Attack on the first amendment already under way

[Darkwind]

LOL

Just more of Faux News' "war on" series.

They wasted no time in feeding raw meat to the kristians that this is more of the 'war on' kristians. What's new and there will be more to come.

Oh kristians, you are so persecuted in America, a country that is 70% Christian. Why must you torture yourself so!!

80% actually.

 

[Grizz]

To people like you "hate speech" is any disagreement at all.

If you can use correct terms and state your opinion in rational manner then there are no forbidden topics. On the other hand there is no way to express hate rationally. You are as free as a bird to express your visceral hatred of whomever you wish but I do not have to treat it as a well reasoned and rational argument.

Translation " I reserve the RIGHT to call anything you say whatever I decide it is".

Got it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some opinions are just not worthy of respect including those who cannot discuss this issue without being hateful. If there was ever any legitimate opposition to this it was soon swamped with some very ugly language from some very ugly people. Most of the opposition is just not capable of discussing the legal merits of this and go directly for the scare tactics and hate speech against homosexuals and anyone else who sided with them in their fight. Ignoring that shit is not only right but a sign of integrity.

To people like you "hate speech" is any disagreement at all.

Nonsense.

Hate speech is clearly defined and understood by the average reasonable person – speech intended to hurt, to marginalize, to make others unequal; the newspaper as a private entity has every right to refuse to print letters and emails it considers to be hateful and inappropriate, in no way 'violating' the First Amendment.

When government seeks to dictate to a newspaper through force of law what not to print, then there exists a potential First Amendment violation.

I suggest you go back and actually read Occupied's post and how my response is completely appropriate

You do realize that the Constitution spells out what the Government CANNOT do to it's citizen's don y'tou?

Your response was idiotic, as any disagreement at all is not 'hate speech.'

You do realize that Constitutional case law determines when government may place restrictions on our rights and when it may not; although inalienable, our rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Hate speech is entitled to First Amendment protections, and immune from attack by the state (R. A. V. v. St. Paul (1992)). When hate speech advocates for imminent lawlessness, however, and becomes a hate crime, no Constitutional protections come into play, where one may be lawfully subject to punitive measures by the state (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)).

 

[Grizz]

Some opinions are just not worthy of respect including those who cannot discuss this issue without being hateful. If there was ever any legitimate opposition to this it was soon swamped with some very ugly language from some very ugly people. Most of the opposition is just not capable of discussing the legal merits of this and go directly for the scare tactics and hate speech against homosexuals and anyone else who sided with them in their fight. Ignoring that shit is not only right but a sign of integrity.

To people like you "hate speech" is any disagreement at all.

Nonsense.

Hate speech is clearly defined and understood by the average reasonable person – speech intended to hurt, to marginalize, to make others unequal; the newspaper as a private entity has every right to refuse to print letters and emails it considers to be hateful and inappropriate, in no way 'violating' the First Amendment.

When government seeks to dictate to a newspaper through force of law what not to print, then there exists a potential First Amendment violation.

I suggest you go back and actually read Occupied's post and how my response is completely appropriate

You do realize that the Constitution spells out what the Government CANNOT do to it's citizen's don y'tou?

Your response was idiotic, as any disagreement at all is not 'hate speech.'

You do realize that Constitutional case law determines when government may place restrictions on our rights and when it may not; although inalienable, our rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Hate speech is entitled to First Amendment protections, and immune from attack by the state (R. A. V. v. St. Paul (1992). When hate speech advocates for imminent lawlessness, however, and becomes a hate crime, no Constitutional protections come into play, where one may be lawfully subject to punitive measures by the state (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993).

LOL, your response to response to Occ's silly rant illustrates your Ego and absolute NEED to pretend you are 'superior".

Son, you jus ain't all that

 

[The Rabbi]

Some opinions are just not worthy of respect including those who cannot discuss this issue without being hateful. If there was ever any legitimate opposition to this it was soon swamped with some very ugly language from some very ugly people. Most of the opposition is just not capable of discussing the legal merits of this and go directly for the scare tactics and hate speech against homosexuals and anyone else who sided with them in their fight. Ignoring that shit is not only right but a sign of integrity.

To people like you "hate speech" is any disagreement at all.

Nonsense.

Hate speech is clearly defined and understood by the average reasonable person – speech intended to hurt, to marginalize, to make others unequal; the newspaper as a private entity has every right to refuse to print letters and emails it considers to be hateful and inappropriate, in no way 'violating' the First Amendment.

When government seeks to dictate to a newspaper through force of law what not to print, then there exists a potential First Amendment violation.

I suggest you go back and actually read Occupied's post and how my response is completely appropriate

You do realize that the Constitution spells out what the Government CANNOT do to it's citizen's don y'tou?

Your response was idiotic, as any disagreement at all is not 'hate speech.'

