|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Mar 30, 2008 1:23:34 GMT -5
Hate speech is a phrase constantly thrown around these days. Which side is correct? Which is closer to what our forefathers meant when they established these laws and amendments?
Here was an interesting article about this........Tongue Tied (3) By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) "HATE SPEECH": The Supreme Court in the 1989 Texas v. Johnson case stressed that the "First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or matters some deem trivial, vulgar, or profane." The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in) First to fight for right and freedom, And to keep our honor clean It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were. It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away." Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse. The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present. The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." **dons her asbestoes armor**
|
|
|
Post by Phyxius on Mar 30, 2008 2:06:10 GMT -5
And do you honestly think "leftists" have the market cornered in this area? Hmmmmmmm? And yes, I know you're picking a fight, wench, but I'm in a pretty good mood these days...
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Mar 30, 2008 8:02:28 GMT -5
Oh no you did not call me wench ;D
|
|
|
Post by bobfromacctg on Mar 30, 2008 9:14:13 GMT -5
Thats a little strong Cherry even though I agree with the pretext. The right does it as well but the left is able to make it seem normal. It will soon be illegal to preach concepts from Scripture because the homosexual community will be offended. (It is currently illegal in one or two countries in england - the exact ones excape me right now). The hate speech laws have been used in court to stop that speech. Those examples will only get larger.
My question is where does it say in the Bill of Rights that "We have the right to never be offended by anything that someone says".
Its Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom FROM religion....
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Mar 30, 2008 9:44:55 GMT -5
Well the thing is, the actual point of it all has little to do with religion...........this is about the guaranteed right to speak what we think, feel and believe...........
I don't think that people should be able to sling around hate and discontent............however we shouldn't allow other opinions to dictate our actions or speech in any way. Right?
|
|
|
Post by jules on Mar 30, 2008 9:50:39 GMT -5
Wow. I'm not even sure where to begin here.
So it's ok to use derogatory terms regarding race or gender, and the problem lies with the person who gets offended? Does such ignorance deserve an "intelligent response"?
And I'm trying to understand how it was determined that hate fills a Leftist's heart. Because a leftist generally cares about equality amongst society's members? This also exhibits a lack of principles?
Very interesting that despite all of this, this is one of hundreds of articles and books that offer a blanket criticism to all liberals, written by the right who apparently feel it's better to discredit liberals in general than it is to discuss the issues.
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Mar 30, 2008 10:28:01 GMT -5
Hey Im only giving a far right example to illustrate the far left ones....... I'm asking in general if this is a problem or not. These groups..........no matter if they are sexual, religious, or gender based.............are they taking away the right of free speech by being so over exaggeratedly offended when someone says something?
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Mar 30, 2008 11:53:47 GMT -5
It will soon be illegal to preach concepts from Scripture because the homosexual community will be offended. Where did you get that from? That will never happen in this country. Freedom of religion is one of the foundations of our Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by freckles on Mar 30, 2008 12:34:10 GMT -5
We need a Boston Tea Party
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Mar 30, 2008 12:35:16 GMT -5
We need a Boston Tea Party Or perhaps a Texas Chicken Fried Steak Party?
|
|
|
Post by freckles on Mar 30, 2008 12:40:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Phyxius on Mar 30, 2008 16:29:28 GMT -5
Hate speech is a phrase constantly thrown around these days. Which side is correct? Which is closer to what our forefathers meant when they established these laws and amendments? Of course, when our founding fathers made these amendments, only male property owners could vote, a man could legally beat his wife and blacks were legally only worth three-fifths of a free white person (Article 1 Section 2). Things change. What was acceptable then isn't now.
|
|
|
Post by JimB on Mar 31, 2008 8:51:23 GMT -5
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response Probably the silliest of the silly things quoted in that article. Not wrong, just a complete non sequitur. Defining hate speech by assigning responsibility to the listener is like defining rape by assigning responsibility to the victim. Cherry, you posted that without any comment. Did you post it because you approve of this view, or because you wanted to prove that even people with Master's and Doctorates can be foolish?
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Apr 1, 2008 17:55:33 GMT -5
Well I would think it would be obvious
|
|
enigma
New Member
I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills
Posts: 16
|
Post by enigma on Apr 3, 2008 21:25:51 GMT -5
I have always defined freedom as the right to do and say anything you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. When I say something that is meant to offend or belittle someone else, I have abused that freedom (and I often have).
I wrote more, but I have to check myself before I wreck myself.
|
|