What happened to the 'Plot to Kidnap Obama' thread?

[shagdrum]

Shag is wrong! The constitution grants you freedom of speech but prohibits "hate speech" and "hate speech" is defined as: Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.

The constitution does not cover hate speech. Repeat; the constitution doese not cover hate speech! You will not find that term in the constitution or any amendment. I dare you to find it.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. As far as the constitution is concerned (including any and all amendments), I have every right to say whatever I damn well please.

In application, there are some limits in the application of free speech. But still, there is no constitutional prohibition, even in practice, on "hate speech". There are issues of slander and libel but both those are based on weather or not the statement is factually accurate and the intent of the person making the statement. Weather or not if "offends" anyone (including the person it is directed at) is irrelevant.

Even hate crime laws are not concerned with weather a person is actually offend. Hate crime laws are unconstitutional, but the are concerned more with the intent of the person. It is a form of thought control; very Orwellian in nature (can you say Thought Police?).

But make no mistake; there is no constitutional basis for hate crime laws. The constitution does not concern itself (in theory or in practice) with weather or not a statement offends anyone.

You really should do your research before make false statements like you did.

 

[TheDude]

Yep...I knew it.

And that would be?

 

[shagdrum]

And that would be?

Don't worry about it

 

[lincolnx2]

The constitution does not cover hate speech. Repeat; the constitution doese not cover hate speech! You will not find that term in the constitution or any amendment. I dare you to find it.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. As far as the constitution is concerned (including any and all amendments), I have every right to say whatever I damn well please.

In application, there are some limits in the application of free speech. But still, there is no constitutional prohibition, even in practice, on "hate speech". There are issues of slander and libel but both those are based on weather or not the statement is factually accurate and the intent of the person making the statement. Weather or not if "offends" anyone (including the person it is directed at) is irrelevant.

Indeed you are wrong once again, by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states, under what is known as the incorporation doctrine. As a result, the Fourteenth Amendment not only empowered the federal courts to intervene in this area to enforce the guarantee of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, but also to import the substantive rights of free speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and cruel and unusual punishment, and other limitations on governmental power. At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials. Thus, the Court has also greatly expanded the reach of procedural due process, requiring some sort of hearing before the government may terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits.

Even hate crime laws are not concerned with weather a person is actually offend. Hate crime laws are unconstitutional, but the are concerned more with the intent of the person. It is a form of thought control; very Orwellian in nature (can you say Thought Police?).

But make no mistake; there is no constitutional basis for hate crime laws. The constitution does not concern itself (in theory or in practice) with weather or not a statement offends anyone.

You really should do your research before make false statements like you did.

In laymans terms, if a person was offended and went throught the proper channels, your Freedom Of Speech can be revoked.

 

[shagdrum]

In laymans terms, if a person was offended and went throught the proper channels, your Freedom Of Speech can be revoked.

Nope...

If a person is offended by something you say, no legal action can be taken against you. If they can show actual harm (and the bar is real high on that), then you might have a chance. Claiming you were insulted by what they said is not showing actual harm. We are talking economic loss, physical harm, that sort of thing. Emotional or physchological harm won't fly.

If you are a celebrity or otherwise public and/or well known figure (and Obama is that) then you also need to show malicious intent on the part of the person who said the offensive comment, which is next to impossible to do.

I see you have stopped claiming that the constitution says anything about being offended or "hate speech" or whatever...

 

[fossten]

In laymans terms, if a person was offended and went throught the proper channels, your Freedom Of Speech can be revoked.

You mean...you can have your tongue cut out?

Jeez, this may surpass Joey's record for dumbest post ever.

 

[TheDude]

Don't worry about it

I figured as much.

 

[fossten]

Shaq is wrong! The constitution grants you freedom of speech but prohibits "hate speech" and "hate speech" is defined as: Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.

No matter how loud you shout it, no matter how well you copy/paste Wikipedia, you are still woefully, pathetically wrong. And ignorant.

 

[lincolnx2]

No matter how loud you shout it, no matter how well you copy/paste Wikipedia, you are still woefully, pathetically wrong. And ignorant.

it's amazing how you insult people when they disagree with you, and I just pasted what was right. I am willing to bet that as a kid you were probably molested by your father, or grandfather and thats why you take your anger out on people who disagree with you.

 

[MonsterMark]

Zogby has McCain up 1 point today, so I understand your anger.

 

[fossten]

it's amazing how you insult people when they disagree with you, and I just pasted what was right. I am willing to bet that as a kid you were probably molested by your father, or grandfather and thats why you take your anger out on people who disagree with you.

At least I can narrow my father's identity down to less than several million possibilities, unlike you.

 

[KD00LS]

I'm under the impression that the terms slander and libel can only be used when in context to a third party, and not directed at the "victim". For instance, if I were to call someone a derogatory word and not tell people that he/she was a derogatory word, it wouldn't be slander/libel. Is this correct?