Free Speech - is this what you are defending?

Pale Man In Black said:
LOL, I wonder if thread will be dumped. It's blatant troll bait.
Click to expand...

I even wonder if planted posters are going to happen more and more to falsify forum activity in order to shut them down, control the narrative and further the totalitarian left's Marxist agenda.
 
Freedom of assembly? Sure.

But, The supreme court ruled against racist speech in 69, 92 and against homophobic speech in 2011. By performing the Seig Heil and demanding that racialised minorities vacate the country they are in violation of American law, should they make similar remarks or speech variants.
 
I'd have to look it up, but I'm fairly certain that the Supreme Court made a decision some time ago that protects cross-burning as "free expression". Any private entity can deny someone from burning crosses on their property, and any fire-related legislation can bar cross-burning in public spaces. But the act of lighting a cross on fire is protected, as long as it's done somewhere that is either public and allows large open fires, or on private party with permission from the land-owner.

I support this and it's caveats.
 
BEER said:
I'd have to look it up, but I'm fairly certain that the Supreme Court made a decision some time ago that protects cross-burning as "free expression". Any private entity can deny someone from burning crosses on their property, and any fire-related legislation can bar cross-burning in public spaces. But the act of lighting a cross on fire is protected, as long as it's done somewhere that is either public and allows large open fires, or on private party with permission from the land-owner.

I support this and it's caveats.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to see this if you have time to post a link, but ultimately it would mean they can burn a cross but can't say anything racist. We know they won't do one without the other.
 
Overpressure said:
Cross burning has a history you would either have to be ignorant of or outright not care about to post this.
Click to expand...
The people doing this are complete tools. Either that or completely misguided, probably both.

But IMO the attention paid to it is the real problem. What if they just let them do it and nobody paid any attention? No media coverage, no protests. Just of bunch of goofs in Walmart sheets burning an old bed frame while people with an once of common sense go on with their business. We've tried the outrage police and seen minimal gains. Can't we all just try ignoring stupidity and see what happens?

Serious question.
 
Badger67 said:
Freedom of assembly? Sure.

But, The supreme court ruled against racist speech in 69, 92 and against homophobic speech in 2011. By performing the Seig Heil and demanding that racialised minorities vacate the country they are in violation of American law, should they make similar remarks or speech variants.
Click to expand...

What cases are you citing specifically?

In 1969, Brandenburg V. Ohio was overturned by Supreme Court that upheld the KKK member's right to free speech. The original case was a charge of "criminal syndicalism", and had nothing to do with hate speech.

In 1992, RAV V. City of Saint Paul was overturned by the Supreme Court, after it was found that Saint Paul's ordinances against "hateful images" was "too broad".

In 2003, Virginia V. Black was overturned, which most significantly relates to this thread, as the Supreme Court found that cross-burning is within the purview of the 1st amendment right to free expression.

I couldn't find anything from 2011 in which the Supreme Court condemned homophobic speech. I did find Snyder V. Phelps, in which the Supreme Court overturned the decision by basically saying "while WBC is heinous, they have a right to do what they do".
 
SaiWa said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kkk-cross-burning-application-denied-stone-mountain-georgia/

STONE MOUNTAIN, Ga. -- A Ku Klux Klan group's request to burn a cross atop Stone Mountain in Georgia has been denied.

The Stone Mountain Memorial Association on Monday rejected the application from the Sacred Knights of the Ku Klux Klan to hold an Oct. 21 "lighting" ceremony. The application was submitted May 26.

The ceremony was proposed to commemorate a November 1915 cross burning on top of Stone Mountain that marked the KKK's revival. Crosses were burned there annually, decades ago.

A Stone Mountain Memorial Association statement says it condemns the beliefs and actions of the KKK and that its rules allow for the denial of a permit for an event that would disrupt park activities or "appears to represent a clear and present danger to public health or safety."

-------------

Free speech question. Somewhat.

Are you for or against allowing the KKK their rights to burn a big ass cross peacefully?
Click to expand...

I am for it. Free speech doesn't end at offensive.

What is crazy to me, is the fact that this debate is old, and we sided with free speech, when KKK people would have public rallies, and protesters would show up creating a volatile situation.
 
Badger67 said:
I'd be curious to see this if you have time to post a link, but ultimately it would mean they can burn a cross but can't say anything racist. We know they won't do one without the other.
Click to expand...

You can say whatever you want in public, as long as you are not directly inciting violence. You can burn a cross and talk about how much you wouldn't mind if black folks were genocided, and it's perfectly legal.

People seem to think that "inciting violence" is a much easier charge than it is. The supreme court has also ruled that speech has to "...[rise] far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest" to be legally condemned. Saying shit that hurts feelings while burning a cross might incite violence, but condemning that expression would not likely hold up to a near century of first-amendment rulings.

