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: Our Freedom of Expression Is Killing Us [View all]riverbendviewgal
(4,252 posts)276. I like be Canadian
I like our law that bans hatred and lies.
what you wrote is good but there is a lot of hatred and lies coming out of the USA.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
333 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
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
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
What Is The Mechanism You Would Use To Remove FAUX Noise From The Air?
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#69
Why is it that the US is so different from most of the rest of western countries?
Whisp
Sep 2012
#274
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
I brought this exact point up the last time this crap happened and was nearly run off the boards.
Initech
Sep 2012
#186
I Support Their Right To Free Speech As I Support Your Free Speech And Mine
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#23
What the hell do you NOT grasp about the First Amendment? it is NOT up for repeal, FGS.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#177
How Is Not Hateful To Make Fun Of Garb That Is Required By A Certain Religion?
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#14
The Point Flew Right Over Your Head If You Followed The Discussion Within The Discussion
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#325
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
You interpreted that in the exact opposite manner that I expressed it. Well done! (nt)
Posteritatis
Sep 2012
#249
I Think Some Of Our Guys Said Some Pretty Hateful Things About Right Wing Figures
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#8
The likes of Limbaugh could be fixed with better radio licensing laws and
Waiting For Everyman
Sep 2012
#29
No offense intended, but you really should inform yourself a bit better for this argument.
Vinnie From Indy
Sep 2012
#65
That movie insults a religion, but I have not heard that it incites to riot.
JDPriestly
Sep 2012
#240
+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
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
And it led to the first Slander and Libel laws, some of which are still in the books
nadinbrzezinski
Sep 2012
#56
Yep, I'll fight and even DIE for those I disgree with, such as Glen Beck, etc....
liberallibral
Sep 2012
#95
Like any ideology, an absolute formulated as "We need more speech, not less" seems to be based
patrice
Sep 2012
#57
The will to power is fundamental to survival. It's agendas, more but usually way less, honestly
patrice
Sep 2012
#106
Imagine DU If That Law Was On The Books During The Bush* Administration
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#59
Under your proposed limits to our rights, I assume you would allow preachers
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#61
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
You did not reply to a single question I asked you, nor to any point I raised.
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#197
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
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
What Would Have Happened If Attorney General Ashcroft Had The Power Of Those Laws Behind Him?
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#101
If Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the price for the freedom to speak freely,
NYC Liberal
Sep 2012
#148
Defining what constitutes "hate speech" would be a nightmarish, never-ending debate.
Bluefin Tuna
Sep 2012
#97
FAIL. Religious nut jobs are killing us and you're trying to further empower them.
trouble.smith
Sep 2012
#119
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
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
Yeah, drug dealers have no part in the crimes committed for whatever high they propagate. nt
patrice
Sep 2012
#305
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
But freedom is not served by what we are doing. Regressive feedback loops get going and
patrice
Sep 2012
#146
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
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
I'm Actually More Concerned About An Expansive Construction Of The Second Amendment
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#152
Oh, haHA! At least these men are more apt to protect speech than YOU, apparently.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#184
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
And I Established That To Some Burning That Cloth Is "Heaping Abuse On Them"
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#220
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
Disgusting and risible at the same time. JUST WHOM DO YOU NOMINATE to "RE-DO" our Freedom of Speech?
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#171
To everyone reviling OP in this thread, do you consider Citizens United free speech? Why not?
patrice
Sep 2012
#194
I believe the ACLU discusses modification of the Constitution for this & is against it. nt
patrice
Sep 2012
#304
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
Jessy169, who among us should decide whose speech, what speech incites to riot?
JDPriestly
Sep 2012
#230
That poster was simply rude and non responsive. I asked specific questions and that
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#247
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
Perhaps the principle should not be applied by law, but by community assent instead. You've heard
patrice
Sep 2012
#324
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