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
this is not going to wash. cali Sep 2012 #1
Horizontal peer 2 peer democracy and self-regulation tama Sep 2012 #8
DU is a private for profit corporation Riftaxe Sep 2012 #47
Let's address cash speech first. sadbear Sep 2012 #2
Money is speach, a promise tama Sep 2012 #12
And who gets to determine what constitutes "hate speech"?? Bad_Ronald Sep 2012 #3
Peer 2 peer juries, like here on DU? tama Sep 2012 #10
DU is not governed by the First Amendment. former9thward Sep 2012 #26
That's the point. tama Sep 2012 #30
Oh, brother. Yes, let's build a million more court-houses for "hate speech" cases. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #62
I don't understand how the OP can't see the danger Impious Sep 2012 #66
Yes, it's a legitimate debate, JoeyT Sep 2012 #4
Excellent post, JoeyT... shrdlu Sep 2012 #16
When I'm called to jury service on DU tama Sep 2012 #31
No. Not just "no", but HELL FUCKING NO! Edweird Sep 2012 #38
Deny Jebus is our one true lord and savior and you get sent to the pokey Major Nikon Sep 2012 #57
Privatizing social security is also a Valid Debate cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #5
+1,000! Zalatix Sep 2012 #6
Censorship by any other name is the repealed Fairness Doctrine. Octafish Sep 2012 #7
I don't think I can agree zellie Sep 2012 #9
The problem is that not all good speech cancels bad or hate speech. xchrom Sep 2012 #11
One more time: Who decides what is hate speech? cali Sep 2012 #15
Do you want to go to prison for saying "Fuck the Pope for hating gay people"? (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #58
Member of the same community here, and I disagree with you fully. Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #68
there is so much wrong with your post. cali Sep 2012 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #27
K&R Cali! X 1000 COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #49
Totally, 100% agree n/t Oilwellian Sep 2012 #59
just wait til someone decides YOUR position is hate speech n/t ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #14
Alert it tama Sep 2012 #32
Here's my valid debate glacierbay Sep 2012 #17
I'm just a little confused. zellie Sep 2012 #20
I don't understand it either glacierbay Sep 2012 #23
The point is that it is a valid debate Jessy169 Sep 2012 #29
My answer remains the same glacierbay Sep 2012 #60
Blahdeblahblah. It isn't "ironic" in the least, because, AHEM, your OP has not been deleted. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #61
IMO the problem is more that we live in a connected world now. CJCRANE Sep 2012 #18
It's like the news... Lightbulb_on Sep 2012 #64
Do they even teach Civics in schools anymore? If they do, you apparently weren't paying Egalitarian Thug Sep 2012 #19
+1 and well said. nt Codeine Sep 2012 #40
+1 sarcasmo Sep 2012 #48
People don't have a right not to be offended. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #21
but...but... Bad_Ronald Sep 2012 #25
A Message To Frank Collins... KharmaTrain Sep 2012 #28
It's already illegal to incite or commit crime with hate speech. porphyrian Sep 2012 #22
No thanks SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #24
+1 sarcasmo Sep 2012 #50
You say "fervid First Amendment absolutist" Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #33
Wish I could rec a post n/t SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #34
For the win. nt Codeine Sep 2012 #41
+1 n/t tammywammy Sep 2012 #55
I believe your posts may have an ulterior motive. Edweird Sep 2012 #35
one mans junk is another mans treasure ruffburr Sep 2012 #36
Yes, our strict beliefs in total free speech gives you the right 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #37
So if I say someones religion or some part of it is stupid ...that's hate speech? pffft! L0oniX Sep 2012 #39
I think you are very very wrong Marrah_G Sep 2012 #42
Yep= this is the third or fourth post COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #51
I have an idea - let's take the lowest common denominator and make that the bar Taverner Sep 2012 #43
Oh, look. Pakistani Federal Railways Minister Haji Ghulam Ahmed Bilour agrees with you! MNBrewer Sep 2012 #44
You can debate it all you want, but "hate speech" can be used as a catch-all term. Socal31 Sep 2012 #45
Speech restrictionists are a scary bunch. The First Amendment is always their biggest impediment. tritsofme Sep 2012 #46
Your quote DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #52
Try reading the First Amendment again. You think Jefferson didn't know about "hate speech"?? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #53
Its good to see the discussion going on, its also good to see its a very small group ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #54
Would This Be Permitted Or Prohibited Under Your New Interpetation Of The First Amendment? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #56
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in my book. MichaelMcGuire Sep 2012 #63
I think the OP has a problem distinguishing hatred of a notion versus hatred of an individual Impious Sep 2012 #65
This is an extremely naive and foolish viewpoint. MicaelS Sep 2012 #67
What is the point of arguing this OVER and OVER without at least looking at the case law (briefly?) Romulox Sep 2012 #69
+1000 n/t SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #70
Once again, the Absolutetists... 99Forever Sep 2012 #71
Your act is getting old because you are so deeply wrong and also because you are Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #72
I would bet, too, that the OP seeks protection of her own religion Impious Sep 2012 #73
No, thank you. I support freedom of speech, and that includes the right to speak hatefully NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #74
I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that... Impious Sep 2012 #75
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Limiting Hate Speech In A...»Reply #6