Protecting hatred preserves freedom

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

26 Jun 2015, 5:58 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

I subscribe to the local Sunday paper and because of this, I receive the Wednesday paper for free. Last Wednesday, I had some waiting to do so I went ahead and read the paper and it just happened to have a story on the local state house and surprise! it also has a history of flying the confederate flag only it was with 13 other flagpoles representing various flags that have flown over the region, even when it was part of Spain, Mexico and the Louisiana Purchase. There was even a couple of Texas flags in that group. Eventually, the flags were abandoned by one of the governors, and replaced by 14 state flags and everyone seems okay with that. They say it's promotes state pride, having 14 state flags together like this and they feel it is more productive to promote the state flag instead of all these others.

The state still has the right to put the flag on the capitol,and all those others as well, but it reaches the point people want other things and as a democracy, the state goes with what people want. Shouldn't the government of South Carolina reflect what the people of that state want, which is for the flag to go? It's not like there won't be plenty of other of the same flying around town. I am sure there are. Putting a South Carolina flag there reflects pride in being a South Carolinian.

It's still a symbol of hate, slavery, and treason...

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

26 Jun 2015, 6:01 pm

Fugu wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Even if slavery had never existed and racial strife did not exist in the U.S. I still don't think it would be appropriate to fly the Confederate flag at a government building. It is secessionist. It is the flag of a would-be nation that didn't want to be part of the United States.

It's not really surprising that the right takes the pro-confed position given most of their membership has said braindead things at one point, and they've got a literal war criminal as a vocal mouthpiece.

Which war criminal are you referring to?

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

26 Jun 2015, 6:01 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

sly279 wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

I can't disagree more with racists. BUT, when any reaction to them includes a proposal to infringe my constitutional rights, watch how fast I defend them.

NEWSFLASH: You live in a democracy and freedom of press, religion and speech are preserved in the constitution. A flag on the grounds of government doesn't fit those categories. Since you live in a democracy, you are not going to get your way all the time because the majority rules and you might not always agree.

See, that's the thing. People who are always talking about their personal freedom tend to forget others have freedoms as well and we get to vote together - what is it we want. Some want to be free of that flag and since a flag is not speech, press or religion nor is it a firearm, the people have a right to decide. Put it to a vote of the people.

but we live in a republic.

also last I checked some people complained, and politicians reacted. no one voted.
democracy is wrong and bad. or 60% of the people could vote to kill or enslave the other 40% whats why we have a republic ruled by law that protects the minority.

Is there anything that says folks in South Carolina cannot vote on whether they want the flag to stay or go?

I was only correcting you wrongly calling the USA a democracy. yet again the folks in SC haven't voted. its politicians making a rash move after an incident to what they think is political correct and will keep them getting a gov paycheck with company bribes.

really if they cared one bit what we the people thought then why in my state are they passing laws with forbid the people from calling a state wide vote to decide like we have in the past?

this whole thing is just to distract us from real stuff going on. it'll die down and they'll find some other issues, last one was the white lady from washington pretending to be black, now its the CSA flag, who knows what it'll be next.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

26 Jun 2015, 6:02 pm

pcuser wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

It's still a symbol of hate, slavery, and treason...

Yup it is. That is why, if this were a state question here, I would go vote no.

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

26 Jun 2015, 7:41 pm

sly279 wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Is there anything that says folks in South Carolina cannot vote on whether they want the flag to stay or go?

I'm gonna let you in on a secret.

The press has a profit motive.

That's right, they worship the almighty buck. The only thing they really, truly want is money.

Oh there are a few, like bill-o and jon stewart, who have personal axes to grind too, but they also have to answer to the accountants.

The press covers whatever stories they think will get the most play.

Government can and does take advantage of distraction -- but they don't create it.

Anyway, a big part of the purpose of the government of a republic is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

26 Jun 2015, 9:57 pm

pcuser wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Janissy wrote:

Which war criminal are you referring to?

Allen west(the link was in the words "literal war criminal" above)

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Jun 2015, 1:42 am

Fugu wrote:

what other conclusion is there to be drawn from "protecting hate" than that? unsupported statement my eye.

Do I really need to rehash the parts of the thread where people have already explained how unpopular speech must be protected above all because popular speech doesn't need protection, and how the institution of free speech is more important than whatever outrageous thing is said under it aegis?

Also, you didn't make a point, let alone support one, you just mocked someone's post by calling it a talking point and adding a snore sound. Sick burn.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

27 Jun 2015, 1:56 am

Of course unpopular speech and other expression are protected! Banning private individuals and organizations from flying or otherwise using the Confederate flag is definitely unconstitutional. I believe a monstrous crime was committed in Charleston, but it does not justify violating the Constitution.

I agree with Napolitano that it is not the business of government giving favoritism to certain opinions and not to others.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

27 Jun 2015, 2:18 am

First off the Supreme Court already settled the debate on freedom of speech along time ago.

SCOTUS said "FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT ABSOLUTE!" and has reaffirmed this many times in different rulings.
Limits on speech are legal under certain circumstances, such as banning hate speech.

You cannot get away with putting offensive, inappropriate and normally controversial symbols, objects, and items on public grounds and/or any place that receives funding via taxes and/or other government funding.

