Skip to comments.The First Amendment Should Never Protect Hatred
Posted on 03/19/2015 6:12:41 AM PDT by C19fan
One of the most admirable things about Europe is that most (if not all) of the right-wing rhetoric that you hear in the US is explicitly against the law there. For example, attempting to link Islam with terrorism, saying that gay marriage isnt really marriage, or saying that trans women arent really women would get you charged with discrimination and/or incitement to hatred. Numerous European public figures have been charged with hate crimes for implying that large-scale immigration is connected to higher crime. In fact, a politician in Sweden was prosecuted for hate crimes for posting statistics about immigrant crime on Facebook. Assaults on the human dignity of Muslims are simply not tolerated in Europe, and Europe cracks down hard on any attempts to incite hatred against Muslims. In a notable example, a woman in Austria was convicted of a hate crime for suggesting that the Islamic Prophet Muhammed was a pedophile. Recently, a man in Sweden was charged with incitement to ethnic hatred for wearing a T-shirt saying Islam is the devil. Nobody in Europe believes that these laws interfere with their sacred, guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Rather, these laws protect freedom of speech by ensuring that it is used responsibly and for the purposes of good.
(Excerpt) Read more at thoughtcatalog.com ...
Who gets to define “hate?”
incitement to ethnic hatred
now theres a dangerous “Crime”
As soon as they start applying this to the “H8YT” crowd,
I might give them half an ear.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
In the US you can say anything you want. Which is apparently very restrictive and repressive.
Someone please help this poor woman. She’s been TRIGGERED!!
The Orwellian world in which we live.
Who said that? That is awesome.
For example, attempting to link Islam with terrorism, saying that gay marriage isnt really marriage, or saying that trans women arent really women would get you charged with discrimination and/or incitement to hatred.
So, telling the truth is “hatred”. Got it.
I think I’ll side with the One Who is the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life.
The far left.
” Nobody in Europe believes that these laws interfere with their sacred, guaranteed right to freedom of speech”
Not even the people being arrested?
Have those feminists that went to the Vatican, and did lewd acts with crosses, sent to jail for hate crimes?
How about the Muslims in the U.K. that engaged in slurs against Jews and Christians?
So-called “hate” speech is exactly what the first amendment should protect. There is little need to protect polite, inoffensive speech. I learned this in Jr high school in a course called “Civics”. I guess Ms Cohen is still in sixth grade.
I take it she thinks she’ll get to define “hatred”.
And I can guess what she will define it as.
In the US, however, no such laws exist. Right-wing hatemongers like Sean Hannity, Bill OReilly, Glenn Beck, Bill Maher....
.....Bill Maher? Wait, what????
Hell, Tanya. Why stop there? We know who all those dangerous, evil conservatives are, or can find out by looking at the voter registrations and Tea Party mailing lists. Let's just round them up and send them to Re-Education Camp -- a.k.a. whatever university you attended.
So the hip hop “artists” who spew hatred ought to go to jail, along with Al Sharpton and every other Black who expresses hatred against Whites or the police.
Actually, the First Amendment codified the freedom of political speech. So even if that speech is judged as “hate speech” by Leftists, it is protected speech.
Boy, it seems that the tyrants are really coming out of the woodwork lately. Now that they’ve managed to force sodomite “marriage” upon people through activist judges, they are really going all in on forcing people to either acquiese or remain silent if they have religious convictions opposing sodomites and sodomite activity. I heard that POS Barney Frank on NPR talking about how they first made it about keeping government out of their bedrooms, and now the goalposts have moved (he made it sound like a deliberate strategy, and I have always believed that it is) to make it beyond the pale to voice opposition to sodomites, sodomite activity, etc. They forced prayer out of government schools on the grounds that taxpayer money shouldn’t fund people’s private religious convictions, but now they’ve moved to using taxpayer money to force the sodomite agenda and its acceptance upon all children in government schools, including the children of Bible-believing parents. if one is wrong, so is the other, but they want to equate Biblical opposition to the sodomite agenda to opposition to “civil rights”. It hasn’t been proved that they’re “born that way”, but even if it were to be, then so are pedophiles, and I hope anyone ever tries to force children to have “tolerance” of pedophilia. IMO, forcing acceptance of sodomy is no different than if they were to use taxpayer money to teach acceptance of adultery or any other sin. If Christians can’t have our beliefs in taxpayer-funded institutions, then the sodomite coalition should not be allowed to have theirs in there, either, and I wish some conservative lawyers would argue the point from this ground.
Think it is time for the first amendment to be changed in regards to the press. If they stand with the leftwing of the country then it is clear they are not doing their job as oversight of the government on behalf of its citizens.
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.