Here's a link for the supreme court's decision to uphold cross-burning as free expression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

Here's a link from the 2003 Virginia V Black case, in which the supreme deemed Virginia's cross-burning bans as unconstitutional, but left wiggle room in that Virginia could still prosecute cross-burnings if they could prove an intent to intimidation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black
 
When defending "free speech" one defends the principle not specific words. The principle encompasses all words expressed in any way whether others agree with them or not...
 
superpunch said:
You'd think the left would learn that with all the presidential powers that Trump now has that they're freaking out over :D

Yes -- Trump has the power to take us to war without any congressional approval with anyone, whenever, and for whatever reason he wants to. Yes -- he can also arrest & lock you up with no trial, no record of it, and torture you on a boat in the middle of the ocean and have you executed just because he doesn't like you.

But go ahead and start banning speech you don't like.. please, I dare you :D Because there's a lot of speech that I don't like too. Just don't bitch about it when it gets used against you like you were bitching about Trump having the power to start a nuclear war with Korea recently --- you gave him that power :D :D :D
Click to expand...

Winner winner chicken dinner!

Yet that whole NADA deal with Obama was a low point in American history, constitutionally speaking. The constitutional right to due process was completely violated. We also now have constructed the biggest surveillance state in history, spying on and violating the 4th amendment rights of our own citizens. I'm sure that will never backfire on us.
 
Liquid Smoke said:
The people doing this are complete tools. Either that or completely misguided, probably both.

But IMO the attention paid to it is the real problem. What if they just let them do it and nobody paid any attention? No media coverage, no protests. Just of bunch of goofs in Walmart sheets burning an old bed frame while people with an once of common sense go on with their business. We've tried the outrage police and seen minimal gains. Can't we all just try ignoring stupidity and see what happens?

Serious question.
Click to expand...


You mean do the same thing we've been doing the last 40 years, which has always worked, up until Trump took down the Hildebeast?

Seems kinda obvious, doesn't it?

This isn't really about statues or racism, this about Trump. The butthurt left has vowed to #RESIST and calling all Trump voters racist while turning a blind eye (actually funding and supporting) to the violent leftist extremist groups is them #ViolentlyResisting. They believe it's ok to use violence when they lose.

#FuckTheLeft.
 
Last edited:
I say let them do it but make them take off their masks.
 
Generally I'm for their right to do this but it's an interesting issue because this is an action, which is generally speech, that is well known to be a threat of violence and likely to result in violence.
 
SaiWa said:
even though the burning of the cross in America symbolizes racial hatred against African Americans?
Click to expand...
Especially for that reason. Freedom of speech, expression, and assembly isn't there to allow people to argue about their favorite band, it's for expression of abhorrent ideas. Whether they should and whether they should be allowed are 2 totally separate questions with different answers, and allowing is not the same as endorsing.
 
freaky said:
As with any establishment, they have the right to refuse service to anyone. This isn't free speech and a bad example. But I can see where you're going with this. I can certainly see free speech being silenced. I mean look at the Milo speech at Berkeley. The only ones violating our free speech are the libtards who claim they're fighting for free speech when in fact they're doing the opposite: silencing!!
Click to expand...

Actually businesses do not have a right to refuse service to anyone. Regardless of the signs they put up. That being said, I have no problem with the KKK begin deigned here because of the groups history, and very reason for being. They can burn a cross on their own property if they want.
 
I honestly don't have a clear opinion on the matter.

I would be inclined to say that it falls under hate speech, the same way that assholes in salafist mosques should be jailed.
 
SaiWa said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kkk-cross-burning-application-denied-stone-mountain-georgia/

STONE MOUNTAIN, Ga. -- A Ku Klux Klan group's request to burn a cross atop Stone Mountain in Georgia has been denied.

The Stone Mountain Memorial Association on Monday rejected the application from the Sacred Knights of the Ku Klux Klan to hold an Oct. 21 "lighting" ceremony. The application was submitted May 26.

The ceremony was proposed to commemorate a November 1915 cross burning on top of Stone Mountain that marked the KKK's revival. Crosses were burned there annually, decades ago.

A Stone Mountain Memorial Association statement says it condemns the beliefs and actions of the KKK and that its rules allow for the denial of a permit for an event that would disrupt park activities or "appears to represent a clear and present danger to public health or safety."

-------------

Free speech question. Somewhat.

Are you for or against allowing the KKK their rights to burn a big ass cross peacefully?
Click to expand...


Let them have their ceremony. Who the fuck are you to stop them?

If we do not allow the worst of us free speech, then we allow it to none. Grow a pair.
 
It's amazing.


The left is now fighting against free speech.


Between this and them pushing to normalize pedophila, they've officially lost their minds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,793
Messages
55,517,464
Members
174,807
Latest member
Mapichtli

Share this page

Back
Top