First amendment issue?

[RallyMo]

Some of y'all are pretty whiny about this. Don't be jerks to other people.

[Blarg]

That wouldn't be enforceable in New York since it's a God given right for them to be jerks to each other. 

[Jason]

Doesn’t journalism rely on free speech?

[Taylor]

15 minutes ago, Jason said:

Doesn’t journalism rely on free speech?

Did you actually read the article? He makes some good points.

[tdawg87]

Definitely a 1st amendment issue. It's the government trying to censor speech through fines. Granted, you aren't being arrested or shot for using such language, but it's still an attempt to censor.

That said, what is the right's obsession with being able to say whatever the F*ck you want? I mean, you can't say the N word at work without being fired (unless you're Lou's gardener, that shit flies). So why should it be ok to say in public? Should you not represent yourself in a respectable manner in all walks of life? I mean, the 1st amendment allows you to call little black kids "Niggers" at the playground with no government repercussions. But do you really want to do that? Do you want anyone to do that?

I mean, we can all say "oh I don't support the KKK but freedom of speech so whatya gonna do?" Why is hate speech tolerated if people don't agree with it or support it in any way? All it serves to do is hurt other people. It doesn't serve the people saying it in any way. They just have the right to say it because 1st amendment.

Go punch a black dude in the face for no reason and you get hauled away on assault charges. Call him the N word to his face and....nothing. Words can be just as harmful as violence. And honestly history proves that words directly lead to violence. 

I don't want the government to come in and regulate what can and cannot be said. I just think people need to stop being pieces of shit and hiding behind the 1st amendment. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

Hate speech laws like what you're talking about should never be a thing because it allows politicians to define what "hateful speech" is, which is a complete disaster waiting to happen.

 

Pretty simple stuff.

[Tank]

we passed a constitutional amendment so that we wouldn't have to worry about the ability to express ourselves. gov't should not be in the business of trying to limit our speech, ever. period.

we all have permission to say dumb things. we are not necessarily free from the results of what we say.

creating a quarter million dollar fine for referring to someone as an illegal alien is about as huge a gov't overreach as we're gonna see.

i can see someone getting fined under this statute and taking their case all the way to the supreme court. i think that will HAVE to happen so that we can stop the craziness of city councils and state legislatures.

[Taylor]

I think there's a middle ground between this NYC law and using common sense approaches to discourage volatile speech.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

Did you actually read the article? He makes some good points.

Yes and as usual there is no definitive answer on who is the authority on what type of speech is noxious and should be filtered. If there’s shit i don’t want to hear I just ignore it. The problem isn’t what people say, it’s that some folks are not well adjusted and are easily butt hurt and offended. If you don’t want hear the nonsense on Twitter they have settings that allow you to block and mute people. I don’t think it’s free speech that’s the problem but the way we communicate is. 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

Definitely a 1st amendment issue. It's the government trying to censor speech through fines. Granted, you aren't being arrested or shot for using such language, but it's still an attempt to censor.

That said, what is the right's obsession with being able to say whatever the F*ck you want? I mean, you can't say the N word at work without being fired (unless you're Lou's gardener, that shit flies). So why should it be ok to say in public? Should you not represent yourself in a respectable manner in all walks of life? I mean, the 1st amendment allows you to call little black kids "Niggers" at the playground with no government repercussions. But do you really want to do that? Do you want anyone to do that?

I mean, we can all say "oh I don't support the KKK but freedom of speech so whatya gonna do?" Why is hate speech tolerated if people don't agree with it or support it in any way? All it serves to do is hurt other people. It doesn't serve the people saying it in any way. They just have the right to say it because 1st amendment.

Go punch a black dude in the face for no reason and you get hauled away on assault charges. Call him the N word to his face and....nothing. Words can be just as harmful as violence. And honestly history proves that words directly lead to violence. 

I don't want the government to come in and regulate what can and cannot be said. I just think people need to stop being pieces of shit and hiding behind the 1st amendment. 

Agreed. I have the right to call a black dude the N word but I should also expect to get punched in the nose. Nobody said exercising a right doesn’t come without a consequence. It just shouldn’t be the government handing it out 

[Taylor]

Just now, Jason said:

Agreed. I have the right to call a black dude the N word but I should also expect to get punched in the nose. Nobody said exercising a right doesn’t come without a consequence. It just shouldn’t be the government handing it out 

What about in cases where the person being berated and harassed doesn't have the ability to stand up for themselves?

Also, if you get punched in the face for calling someone the N word, who has committed a crime?

[tdawg87]

29 minutes ago, Tank said:

we passed a constitutional amendment so that we wouldn't have to worry about the ability to express ourselves. gov't should not be in the business of trying to limit our speech, ever. period.

we all have permission to say dumb things. we are not necessarily free from the results of what we say.

creating a quarter million dollar fine for referring to someone as an illegal alien is about as huge a gov't overreach as we're gonna see.

i can see someone getting fined under this statute and taking their case all the way to the supreme court. i think that will HAVE to happen so that we can stop the craziness of city councils and state legislatures.

I just want to say that "we" didn't pass anything. That bill was passed in 1791. I'd say things have changed a bit since then. 

I'm all for supporting the governing laws passed by our founding fathers. Otherwise are we even American?

That said, it's not a black and white (lol) issue anymore. The founding fathers didn't invision an America with over 400 million people and whites becoming a minority. I'd say the constitution is up for a little interpretation.

But that discussion is opening up a whole can of worms I'm not willing to eat right now (I just had pie for dinner).

Edited October 4, 2019 by tdawg87

[Taylor]

The Founding Fathers weren't willing to consider women and non-white people as people, so I think it's laughable when we act like their words were divinely inspired.

[Jason]

19 minutes ago, Taylor said:

What about in cases where the person being berated and harassed doesn't have the ability to stand up for themselves?

Also, if you get punched in the face for calling someone the N word, who has committed a crime?

1. Sounds like bullying. This is usually done in schools where children are. Adults need to set ground rules to prevent and stop that. I’m not sure what adults do not have the ability you are referring to
 

2.  Punching someone unless it’s self defense is assault. 

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

1. Sounds like bullying. This is usually done in schools where children are. Adults need to set ground rules to prevent and stop that. I’m not sure what adults do not have the ability you are referring to
 

2.  Punching someone unless it’s self defense is assault. 

1 doesn't get you put in jail.

2 does.

You get a free N bomb and Jamal gets hauled away in cuffs. Seems reasonable.

[UndertheHalo]

9 minutes ago, Taylor said:

The Founding Fathers weren't willing to consider women and non-white people as people, so I think it's laughable when we act like their words were divinely inspired.

They also really, really didn’t want non land owners having much of a say in anything.  Literally.  Well into the 19th century many states still did not allow people who didn’t own land to vote.  That’s the reality.  Everything needs to be viewed in its proper context.  It’s not 1789.  They created what they did for the world that they lived in.  They did their best to make it durable for the future.  There are limits to that.  The world today would be unfathomable to the founders.  People need to accept that. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by UndertheHalo

[Taylor]

9 minutes ago, Jason said:

1. Sounds like bullying. This is usually done in schools where children are. Adults need to set ground rules to prevent and stop that. I’m not sure what adults do not have the ability you are referring to

What about in a home situation, where an adult is verbally abusive to their spouse and kids. Is that adult protected under free speech? The answer is no. CPS considers emotional abuse to be just as dangerous and harmful as physical abuse.

Or what about a man who verbally harasses a woman in a public place? He's a physically imposing man with a penchant for violence. If the woman tries to speak up for herself, he'll harass her more or follow her into a dark alleyway. He never actually touches her, but he threatens it and makes her feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Is that man protected?

What about a rally of white supremacists, where the speaker is verbally inciting violence. He's rallying his people to go out and damage property and attack people. Is he just exercising his right to free speech?

Should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest funerals? Should they be allowed to stand just outside the cemetery walls and shout horrific things at the families of fallen soldiers?

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. You can't yell, "Get down! There's a guy with a gun!" in a crowded restaurant or park. 
 

10 minutes ago, Jason said:

2.  Punching someone unless it’s self defense is assault. 

Right. But calling someone the N-word or threatening to kill them is just exercising free speech.

[tdawg87]

Aww yeah now we're getting somewhere. 

Where's Blarg? The early bird special at the Corral is over already.

[Jason]

14 minutes ago, Taylor said:

What about in a home situation, where an adult is verbally abusive to their spouse and kids. Is that adult protected under free speech? The answer is no. CPS considers emotional abuse to be just as dangerous and harmful as physical abuse.

Or what about a man who verbally harasses a woman in a public place? He's a physically imposing man with a penchant for violence. If the woman tries to speak up for herself, he'll harass her more or follow her into a dark alleyway. He never actually touches her, but he threatens it and makes her feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Is that man protected?

What about a rally of white supremacists, where the speaker is verbally inciting violence. He's rallying his people to go out and damage property and attack people. Is he just exercising his right to free speech?

Should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest funerals? Should they be allowed to stand just outside the cemetery walls and shout horrific things at the families of fallen soldiers?

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. You can't yell, "Get down! There's a guy with a gun!" in a crowded restaurant or park. 
 

Right. But calling someone the N-word or threatening to kill them is just exercising free speech.

What you are talking about here is a different situation. Threatening violence and  verbally abusing children are crimes and are not free speech. Yes the Westboro fucks have the right to protest as long as it’s peaceful. Is it the right thing to do? No. What New York is doing is totally different than what you are talking about here. 

[Taylor]

27 minutes ago, Jason said:

What you are talking about here is a different situation. Threatening violence and  verbally abusing children are crimes and are not free speech. Yes the Westboro fucks have the right to protest as long as it’s peaceful. Is it the right thing to do? No. What New York is doing is totally different than what you are talking about here. 

Again, no one here is defending the NYC law. Neither was the NY Times article you posted. 

[mtangelsfan]

2 hours ago, Taylor said:

I think there's a middle ground between this NYC law and using common sense approaches to discourage volatile speech.

Who gets to decide what that is?

[mtangelsfan]

I honestly believe these things are put forward so that people will be more amenable to a lighter version of the same thing

[Lou]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

Who gets to decide what that is?

Salma Hayek.

Always. 

[tdawg87]

16 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Who gets to decide what that is?

I nominate WeatherWonk.

[Lou]

8 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I nominate WeatherWonk.