• Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".

      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 07:38 AM - Hide
      • TINKERBELL posted:
        Who determines what is hate speech?

        I do of course!
        \
        :lib:
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 07:42 AM - Hide
      • . posted:
        TINKERBELL posted:
        Who determines what is hate speech?

        I do of course!
        \
        :lib:

        :potd:
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 07:44 AM - Hide
      • Anything i disagree with is hate speech!
        \
        :lib:
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 07:45 AM - Hide
      • We're Gonna Ban Hate Speech!   We're Gonna Ban Mean Speech!  We're Gonna Ban Hurtful Speech!
        \
        Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment". #1
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 07:53 AM - Hide
      • Liberals hate freedom
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 08:12 AM : Edited 04/21/2017 08:13 AM - Hide
      • . posted:
        . posted:
        TINKERBELL posted:
        Who determines what is hate speech?

        I do of course!
        \
        :lib:

        :potd:

        NOOOOOO! NOT A CIS GENDERED MALE AUTHORITY FIGURE! MEN MUST REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM TEH POLITICAL PROCESSS FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS AND LET WIMMIN DECIDE!
        \
        ;tears4;;tears3;
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 08:15 AM - Hide
      • . posted:
        Hateful baggers need to accept that words that harm others are not protected by the 1st amendment.

        All words harm you soft pussies so nobody would be able to say anything.
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 08:34 AM - Hide
      • When I was a kid I was taught that "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me." Now I guess you run to the cops where your hurt feelings are validated and someone must pay the price.
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 08:37 AM - Hide
      • . posted:
        Hateful baggers need to accept that words that harm others are not protected by the 1st amendment.

        Correct.

        Group Libel, Hate Speech. - In Beauharnais v. Illinois,1000 relying on dicta in past cases,1001 the Court upheld a state group libel law that made it unlawful to defame a race or class of people. The defendant had been convicted under this statute after he had distributed a leaflet, part of which was in the form of a petition to his city government, taking a hard-line white-supremacy position, and calling for action to keep African Americans out of white neighborhoods. Justice Frankfurter for the Court sustained the statute along the following reasoning. Libel of an individual, he established, was a common-law crime and was now made criminal by statute in every State in the Union. These laws raise no constitutional difficulty because libel is within that class of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. If an utterance directed at an individual may be the object of criminal sanctions, then no good reason appears to deny a State the power to punish the same utterances when they are directed at a defined group, "unless we can say that this is a willful and purposeless restriction unrelated to the peace and well-being of the State."1002 The Justice then reviewed the history of racial strife in Illinois to conclude that the legislature could reasonably fear substantial evils from unrestrained racial utterances. Neither did the Constitution require the State to accept a defense of truth, inasmuch as historically a defendant had to show not only truth but publication with good motives and for justifiable ends.1003 "Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech, it is unnecessary . . . to consider the issues behind the phrase 'clear and present danger."'1004

        1000 343 U.S. 250 (1952).

        1001 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1942); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 707-08 (1931).

        1002 Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 254-58 (1952).

        1003 343 U.S. at 265-66.

        1004 343 U.S. at 266.
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 08:41 AM - Hide
      • Does Howard know all the hate speech (and actual racist violence) negroes are responsible for? And muzzies? We need to eradicate both groups in the US, and his 'hate speech' issue will evaporate'.
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 08:46 AM - Hide
      • . posted:
        Hateful baggers need to accept that words that harm others are not protected by the 1st amendment.

        Liberals hate free speech.

        Liberals hate America.

        Liberals are traitors & terrorists who hate America.
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 08:50 AM - Hide
      • . posted:
        Liberals hate free speech.

        Liberals hate America.

        Liberals are traitors & terrorists who hate America.

        Ne we just oppose bagger screech. Bagger screech is not free speech.
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 08:52 AM - Hide
      • . posted:
        . posted:
        Liberals hate free speech.

        Liberals hate America.

        Liberals are traitors & terrorists who hate America.

        Ne we just oppose bagger screech. Bagger screech is not free speech.
        \
        ;tears3;

        :lol:
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 08:56 AM - Hide
      • If we all agreed on everything we wouldn't need a first amendment at all. Sometimes people say things you don't like, Howard. You're just going to have to learn to live with that because 'hate speech' is among the things that the first amendment was designed to protect. And besides, most of what liberals think is 'hate speech' is simply objective truth. If it's hate to say Muslims and niggers are uncivilized savages, chalk me up.
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 09:08 AM - Hide
      • What an absolutely dumb ass thing to tweet.
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • .
      • Fscking Moron
      • Re: Howard Dean "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".
        Posted 04/21/2017 09:12 AM - Hide
      • . posted:
        Correct.

        Group Libel, Hate Speech. - In Beauharnais v. Illinois,1000 relying on dicta in past cases,1001 the Court upheld a state group libel law that made it unlawful to defame a race or class of people. The defendant had been convicted under this statute after he had distributed a leaflet, part of which was in the form of a petition to his city government, taking a hard-line white-supremacy position, and calling for action to keep African Americans out of white neighborhoods. Justice Frankfurter for the Court sustained the statute along the following reasoning. Libel of an individual, he established, was a common-law crime and was now made criminal by statute in every State in the Union. These laws raise no constitutional difficulty because libel is within that class of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. If an utterance directed at an individual may be the object of criminal sanctions, then no good reason appears to deny a State the power to punish the same utterances when they are directed at a defined group, "unless we can say that this is a willful and purposeless restriction unrelated to the peace and well-being of the State."1002 The Justice then reviewed the history of racial strife in Illinois to conclude that the legislature could reasonably fear substantial evils from unrestrained racial utterances. Neither did the Constitution require the State to accept a defense of truth, inasmuch as historically a defendant had to show not only truth but publication with good motives and for justifiable ends.1003 "Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech, it is unnecessary . . . to consider the issues behind the phrase 'clear and present danger."'1004

        1000 343 U.S. 250 (1952).

        1001 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1942); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 707-08 (1931).

        1002 Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 254-58 (1952).

        1003 343 U.S. at 265-66.

        1004 343 U.S. at 266.

        At issue in Walker v Sons of Confederate Veterans were the specialty license plates offered to drivers by the state of Texas. In addition to its standard plates, Texas offers a series of special designs people can choose for an additional fee. This program is distinct from the option of personalized plates, in which individuals choose an alphabetical and/or numerical pattern on their own. If approved, the specialty plates are made available to anyone in the state.

        In this case, the Sons of Confederate Veterans proposed a specialty plate featuring the Confederate battle flag. The relevant panel rejected the design and refused to issue the plate, citing its authority to reject any design that "might be offensive to any member of the public." The panel concluded that "a significant portion of the public associate the confederate flag with organizations advocating expressions of hate directed toward people or groups that is demeaning to those people or groups."

        In a 5-4 ruling - with the four Democratic nominees joined, interestingly, by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court's only African American member - the court held that Texas was not required to issue the pro-Confederate plate design.
      •   [ Quote ] | [ Quote All ]
      • Join the discussion - There is no registration required!

      Name: (Optional)
      Save
      Photo: (Optional)
      Message: (0 / 16,384 chars)

      If you want to embed media, just paste YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, Instagram, Vine, Liveleak, Imgur (IMAGE or GIFV) links and they'll auto embed.
      Pro tips: Click the angry emojis for popular emoticons/fomotes. Check the trending fomotes for new fomotes.