Libs demand government study on hate speech

[FA_Q2]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

There is no reason for the study, because of constitutional protection of free speech and that the extremes of the left and the right engage in it. novasteve is one of the great proponents of hate speech.

Protection does not preclude study.

The government should not be paying for a study like this IMHO, but that is neither here nor there. The simple act of studying something soul be encouraged.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[FA_Q2]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

First Amendment -- it's that thing that the Westboro Baptist Church, NAMBLA, Skinheads, and Anti-Americans like Alex Jones hide behind.

Time to take another look at "fire in a crowded movie house". How about "kill in a crowded chat room". Or "here's his home address" on Facebook?? Not okay. They should be seen as speech crimes just like Treason or incitement. Any reckless disregard for the safety of others -- left or right -- you try to cause harm through speech -- you should go to jail.

No. all you are looking for is a run around the first to suppress things that you don't like. There is no gray here, you have a right to free speech that is protected. It includes hate speech. Far from not belonging in our society, it is actually the foundation of it.

The core problem with such limits will always be the fact that "dangerous" or "hate" must be defined and is completely subjective.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ogibillm]

Because it will restrict free speech and make people watch their words and only speak in a way that is deemed appropriate by legislators.

a study does no such thing. a study merely gathers information and presents conclusions.

The study is preparatory to action. Otherwise why do it?

i can see lots of reasons. the study might yield ways for sites to better moderate their comment sections to keep things polite and on topic.

the study might show some correlation between engaging in (either reading or writing) vitriolic posts and ones personal health and happiness - or it might rule out that kind of thing

or maybe it won't produce any results worth mentioning - either way pretending that a study is going to lead the the repeal of the first amendment is at best silly.

 

[The Rabbi]

a study does no such thing. a study merely gathers information and presents conclusions.

The study is preparatory to action. Otherwise why do it?

i can see lots of reasons. the study might yield ways for sites to better moderate their comment sections to keep things polite and on topic.

the study might show some correlation between engaging in (either reading or writing) vitriolic posts and ones personal health and happiness - or it might rule out that kind of thing

or maybe it won't produce any results worth mentioning - either way pretending that a study is going to lead the the repeal of the first amendment is at best silly.

It wont lead tot he repeal of the 1A because that's not how things work.
The govt has no business suggesting what forum owners should or should not do on their fora. That is clearly not the purpose of the study. So what is it? It is to propose laws to criminalize certain kinds of speech as "inciting" or "hateful" or whatever, similar to hate crimes legislation.
That is a slippery slope down to effect repeal of the 1A.

 

[Howey]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

Good. Seeing as how a member of this forum has called me a paedophile before and posted my address on another forum, and the former owner of this forum hacked my Photoshop account and posted pictures of myself and others on his forum, as well as my full name, there needs to be stricter laws regarding internet bullying.

Ever heard of libel, twinkielover?

 

[Jarhead]

how have you arrived at that conclusion?

Because it will restrict free speech and make people watch their words and only speak in a way that is deemed appropriate by legislators.

a study does no such thing. a study merely gathers information and presents conclusions.

Jeez....

Really?

And what is the study for?

Never mind. You don't want to debate or discuss....

You simply want to punch holes where holes cant be punched.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

how have you arrived at that conclusion?

Because it will restrict free speech and make people watch their words and only speak in a way that is deemed appropriate by legislators.

a study does no such thing. a study merely gathers information and presents conclusions.

Conclusions that are subjective to anyone.

 

[hazlnut]

This is all about restricting free speech and controlling people. Nothing more.

how have you arrived at that conclusion?

Because it will restrict free speech and make people watch their words and only speak in a way that is deemed appropriate by legislators.

You are overreacting -- making assumptions based on your own fear of Government or whatever it is you fear.

Hate speech is like obscenity -- a clearly defined standard as having no socially redeeming quality or purpose.

A poster on this site refers to President Obama as a "chimp" -- that is beyond ignorant. It is playing into the lowest form of human being, the extreme and violent racist. This is not a two-sided "opinion", this is a universal truth. Like women having sex with pigs is obscene, this poster is obscene and his hate speech has no place in our society.

Intelligent people can discern between hate and hyper or extreme partisanship. Calling Obama ia socialist is hyper-partisanship or political speech that, though ignorant, is not likely to rally the those prone to violence. It is a legitimate (but weak) means to question left-leaning policies.

That is the difference.

 

[g5000]

Dehumanizing the President by calling him "chimp" (or any overtly racist slur) also has no place in our society? Less intelligent people are easily taken in by ignorant hate speech and motivated to toward violent physical acts. Anyone who promotes these acts by ginning up racial hatred should be under a microscope and on a watch list. Then, when they say or suggest something specific, we nab them and throw them in jail.

Thanks for your input, Comrade Stalin.

I propose government informants on every block. One quick phone call to the New and Improved KGB and you can make your neighbor disappear if he doesn't swallow your cock.

 

[The Rabbi]

how have you arrived at that conclusion?

Because it will restrict free speech and make people watch their words and only speak in a way that is deemed appropriate by legislators.

You are overreacting -- making assumptions based on your own fear of Government or whatever it is you fear.

Hate speech is like obscenity -- a clearly defined standard as having no socially redeeming quality or purpose.

A poster on this site refers to President Obama as a "chimp" -- that is beyond ignorant. It is playing into the lowest form of human being, the extreme and violent racist. This is not a two-sided "opinion", this is a universal truth. Like women having sex with pigs is obscene, this poster is obscene and his hate speech has no place in our society.