You do realize that Constitutional case law determines when government may place restrictions on our rights and when it may not; although inalienable, our rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Hate speech is entitled to First Amendment protections, and immune from attack by the state (R. A. V. v. St. Paul (1992)). When hate speech advocates for imminent lawlessness, however, and becomes a hate crime, no Constitutional protections come into play, where one may be lawfully subject to punitive measures by the state (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)).

The fact that gov't can impose some restrictions subject to scrutiny does give them license to restrict at will.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Grizz tries to master hate speech, but is not good at it. The hateful always fail in America in the end.

You seem to have developed a very unhealthy preoccupation with me jake.

Why don't you provide evidence of my "hate speech"?

Why don't you demonstrate my "unhealthy" attitude toward you? Constructive criticism is good for the ailing soul. Slow down, smell the roses, enjoy life. I will be in Omaha soon, join me for a drink.

Feel free to follow me around as you wish.

Of course you can show the hate speech you accused me of?

As to Omaha...what the hell are you talking about?

Is this some sort of deflection you think will work from my pointing out your unhealthy preoccupation?

See, all you have to do is be polite. Yes, you are unhealthy in your interest of me. Let it go. It's for the best.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Grizz has trouble with constitutional law, of course.

He will defend it by telling you have an unhealthy interest in him.

Merely a deflection. But he is being politer. That is good. He can be trained.

 

[guno]

The Cult of Silhouette denies reality, hating that the fight is over.

An he will like it, Why ? because he has NO choice in the matter

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact that gov't can impose some restrictions subject to scrutiny does give them license to restrict at will.

Has anyone suggested such a thing?

 

[Grizz]

Grizz has trouble with constitutional law, of course.

He will defend it by telling you have an unhealthy interest in him.

Merely a deflection. But he is being politer. That is good. He can be trained.

Doesn't having your nose in my ass embarrass you?

I have however duly noted your inability to show proof of my "hate speech"?

Our relationship here will be very bad for you if you insist on making things up Jake .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Grizz, you can't use logic and your use of invective is ineffective.

You are not capable of being "bad" to anyone here, son.

Be polite and move along.

 

[occupied]

To people like you "hate speech" is any disagreement at all.

If you can use correct terms and state your opinion in rational manner then there are no forbidden topics. On the other hand there is no way to express hate rationally. You are as free as a bird to express your visceral hatred of whomever you wish but I do not have to treat it as a well reasoned and rational argument.

Translation " I reserve the RIGHT to call anything you say whatever I decide it is".

Got it.

Well yeah. Don't you feel you have a right to treat whatever I might say in whatever way you wish? Opinions are like assholes-everyone has one, If I think someone is being a jackass I am going to tell them, it's the American way.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Some opinions are just not worthy of respect including those who cannot discuss this issue without being hateful. If there was ever any legitimate opposition to this it was soon swamped with some very ugly language from some very ugly people. Most of the opposition is just not capable of discussing the legal merits of this and go directly for the scare tactics and hate speech against homosexuals and anyone else who sided with them in their fight. Ignoring that shit is not only right but a sign of integrity.

I have observed with a few exceptions any kind of questioning or opposition is met with a firestorm, and its almost all labeled as hate. McCarthyism from the other side.

yes there are 2 books out about this now. The left is so sure of themselves, even after communism killed 120 million, that they think its a necessary public service to be violent toward our Founder's philosophy

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edward, please consider this, because you just spout.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Well, I was one of those who isn't to crazy about the idea of gay marriages. I leaned towards the Civil Unions are enough crowd as noted by posts previous to the Supreme's decision.
So, OK my side of the issue lost. I was also against Citizens United, lost that one too.
I didn't go on and on about the loss, I sure didn't agree with the decision, but I have to live with it. Same with Gay Marriages.
But then, I was thinking for myself on all of those issues, so I didn't have ideological talking heads stroking my anger and telling me the US of A was lost forever..

People don't cast aside heaven or hell convictions that easily pal. Citizen's United wasn't spoken of in the Bible as bearing the punishment of eternal damnation. Spreading the cult of homosexuality was spoken of in the Bible though...with the promise of eternal damnation (Jude 1, New Testament). (Marriage would be the easiest way to normalize/spread that). This one's not going to get buried and forgotten. You can count on that..

As you grab tight to your Bible it make me wonder what make you different from a ISIL member?

Now before you write you have never killed anyone or mistreated anyone please read your threads and responses and notice you have the same hatred in your heart and soul for those that do not follow your interpretation of the Bible. You would deny other humans the right to be treated equally because of your religious convictions, and I do believe if you thought you could get away with it you would kill in the name of God just like ISIL claim they are doing.

The United States of America religion is not Christianity and while you get ready to pounce on that please note the Founding Fathers were Christian but left their Christianity out of writing our laws and left the door open for us to worship however we want.

