No, you don’t. You just need to not take the bait. Stop taking all speech at its face value. Do not give them the oxygen they crave.
America survived Nazi demonstrations in the 60s and 70s without falling apart. It can tolerate dipshit protesters in the Internet age w/o binning the 1st Amendment.
The lack of Hate Speech laws isn't exactly preventing them from locking people they don't like up for speech though, is it, the Dems didn't have a problem with locking up students for it either.
At least with hate speech laws you could INSIST the police do something about it.
It absolutely makes it much more difficult for them to lock up people for their speech, what the fuck are you talking about? That’s why all Ed Martin can do is send letters and bitch on X/Twitter
I think the weaponization of hate speech laws against pro-Palestinian protesters shows the problem there. Suddenly the right-wingers are clutching their pearls about "antisemitism on college campuses".
It's just another way for the powerful to exercise their privilege.
Trump fully agrees! Look at how vigorously he pursues "antisemitism"!
It's HORRIBLE that Free Speech Extremists keep suing to stop enforcement of those wonderful orders! At least many college administrators are eager to comply and suppress all such offensive speech on their campuses!
It says nothing about what a community is morally obligated to tolerate.
Someone who advocates for unpersoning another is advocating violence against that person. A violent response is justified self defense, ethically if not legally.
You think the current administration should be entrusted with the power to punish people for their speech based on whether they deem it hateful or not?
Yes, Kevin, the Nazis were engaged in free speech on public property, they were protected by the First Amendment.
I'm sure you thought you were making some sort of point with these examples, but they're all wholly unremarkable and totally reasonable applications of the law.
Yes, Kevin, content neutral time, place, and manner restrictions comply with the First Amendment. She was engaging in civil disobedience. If she hadn't been arrested her actions would have been meaningless.
Would you like a list of all of the SCOTUS cases that struck down government statutes or applications of statutes because they punished hateful speech?
SCOTUS has protected "hate speech" in cases like National Socialist Party v. Skokie, Brandenburg v. Ohio, and Snyder v. Phelps and in many others
I mean, a bunch of the EOs have been enjoined under the First Amendment, so enforcing those orders is now illegal. Would it be better if there was no mechanism to stop enforcement?
Comments
America survived Nazi demonstrations in the 60s and 70s without falling apart. It can tolerate dipshit protesters in the Internet age w/o binning the 1st Amendment.
sure it was, maybe I have to tell you, but the Nazis eventually shot Dr. King....
At least with hate speech laws you could INSIST the police do something about it.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5183142/police-welcome-trumps-return-to-the-white-house
It's just another way for the powerful to exercise their privilege.
It's HORRIBLE that Free Speech Extremists keep suing to stop enforcement of those wonderful orders! At least many college administrators are eager to comply and suppress all such offensive speech on their campuses!
PS:SARCASM
What we need, is a culture that refuses to tolerate intolerance, that rejects pacifism, that will no longer turn the other cheek.
“Freedom of speech” is a legal principle that constrains the government.
Someone who advocates for unpersoning another is advocating violence against that person. A violent response is justified self defense, ethically if not legally.
Make Nazis afraid again.
Just don’t get caught.
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3llwgf52sss26
https://bsky.app/profile/youranoncentral.bsky.social/post/3lk7sduug4k22
In the estimation of some people, it was wrong to stop the nazis here.
Laws need people to do things or they are just words on paper
https://bsky.app/profile/wcpo9news.bsky.social/post/3lhmgwa3zp42i
I'm sure you thought you were making some sort of point with these examples, but they're all wholly unremarkable and totally reasonable applications of the law.
SCOTUS has protected "hate speech" in cases like National Socialist Party v. Skokie, Brandenburg v. Ohio, and Snyder v. Phelps and in many others