As it is in most places in the U.S., you cannot put objectionable material on your property for these reasons:

1) It is in plain sight!
2) Your neighbors bear witness to it with great ease
3) It negatively effects your neighbors property physically and monetarily
4) It is in clear violation of local codes

Essentially if you have the resources to take your neighbors to court and are willing to risk losing ruling, then neighbors beware.

Recent case in Metro Detroit a guy painted his house with bright colored artistic mural with nothing offensive and his neighbors took him to court!
The neighbors claimed his brightly colored mural was hurting their properties and the neighborhood as a whole.
They took him to court and... WON!
The judge ordered him to repaint his house a proper solid house color and was banned from painting another mural within easy view of his neighbors.
The judge reminded him of that he lived in a neighborhood and had to act appropriately.

_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

27 Jun 2015, 2:35 am

xenocity,

The SCOTUS has never upheld the banning of hate speech. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), SCOTUS struck down an ordinance prohibiting hate speech. In the opinion for the court, Justice Scalia made an important clarification of the difference between fighting words and hate speech, that regarding the mode of speech: "The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey." It's the mode of speech that can be regulated, but not the content (without the application of strict scrutiny), and unless there is imminent danger of violence (incitement) hate speech cannot be prohibited.

Another important ruling is Snyder v. Phelps (2011).

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

Last edited by beneficii on 27 Jun 2015, 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

superpentil
Sea Gull

Joined: 22 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 203

27 Jun 2015, 2:40 am

Quote:

First off the Supreme Court already settled the debate on freedom of speech along time ago.

SCOTUS said "FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT ABSOLUTE!" and has reaffirmed this many times in different rulings.
Limits on speech are legal under certain circumstances, such as banning hate speech.

You cannot get away with putting offensive, inappropriate and normally controversial symbols, objects, and items on public grounds and/or any place that receives funding via taxes and/or other government funding.

As it is in most places in the U.S., you cannot put objectionable material on your property for these reasons:

1) It is in plain sight!
2) Your neighbors bear witness to it with great ease
3) It negatively effects your neighbors property physically and monetarily
4) It is in clear violation of local codes

Essentially if you have the resources to take your neighbors to court and are willing to risk losing ruling, then neighbors beware.

Recent case in Metro Detroit a guy painted his house with bright colored artistic mural with nothing offensive and his neighbors took him to court!
The neighbors claimed his brightly colored mural was hurting their properties and the neighborhood as a whole.
They took him to court and... WON!
The judge ordered him to repaint his house a proper solid house color and was banned from painting another mural within easy view of his neighbors.
The judge reminded him of that he lived in a neighborhood and had to act appropriately.

That doesn't make sense because that would make this country a huge joke. That goes against everything The Revolution was for.

As for the protection of hate speech, that is part of free speech period. You can't say "I support free speech" and ban others from saying something you think is wrong. What's the difference between you and your opponent? You both think you're right and the other is wrong in terms of 'morals' or whatever it may be. So who's right? The answer is nobody. To suppress hate speech no matter how bad it is makes you just as closed minded as the side you're against, and just because you think you are on the moral high ground doesn't make up for it.

_________________
"Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 175 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 37 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

28 Jun 2015, 9:41 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Fugu wrote:

what other conclusion is there to be drawn from "protecting hate" than that? unsupported statement my eye.

it's a symbol of treason and of support for slavery, it's not merely unpopular speech.

Quote:

Also, you didn't make a point, let alone support one, you just mocked someone's post by calling it a talking point and adding a snore sound. Sick burn.

Fugu wrote:

how nice, the right-wing talking point "tolerate my intolerance" in form of an article. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

good point, I totally mocked someone's post and used the word article instead of post because ??reasons?? :roll:

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

29 Jun 2015, 1:27 am

Fugu wrote:

it's a symbol of treason and of support for slavery, it's not merely unpopular speech.

Ahh, so you'll point me to the "symbol of treason and support for slavery" exception to the 1st amendment? That might take a while for you to find.

Fugu wrote:

good point, I totally mocked someone's post and used the word article instead of post because ??reasons?? :roll:

You should try actually arguing your position, unearned mockery only demonstrates the weakness of your beliefs. Ask me why I believe something, and I'll explain it to you, you don't seem to be able to do the same.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

29 Jun 2015, 10:43 am

Dox47 wrote:

Fugu wrote:

it's a symbol of treason and of support for slavery, it's not merely unpopular speech.

Ahh, so you'll point me to the "symbol of treason and support for slavery" exception to the 1st amendment? That might take a while for you to find.

you think so, do you?

Quote:

Fugu wrote:

good point, I totally mocked someone's post and used the word article instead of post because ??reasons?? :roll:

I have no interest in belief, so you'll be waiting a long time. also, I never mentioned any post, just the article hence my sarcastic comment above.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

29 Jun 2015, 1:22 pm

Fugu wrote:

you think so, do you?

Jesus, did you not see where fighting words were already examined in depth up thread, where it was explained how they don't apply to this situation?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

29 Jun 2015, 1:43 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Fugu wrote:

you think so, do you?

Jesus, did you not see where fighting words were already examined in depth up thread, where it was explained how they don't apply to this situation?

you asked for an example, It was provided.

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Protecting hatred preserves freedom Post Reply New Topic

Protecting hatred preserves freedom