations?
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#72
I can't find any law against spousal verbal abuse. Can you please post something
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#97
What 'gotcha' game? After you and couple of others stated that verbal spousal abuse was 'assault'
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#105
Those who claimed, in this thread, that spousal verbal abuse was legally defined as 'assault' were
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#110
Okay, sorry if I misunderstood you. I agree with you which is why I was surprised to be told
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#116
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
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
I was told in this thread that spousal verbal abuse is legally considered 'assault' and illegal.
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#111
True, thankfully. I don't know if, on it's own, it is enough for a protection order.
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#115
Then you don't agree with those here who are claiming that 'all speech, no matter how vile, should
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#93
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
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
Thank you, after being told in this thread that verbal abuse of a spouse was 'different' vile and
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#107
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
Anyone else who wants to add themselves to the list join the queue and sign up... nt
Turborama
Jan 2015
#4
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
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
DU and Democrats already protected hateful speech aggressively when Rick Warren was anointed
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2015
#11
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
We should set you as a new pope of free speech - then you can tell us what speech
el_bryanto
Jan 2015
#18
Those hateful folks at the ACLU, defending the right of the KKK to march (nt)
Nye Bevan
Jan 2015
#24
If it's "mostly" hateful people, who do you feel are the remaining people?
Gidney N Cloyd
Jan 2015
#46
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
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