Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I think he meant to bring up the Mulford Act
, signed into California state law when Reagan was governor.
edited 3rd Nov '16 10:09:27 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.That's not what was proposed. What was proposed was that if you share an opinion, you legally have to be able to defend it with a good argument and shouldn't be allowed to use insults.
No totalitarian hellscapes are welcome here, thanks.
edited 3rd Nov '16 10:14:18 AM by Lennik
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.The National Guard is our modern "militia". They have to be called to duty by the governor of a state (or the President in extremely rare circumstances) and it usually only happens in a state of emergency, i.e. natural disaster or civil unrest. They don't have police powers unless you're dealing with actual martial law being declared.
edited 3rd Nov '16 10:19:07 AM by Elle
My mistake there, I was thinking more along the lines of "knowingly deceiving people shouldn't be a protected right". Not about honest mistakes or being emotional.
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV![]()
![]()
... I think you're supposed to be pointing that at someone other than me, because I don't know how that applies to my post.
Am I the only one here who read the whole "right to be wrong" thing as obvious sarcasm?
edited 3rd Nov '16 10:23:06 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.... My mind cannot wrap itself around the concept of "people have a right to be wrong". It's nonsensical. How can one have a right to be wrong? Or is that just an oversimplified way of saying "people have a right to not be persecuted just for espousing an opinion that everyone else considers wrong, so long as they don't act upon that opinion in a way that breaks existing laws"? Because if it is, then it's an excessive oversimplification.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Anyone who says or suggests that the 1st Amendment needs to be changed to limit the spread of opinions always seems to be of the opinion that only irrational, stupid people could possibly disagree with them, which frankly is rather arrogant. If it were changed, who's to say it wouldn't limit you being able to share your thoughts or views, regardless of how right you believe them to be.
Also, I'm back, even though this is probably a stupid decision I will deeply regret later on. Tv Tropes is like a drug man.
Though not strictly, often times people get around the whole "Hate Speech is protected" things by prosecuting it under the Fighting Words Doctrine, which states that any speech with the intention of inciting violence is not protected. It's often not that hard to conflate the two
edited 3rd Nov '16 10:52:25 AM by randomdude4
"Can't make an omelette without breaking some children." -BurUsing free speech as a weapon against hate speech is the tactic I'd prefer.
edited 3rd Nov '16 11:10:29 AM by Elle
Placing restrictions on the First Amendment would open such a humongous can of worms, I can't even begin to explain why it's a bad idea. Because the only way it would possibly work is in a society/culture where everyone shares the same ethnicity, the same religion, the same political leanings, the same views on economics, etc.
I remember one of my high school teachers explaining how to completely neutralize the First Amendment: change the text from "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," etc. — to: "abridging the reasonable freedom of speech..."
There ya go! No more ambiguity, no more problem. Anybody expressing a dissenting opinion is therefore not being reasonable, and may be punished by law.
edited 3rd Nov '16 11:13:15 AM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
I fail to see why what Ambar
suggested is unfeasible. Freedom of speech (hell, any freedom) ends when it impignes upon other freedoms/rights; what's difficult about that?
edited 3rd Nov '16 11:17:25 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.It only becomes impinging when it crosses the line into advocating or comitting impinging (usually read: illegal) actions. The trick the Klan pulled since their mid-century downfall was changing the narrative so it was no longer about openly advocating violence but preserving "white rights" and "white culture" and adapting dogwhistle words.
That too. A person does not have a right to not be offended. If it's going beyond merely causing offense to actually causing harm, we have another set of laws for that, it's called harassment.
edited 3rd Nov '16 11:29:53 AM by Elle
![]()
Because then it could be twisted into something like the Racial and Religious Hatred Act in the UK, where a lot of criticism of religion is punishable because religious people have a legally protected right not to be offended, even if what you're doing is saying fundies who think gay people should burn in hell are assholes. If the right to not be offended becomes an actual right, then it becomes possible to ban any kind of speech including the opinions expressed here. Especially (and inevitably) if any loonies get put in charge of the justice system.
edited 3rd Nov '16 11:32:01 AM by AlleyOop