Intelligent people can discern between hate and hyper or extreme partisanship. Calling Obama ia socialist is hyper-partisanship or political speech that, though ignorant, is not likely to rally the those prone to violence. It is a legitimate (but weak) means to question left-leaning policies.

That is the difference.

And calling Sarah Palin a whore?
Yeah we thought so. Some pigs are more equal than others, eh Comrade? You should be institutionalized.

 

[hazlnut]

Racist and homophobes are worried their words may get them in trouble.

When you demean a person by constantly referring to them as something lower to human, you are dehumanizing them for the purposes of violence or motivating others to cause them harm.

When you that and post their address on the internet, you have committed a crime IMO.

The two elements of the crime should be dehumanizing rhetoric + pointing toward a specific act on a specific person. When you post someone's address, you are implying "go there and cause trouble".

 

[bripat9643]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

They just want to create a huge government funded propaganda organ. that's all this will ever be. There is no objective definition of "hate." Anyone chose to work on this would necessarily be a quack.

 

[hazlnut]

Dehumanizing the President by calling him "chimp" (or any overtly racist slur) also has no place in our society? Less intelligent people are easily taken in by ignorant hate speech and motivated to toward violent physical acts. Anyone who promotes these acts by ginning up racial hatred should be under a microscope and on a watch list. Then, when they say or suggest something specific, we nab them and throw them in jail.

Thanks for your input, Comrade Stalin.

I propose government informants on every block. One quick phone call to the New and Improved KGB and you can make your neighbor disappear if he doesn't swallow your cock.

Again, in our system, we have specific legal standards and "tests" for things like obscenity. In communist russia they did not.

Therefore, your comment is ignorant.

FAIL.

 

[hazlnut]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

They just want to create a huge government funded propaganda organ. that's all this will ever be. There is no objective definition of "hate." Anyone chose to work on this would necessarily be a quack.

You think so little of our country.

We came up with a legal standard and definition of Obscenity.

We can better define "hate" speech as something specifically intended to do harm.

 

[Jarhead]

Racist and homophobes are worried their words may get them in trouble.

When you demean a person by constantly referring to them as something lower to human, you are dehumanizing them for the purposes of violence or motivating others to cause them harm.

When you that and post their address on the internet, you have committed a crime IMO.

The two elements of the crime should be dehumanizing rhetoric + pointing toward a specific act on a specific person. When you post someone's address, you are implying "go there and cause trouble".

Like when the unions bussed people to the private homes of AIG executives?

Or like when the newspaper printed the addresses of people that legally own guns?

 

[bripat9643]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

First Amendment -- it's that thing that the Westboro Baptist Church, NAMBLA, Skinheads, and Anti-Americans like Alex Jones hide behind.

Time to take another look at "fire in a crowded movie house". How about "kill in a crowded chat room". Or "here's his home address" on Facebook?? Not okay. They should be seen as speech crimes just like Treason or incitement. Any reckless disregard for the safety of others -- left or right -- you try to cause harm through speech -- you should go to jail.

Another Stalinist reveals his cloven hoof.

 

[hazlnut]

Because it will restrict free speech and make people watch their words and only speak in a way that is deemed appropriate by legislators.

You are overreacting -- making assumptions based on your own fear of Government or whatever it is you fear.

Hate speech is like obscenity -- a clearly defined standard as having no socially redeeming quality or purpose.

A poster on this site refers to President Obama as a "chimp" -- that is beyond ignorant. It is playing into the lowest form of human being, the extreme and violent racist. This is not a two-sided "opinion", this is a universal truth. Like women having sex with pigs is obscene, this poster is obscene and his hate speech has no place in our society.

Intelligent people can discern between hate and hyper or extreme partisanship. Calling Obama ia socialist is hyper-partisanship or political speech that, though ignorant, is not likely to rally the those prone to violence. It is a legitimate (but weak) means to question left-leaning policies.

That is the difference.

And calling Sarah Palin a whore?
Yeah we thought so. Some pigs are more equal than others, eh Comrade? You should be institutionalized.

False analogy.

Try again.

Stop straw manning and stick to what I said.

Calling her a whore is just ugly and tasteless partisan speech.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

They're Democrats.....they probably mean this 'hate speech':

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...."

 

[bripat9643]

My feelings are hurt. WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT GOING TO DO ABOUT IT!?

Nothing.

But if people are showing up to your house because someone posted your address on the web..

Some liberal moron like you is more likely to pull that kind of stunt than a right-winger.

[Dehumanizing the President by calling him "chimp" (or any overtly racist slur) also has no place in our society? Less intelligent people are easily taken in by ignorant hate speech and motivated to toward violent physical acts. Anyone who promotes these acts by ginning up racial hatred should be under a microscope and on a watch list. Then, when they say or suggest something specific, we nab them and throw them in jail.

You really do despise the rules of a free society, don't you? If people like you ever get put in charge of this country, it will become a police state in no time. Heck, we're half the way there already.

 

[Jarhead]

13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech | TheHill

Ever heard of the first amendment you faggots?

They just want to create a huge government funded propaganda organ. that's all this will ever be. There is no objective definition of "hate." Anyone chose to work on this would necessarily be a quack.

You think so little of our country.

We came up with a legal standard and definition of Obscenity.

We can better define "hate" speech as something specifically intended to do harm.

Obscenity is easy to define....for even if your intent is to NOT be obscene, fucking in public is obscene.

But you can not use the same with speech. For how would one know what your intent was?

Example...

"don't go out with that guy. He is a jerk"

My intent was to protect the woman....but maybe her father heard me say it and decided to beat the shit out of the guy because he didn't want his daughter dating a jerk.

So am I at fault for inciting the violence?

I know...silly analogy.....but the point is there.