Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
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?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@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.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
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.
MartinII · 70-79, M
What you describe is already the law in the UK.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
lov2smile · 36-40, F
@TheSaint:

You didn't answer my question:

[i]" as a self proclaimed centrist, do you honestly believe that Hilary was innocent? "[/i]
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Ramon67 · 61-69, M
Liberal courts ?
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
They are just words, grow a shell and move on I say
golemn9 · 26-30, 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 · 36-40, F
@golemn9:

I just don't feel comfortable having the government regulate speech.
It's a very slippery slope. Where does it end.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment