A strange conclusion, considering that the guys who wrote the First Amendment also wrote this definitive example of "fightin' words":
Posted on 05/06/2015 9:30:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Liberals are the bastion of free speech until somebody disagrees with them.
The Chaplinsky statement in fact seems rather quaint and innocuous today. It’s like a modern cop might answer that, if he even bothers, by yawning and saying “well so’s your sister.”
I hate you, Chris, you greaseball. ;>)
Oh yea, and Muck Fohammed.....
Seems that at bottom, rage is driving them. They get to say how mad they are, but don’t you dare tell them how angry you are or what about them you hate.
America has a large appetite for appeasement. This isn’t coterminous with grace, however. Grace will state there is something wrong, but even yet here’s a reasonable way it could be made right.
There’s a new branch of “Hate Speech” and they call it “body shaming”. Where does it end?
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, says what the limits on the Government are, not the citizenry. The”Government shall make NO LAWS.....etc”. It is NOT the other way around.
A strange conclusion, considering that the guys who wrote the First Amendment also wrote this definitive example of "fightin' words":
I don’t see how the U.S. Treasury could ever mint a new coin with Obama’s head on it just for the fact that the hole would be too big!
First time I heard that phrase, but I bet I probably hear it dozens of times in the future... that’s how such things usually turn out for me.
Still not clear what it would MEAN. Is it another kind of nanoaggression?
So IMO that means that employees of the media like Mr. Cuomo are just as "bad" as Ms Geller -- the difference being that the employees of the media will cease immediately all favorable treatment of gay issues.
I searched the text and could not find any mention of homosexual or gay.. I guess Mr. Cuomo, et al will demand removing support for homosexuality soon to avoid insulting and provoking followers of the Prophet Muhammad. Good for them and great example for Ms Geller to follow.
Do I really need a /s ?
Fortunately for the media, it DOES protect hypocrisy, regardless of how rank and transparent.
The 1st Amendment does not protect hate speech (even tho SCOTUS ruled it does)...............
Against muslims, homo sexuals, blacks, and most left wing nuts.
And liberals get to define “hate speech”.
They’re not “liberals”. I refuse to apply the term to them. They use a facade of “liberal” only to persuade their opponents to tolerate their views, until they assume enough power to subjugate their opponents.
To call somebody who is morbidly obese “fat” or a bald white guy “cue ball”...I don’t know. That’s why I ask, “Where does it end?”.
Religious sensibilities would not have been included as “injury.” And there was no “immediate breach of the peace” involved here. Anyone wanting to avoid the contest could just decide not to go or pay any attention to it. Easy! These terrorists drove from Arizona to Texas.
This is one of the more impenetrable conundrums of the liberal political world.
I can only speculate. Maybe since the practice is to pretend nobody is “gay” in Islamic countries (because they would want, for pride’s sake, for you to believe they manage to wipe all of it out, which is not so) — they pretend it here too. But that’s a far more difficult pretense in a place where the closet has been jettisoned. Taqqiya? — that is understandable, but how long is it until you know you are no longer credible when pretending or lying about the obvious?
I think there is some thin ice in the future and it could catch complacent liberals by surprise. Let Unreasonable Fury A finally meet up with Unreasonable Fury B, with the masks taken off, and watch the fireworks....
Age-old debate tactic. Frame the debate around a vague term, and then attack the other side’s version of the term. Here, it is “what is hate” and “how imminent is imminent” that are getting the focus, rather than our First Amendment Freedoms. Since the Left generally defines and redefines all terms in the public sphere (see Hillary’s most recent stunning examples of controlling the terms used to describe her), the debate is now over who is more demonized in the media. Gee, I wonder how that will go.
Correct me if I am wrong but the Dems come up - basically create - the term ‘hate speech,’ and then go about placing whatever offends in that category in order to shut people up and down.
And they try to redefine language until there are no words to debate with. Like thug is now racist, then they make an alternate word racist, so you end up debating the term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.