Congressional Democrat Moves to End Free Speech for White People

[Foxfyre]

Freedom of thought....

Should clarify that as thought expressed as speech.
Nobody knows what anybody's unexpressed or unspoken thoughts are.

 

[Billiejeens]

Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents one of the most racially gerrymandered districts in the entire country,​

 

[MarcATL]

Is it legal to do that,
That was rightly overturned a while ago.

You're right. The far rightwing activist Judge Alito did that.

Interesting.

 

[Auld Phart]

and anyone that votes against it will be named a racist.

 

[Billy_Bob]

and anyone that votes against it will be named a racist.

And that is the point... they need this to drive their race hatred narrative. This is how they drive their sheep. If McCarthy is smart it will never be allowed to come to a vote on the floor.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not lawful to scream "fire" in a crowded room where there's no actual fire either. Nothing is absolute.

You know this.

I know that. Speech intended to incite riot, panic, or otherwise cause physical harm to people is not and should not be legal. Libel and slander intended to cause material or physical harm to people or property is not and should not be legal.

But my expressed opinion that somebody as an asshole or that one race is superior to another or that you are trying to deflect this discussion into something that it is not is not and should not ever be criminalized even though it is fair game for anybody's opinion that it is dumb, stupid, ignorance, hateful or whatever.

And you still haven't shown where in the OP or linked article that there is any suggestion banning freedom of thought. Not even from SJL. Or any other untruth in the OP.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

That's fine, but speech does not equal thought.

If someone has a thought and verbally expresses it that is speech, if someone has a thought and has to check themselves because someone made it illegal to express that is tyranny

Got it?

 

[MarcATL]

If someone has a thought and verbally expresses it that is speech, if someone has a thought and has to check themselves because someone made it illegal to express that is tyranny

Got it?

People already have to check themselves when it comes to expressing violent thought in public. Do they not?

 

[Flash]

Mathematically that is probably not the case.
Add progressive Lilly white allies that believe that Blacks can't make it without them, and maybe.

The Democrat Party is a coalition of all the scumbags in the country.

Racist welfare Negroes
Illegals
Environmental Wackos
Anti Gun Nuts
Welfare Queens
Union Bosses
Idiot Moon Bats
Feminazis
Confused college kids and their bat shit crazy Marxist professors.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

People already have to check themselves when it comes to expressing violent thought in public. Do they not?

Violent thought, violent speech does not equal PHYSICAL VIOLENCE does it.

For example
I can think I wanna punch you in the face
I can say I wanna punch you in the face
But if I actually punch you in the face that part is illegal

This bill wants to criminalize anything thought or said deemed racist by nonwhites against whites

Glad I could clear that up for you

 

[WEATHER53]

People already have to check themselves when it comes to expressing violent thought in public. Do they not?

It’s socially correct thing to do but not a legal requirement

 

[Ralph Norton]

I can say I wanna punch you in the face

Could be construed as a threat which is also illegal.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Could be construed as a threat which is also illegal.

Then all you shitlibs who "wanna punch a nazi" will be the first locked up

 

[Frankenstein]

No. It was all inclusive.

Well democrats in congress are commies so!

 

[Foxfyre]

Violent thought, violent speech does not equal PHYSICAL VIOLENCE does it.

For example
I can think I wanna punch you in the face
I can say I wanna punch you in the face
But if I actually punch you in the face that part is illegal

This bill wants to criminalize anything thought or said deemed racist by nonwhites against whites

Glad I could clear that up for you

Exactly. When Madonna publicly announced that she has 'often thought about blowing up the White House' that was expressing what she thought, and, as repugnant as that might be, there is nothing illegal about it. Ditto when BLM marchers chant "Pigs in a blanket, fry like bacon." Does that/did that possibly encourage a deranged sniper to shoot police officers? Yes. But that was the choice of a person choosing to do evil. It was unlikely the intent of those BLM marchers, however hateful we may see them, and the chant was not illegal.

When General Bradley responded to a soldier's question of 'who is in charge of this mission?' with "I don't know, but they ought to shoot him" or one of us says he/she 'should be hung', those are figures of speech and not proposals for what should actually happen.

When Ray Epps says to those at the Jan 6 rally that "We need to get into the Capitol building", now we're much closer to illegal speech actually encouraging illegal activity.

But SJL would criminalize our expressed opinion that she or BLM are among the most hateful kind of racists.

 

[WEATHER53]

Could be construed as a threat which is also illegal.

The “threat” concept is vague. Virtually no one is detained by law enforcement for being unpleasant to another person. A threat is a feeling and not a fact action. Follow through with something physical and completely different matter
The weak like to stir the pot and spout off and then if they are responded to in a way they don’t like they feel they have legality behind them because they “felt threatened”
They absolutely don’t.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Then all you shitlibs who "wanna punch a nazi" will be the first locked up

Not even close to a lib, dumb ass.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People already have to check themselves when it comes to expressing violent thought in public. Do they not?

Only if it's a direct threat to a person or group of people. However what she's talking about is if I say all illegals should be shot dead on sight, and somebody reads my post and actually does it, I'm to be held responsible for their actions.

 

[MarcATL]

Only if it's a direct threat to a person or group of people. However what she's talking about is if I say all illegals should be shot dead on sight, and somebody reads my post and actually does it, I'm to be held responsible for their actions.

You think it should be legal for someone to state "X_group should be shot dead on sight" in public?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And that is the point... they need this to drive their race hatred narrative. This is how they drive their sheep. If McCarthy is smart it will never be allowed to come to a vote on the floor.

It's DOA, but it goes to show you where the leftist mindset is at.