[Sacajaweau]

IIRC, they paraded in NYC during WWII.

[Night Hides Not]

Perhaps America’s fixation on free speech has gone too far.

Adios, mofo.

[longfellow]

A little too late. The sotu was Tuesday night.

[skeeter]

In other words, free speech for me but not thee. I find your opinions bothersome, hater. And I don't want to be bothered with them.

Leftists are so predictable.

[all the best]

Unpleasant speech can be emotionally stressful. Of course. But unpleasant experiences are unfortunately part of life. The way leftist talk cause me distress. Seeing Obama or Pelosi on TV causes me distress. Threats to free speech cause me very great distress. Life itself tends to be stressful to most people.
Americans once faced and conquered a wild and hostile continent. Now they want to be protected from unpleasant words. Heaven help us.

[envisio]

No, “they” shouldn’t outlaw it.

The scary part here is not the speech itself, but who is “they”? What do “they” believe and how far will “they” go after this.

What would “they” consider next to be outlawed. Pretty soon everyone speeks the way “they” want them to.

Should KKK rallies be outlawed?
What about Black Panthers?

[Viennacon]

Duh. Protects everyone from David Duke to Barry.

[stremba]

The First Ammendment was INTENDED to protect speech that the majority finds offensive. There would be no need for an ammendment to protect only that speech which is generally found to be inoffensive. I certainly don’t agree with what the neo-nazis say, but they do have the right to say it. The remedy is not to stifle their speech, but to oppose it by presenting contrary ideas.

[Maceman]

Gee, maybe while we’re at it we should outlaw free speech for commie progressive leftists, too.

[rktman]

I thought the followers of the is-lamish “faith” already had free speech. Or they’ll cut your head off.

[PAR35]

Despite the emotional harm that he causes, I support Thane Rosenbaun’s right to freedom of speech. But perhaps he would be happier if he took up Israeli citizenship and moved to that socialist paradise.

[cuban leaf]

Yes. (answer to the headline)

In the US, it is a stupid question. We are the land of “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”

Own it.

[ThunderSleeps]

I see. Why yes, it does sound reasonable that hateful, harmful, hurtful speech should be restricted. After all, why allow something that may cause harm to another?

Of course, that does bring up the problems with degree. Just how hateful, harmful, and hurtful does something have to be in order to be noticed and action taken against the speaker?

Then there is the determination of exactly what is considered hateful, harmful, and hurtful...

Or the problem of who gets to decide...

Or who/what is protected from such speech. How big of a group or demographic counts? You don't want to discriminate on size do you?

What if it is hateful speech against something that is harmful? Hmmm...

---

Beginning to see it yet? Down that path lies madness and oppression. While free speech can be (in fact will be) hateful, harmful, and hurtful - it beats the alternatives. People have to put on their big-boy pants and not get their feelers hurt 'cause guess what cupcake, somewhere there is someone hurt by the things you say and do too! You have to realize there are a-holes out there. Always have been, always will be. They are going to do and say things that are hateful etc. just because they can and/or they get their kicks from it. You can't stop it without trampling on everyone. You can't. Stop. I can hear you thinking, but what if we... No. You can not.

[firebasecody]

Did Nancy Pelosi write this for them???

[BilLies]

FTA... conclusion paragraph:
“Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency. No right should be so freely and recklessly exercised that it becomes an impediment to civil society, making it so that others are made to feel less free, their private space and peace invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled upon”.

From Il Duce Cuomo.
”Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro assault weapon, anti-gay, is that who they are? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York. Because that is not who New Yorkers are.” Il Duce Cuomo

[oh8eleven]

Perhaps America’s fixation on free speech has gone too far.
Øbama, is that you? Stopped reading right there.

[Irenic]

I don’t think it should be banned. It is hurtful but if they can ban hurtful speech of one, they can ban the speech of another. Who will decide what hateful speech is? I think it is up to us to counter hateful speech not be protected from it.

[Pollster1]

I do not want FedGov to be the arbiter of acceptable speech in the United States. Someone tempted to engage in what those who support censorship label as "hate speech" has and should have the same constitutional rights as the most patriotic republican or the most evil national socialist or soviet socialist. I wouldn't even censor the 2014 State of the Union, despite the fact that the speaker was the most evil and most dangerous enemy that America has ever faced.

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .

The Bill of Rights has no ambiguity, and we should not permit the enemies of freedom to pretend that it does.

[chesley]

I might be more sympathetic to this position if I thought that people wouln't be allowed to insult my groups (white, male, Christian, Southern) too. But we both know that not one of these groups will be protected

Probably not, though. Speech is either free, or it is not. And people need to learn to deal with their sensitivities. Libel and slander can inflict not just emotional harm, but financial and social harm. Shouting fire or inciting violence can inflict both of those, plus physical harm. But insults, or "non-sensitivities" shouldn't. There are more reasons than I can list, but the main one is that it is just another little restriction of our liberty. No thanks

[Opinionated Blowhard]

And since we know that all Republicans and conservatives are Nazis, let’s legally sanction them if they speak too. We’ll finally be back to having “acceptable” debates in which Lindsey Graham and Arlen Specter represent the “right”. At least until they slow down “progress” and then we can call them Nazis and jail them too. After all, we always need an enemy to persecute to keep progress moving forward.