Now I know my response will be attacked by you because you believe the Bible should be the law of the land like ISIL believe the Quran should be the law of the land, and that is a sad and scary reality about Bible Thumpers...

Many of the founders were Deists and many of them rejected Christianity outright.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Some opinions are just not worthy of respect including those who cannot discuss this issue without being hateful. If there was ever any legitimate opposition to this it was soon swamped with some very ugly language from some very ugly people. Most of the opposition is just not capable of discussing the legal merits of this and go directly for the scare tactics and hate speech against homosexuals and anyone else who sided with them in their fight. Ignoring that shit is not only right but a sign of integrity.

I have observed with a few exceptions any kind of questioning or opposition is met with a firestorm, and its almost all labeled as hate. McCarthyism from the other side.

yes there are 2 books out about this now. The left is so sure of themselves, even after communism killed 120 million, that they think its a necessary public service to be violent toward our Founder's philosophy

Oh please. It was a human being with unlimited power that killed 120 million Russians. If you read back through Communist, Capitalist, and Socialist manifestos, killing millions is not part of any of those economic philosophies.

 

[IsaacNewton]

LOL

Just more of Faux News' "war on" series.

They wasted no time in feeding raw meat to the kristians that this is more of the 'war on' kristians. What's new and there will be more to come.

Oh kristians, you are so persecuted in America, a country that is 70% Christian. Why must you torture yourself so!!

80% actually.

Well that's the point. If 70-80% identify as 'Christian', then how exactly are 'Christians' being persecuted. It must be self persecution?

 

[Darkwind]

LOL

Just more of Faux News' "war on" series.

They wasted no time in feeding raw meat to the kristians that this is more of the 'war on' kristians. What's new and there will be more to come.

Oh kristians, you are so persecuted in America, a country that is 70% Christian. Why must you torture yourself so!!

80% actually.

Well that's the point. If 70-80% identify as 'Christian', then how exactly are 'Christians' being persecuted. It must be self persecution?

Anyone can play that game.

However, to keep it real..

When a 3 trillion dollar organization (government) can be used to instill fear of saying the wrong thing and silencing debate (Christians are nothing but bigots), then its really easy to persecute a majority.

Someday, those 220 million Christians might all get on the same page and push back.

Wouldn't that be something to see.

 

[IsaacNewton]

LOL

Just more of Faux News' "war on" series.

They wasted no time in feeding raw meat to the kristians that this is more of the 'war on' kristians. What's new and there will be more to come.

Oh kristians, you are so persecuted in America, a country that is 70% Christian. Why must you torture yourself so!!

80% actually.

Well that's the point. If 70-80% identify as 'Christian', then how exactly are 'Christians' being persecuted. It must be self persecution?

Anyone can play that game.

However, to keep it real..

When a 3 trillion dollar organization (government) can be used to instill fear of saying the wrong thing and silencing debate (Christians are nothing but bigots), then its really easy to persecute a majority.

Someday, those 220 million Christians might all get on the same page and push back.

Wouldn't that be something to see.

It is state and federal government that has intimidated and silenced gays, women, and blacks for centuries. All that has happened is those inequities have been, to a degree, corrected. Which is the thing that makes America great. Its ability to see suppressed humanity and correct it.

Rather odd that those who have been a large part of that suppression would now cry out how unfair that suppression would be when foisted against THEM. Yes, no kidding. Enlightenment sometimes come as a new thought, and sometimes as a shell exploding next to your ear.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL

Just more of Faux News' "war on" series.

They wasted no time in feeding raw meat to the kristians that this is more of the 'war on' kristians. What's new and there will be more to come.

Oh kristians, you are so persecuted in America, a country that is 70% Christian. Why must you torture yourself so!!

80% actually.

Well that's the point. If 70-80% identify as 'Christian', then how exactly are 'Christians' being persecuted. It must be self persecution?

Anyone can play that game.

However, to keep it real..

When a 3 trillion dollar organization (government) can be used to instill fear of saying the wrong thing and silencing debate (Christians are nothing but bigots), then its really easy to persecute a majority.

Someday, those 220 million Christians might all get on the same page and push back.

Wouldn't that be something to see.

It is state and federal government that has intimidated and silenced gays, women, and blacks for centuries. All that has happened is those inequities have been, to a degree, corrected. Which is the thing that makes America great. Its ability to see suppressed humanity and correct it.

Rather odd that those who have been a large part of that suppression would now cry out how unfair that suppression would be when foisted against THEM. Yes, no kidding. Enlightenment sometimes come as a new thought, and sometimes as a shell exploding next to your ear.

Sorry but how have women, gays and blacks been suppressed for the last 30 years?
And does that give them license to suppress others? If suppression is wrong, isn't it always wrong?