Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: PROCON

The first amendment does not cover this situation.


2 posted on 04/20/2016 11:40:37 AM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Fuzz
The first amendment does not cover this situation.

But it should. This idea of hate speech is nothing more than an employment guarantee for sleazy lawyers that was concocted and designed by sleepy lawyers for that purpose.

6 posted on 04/20/2016 11:43:51 AM PDT by Parmy (II don't know how to past the images.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Fuzz
The first amendment does not cover this situation.

Well, that sucks.

7 posted on 04/20/2016 11:43:59 AM PDT by j. earl carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Fuzz
The first amendment does not cover this situation.

And why is that? When a group of fags ran into a Catholic mass and started throwing condoms at the parishioners, they defended that as free speech. When Andres Serrano produced a picture of a crucifix in urine, that was defended as free speech. When queers parade down public streets with their butts showing through leather chaps and ass-out jeans, that's defended as free speech.

How is this not free speech?

10 posted on 04/20/2016 11:48:06 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Fuzz
The first amendment does not cover this situation.

Why, because someone's feelings were hurt?

Or is it because a new protected class of people?

12 posted on 04/20/2016 11:48:57 AM PDT by PROCON
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson