Remove Ads Get VIP
Similar Worlds
Email/Username
Password
Log In

I Am Interested In Politics

Notifications: · Newest First
[center][big][b]Majority of Democrats Support Criminalizing Free Speech[/b][/big][/center]
[b][i]A new poll shows that a majority of Democrats want to limit free speech with laws that would prohibit so-called “hate speech.”[/i][/b]

The YouGov poll published Wednesday found that 51 percent of Democrats favor imposing legal limits on free speech while just 26 percent of Democrats oppose the idea.

The poll suggests a clear reason why incidents such as the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris and the recent attempted assassination of cartoonists in Garland, Texas, become mired in partisan politics within the United States. By a ratio of nearly 2:1, Democrats believe free speech should be curtailed when it involves “hatred” for another group. The exact nature of “hatred” is undefined, but real-world examples demonstrate it can be something as simple as drawing a cartoon of Muhammad.

A clear example of this desire to limit speech can be found in the New York Times editorial board’s reaction to the attack in Garland. In a piece titled, “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech,” the Times criticizes Pam Geller, the organizer of the cartoon contest and the intended victim of the attack. Speaking of Geller, the Times wrote, “she achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims.” The Times goes on to argue that no amount of violence—not the Charlie Hebdo attacks, not the theatrical brutality of ISIS, not even 9/11—can justify “provocations” (i.e. cartoons) of Islam. This is the severely limited view of the 1st amendment the left-leaning NYT has already embraced.

In contrast, the opposing view, held by most Republicans and independents according to this YouGov poll, is probably best exemplified by a piece Eugene Volokh published at the Washington Post

I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans

The 1st Amendment protects all speech, but there is no doubt the left is increasingly comfortable with limiting this. Hillary Clinton has said that overturning Citizens United is a priority for her if elected President. That decision found that a film critical of Hillary could be shown on TV prior to an election. Hillary says she would support a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision. This week, she added that opposition to the case would be a litmus test for any Supreme Court Justices she would appoint.
A majority of Democrats already support limiting free speech. Imposing new limits to speech as a matter of law is already on the left’s agenda
26-30, F
1
43 replies
54 views
Jun 14, 2017
|
golemn9 · 22-25, M
Imposing clear rules on hate speech is not bad. Extremists from either side should not be able to spew genocidal shit all over the country.
lov2smile · 26-30, F
@golemn9:

I just don't feel comfortable having the government regulate speech.
It's a very slippery slope. Where does it end.
TheSaint · M
@lov2smile: The President has already tried to remove people from using their right to free speech even in a PLAY.
TheSaint · M
@lov2smile: It is the intent behind the words, not the words.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 22-25, M
They are just words, grow a shell and move on I say
Ramon67 · 56-60, M
Liberal courts ?
MartinII · 61-69, M
What you describe is already the law in the UK.
TheSaint · M
@lov2smile: She was [b]CLEARED[/b] of wrongdoing is a legal decision, not based on my politics, and it was Republicans who cleared her [b]EVERY TIME!![/b]
lov2smile · 26-30, F
@TheSaint:

You didn't answer my question:

[i]" as a self proclaimed centrist, do you honestly believe that Hilary was innocent? "[/i]
TheSaint · M
@lov2smile:
I belive that I did answer your question.
When I listened to all the information read everything I could on the subject checked the sources I could. Hillary was and innocent of what she was accused of.

Do you think the Republicans lied?

Everyone is self-proclaimed to the party the belive in.
manifestoofthephoenix · 31-35, T
Citizens united wasn't problematic because it allowed a film critical of Hillary to be shown on TV but because it opened the floodgates of money being spent to influence our elections. It allows pretty much unlimited campaign finance contributions. it enshrined our plutocracy and allowed the wealthy to have a metaphorical megaphone.
TheSaint · M
“provocations” ARE NOT Cartoons but
noun
1.
the act of provoking.
2.
something that incites, instigates, angers, or irritates.
3.
Criminal Law. words or conduct leading to killing in hot passion and without deliberation.

You even distort and twist the truth in your post.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/provocation?s=t
TheSaint · M
It is not free speech that is desired to be limited but the ability to do the equivalent of yelling fire in a theater. They yelling or saying of words with the sole intent of causing violence like we saw in London at the mosque Last Monday. That at least one person was killed and 10 others were injured in the assault, which authorities treated as a terrorist attack. (Which it was.)
Free Speech was intended to allow people to do what you have been doing about the Government to protect ones rights NOT to incite hate and fear towards any group of people and history shows the amount of harm death and destruction the abuse can cause. Look what happened in WWII and the Jews. What happened her to the Native Americans the Japanese the Jews what happened to most immigrant groups it was turned on that did not have the level of terror wrongly attached to them as Islam does. Something must be done to protect the innocent. There must be a law protecting them and the right to spread hate needs to end. The ability to speak freely is not at risk. But the intent to inflame is.
BizSuitStacy · 51-55, T
@TheSaint: inflame as in offend? Because that's a slippery slope. Seems that just about anything ends up offending someone.

I agree that threatening people should not protected by the 1st amendment, nor inciting riots, nor saying things that put the public at large at risk. It's not entirely without limits.
TheSaint · M
Do you really think you are free to say anything you want right now??
BizSuitStacy · 51-55, T
Well said! I do think there are some limits established. The classic example yelling fire in a crowded movie house. Or using language to incite riots.

I'm surprised democrats would want to limit hate speech with Trump being president. What else would they have to talk about?
Write a comment...
 
Post Comment  
 
175 people say
I Am Interested In Politics
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
Add a Story
Updated: 21 hrs ago
Content Rating: Non-Adult
Group Members
 
Majority of Democrats Support Criminalizing Free S... | I Am Interested In Politics | Similar Worlds