One Man’s Case For Regulating Hate Speech

View Comments (22)

• Empirically, hate speech is anything a rightwinger utters.
  And I think it's OK. Everyone has the legal and moral right to believe it.

  • little john john. Smoking crack again. Go tell mom you owe her for stealing all her rock.

    • You talking about me because I didn't even post on this thread. Or are you trying to talk about me behind my back?

      • John, FormerlyDeanH just assumed it was you. You know, because the post resembled the lack of logic that you have shown in your previous psychotic rantings, er, posts. No..."psychotic rantings" is the proper term.

        Of course, the aforementioned post could have been someone just trying to mock the extreme views of the left. It's hard to tell. Someone did something like this here and went on to mentioned that Republicans liked to eat kittens or something like that. Some caught that that this was meant as a joke, but there are those on the left who say things like this. And since there are people on the left who say things like this there were those (like me) who didn't catch the attempt at humor.

        Oh, I could TRY to make some sort of argument that your posts are an attempt at this kind of humor, but you do it too often and the posts are far too psychotic to make me think you are anything but completely serious.

      • We would love to talk to your front, but you can't afford one.

      • Turn around and look for me you moron.

• I say let these fools spout off and show their stupidity and ignorance. That way those of us who don’t prescribe to their beliefs and idiotic idea are always reminded of what they stand for and who they deem unfit.

• Hate speech, isn't that when you advocate killing someone that isn't up for the death penalty?
  Where is the DOJ? Shouldn't they be in Wisconsin?
  Oh wait, Holder is being investigated, so everything grinds to a halt except what the leftists want done.

  • Yeah but HOLDER nominated the 2 attorneys to evalualte and find the souce of the leark in Fast and Furious. Isn't that like locking the fox in the hen house?

• Say what you want, live with the reaction. Free speech is for everyone, & so are the consiquences. Hate speech is a fake construct created by people who wish to control society, & I shall never bow down to that.

• Another liberal law professor wanting to regulate what people say because it might hurt somebody's feelings. I bet "Dear Leader" would be all for it, that way any dissent would be considered a hate speech.

• "Hate speech" is a vague term that defies precise definition; if a federal law is passed restricting "hate speech" I'm certain that it will be applied selectively. Eric Holder's politicized Justice Daprtment would probably give another pass to the New Black Panthers while chasing after conservative churches that oppose gay marriage. Read the comments section following the NPR article---it's apparent the liberals want to target the "right wing".

  Too, various special interest, ethnic and religious groups would be clamoring for the protection of "hate speech" laws. With a hate speech law in effect, criticize them and you'll find yourself looking down the barrel of a federal criminal investigatiopn, even if you're found ultimately innocent, the legal fees will ruin you.

  Right now we're protected by the First Amendment but there's lots of leftists in this country who think we should imitate our betters in Europe and Canada. But we have the First Amendment and it's worked wonderfully for over two hundred years, don't f*** with it.

• "It's usually defined first of all in terms of its intention, that it's speech which is intended to cause the stirring of hatred and hostility towards a particular group. That's not enough on most definitions; they also insist that it must be likely to generate such hatred and hostility. Thirdly, the speech must be offered in a threatening, abusive and insulting way. "

  I wonder what his take is on the medias "tea bagger" obsession.

• I wasnt sure if that little disclaimer at the top about offensive words was sarcastic or not! Then i realized it wasnpr!

• "Hate" speech is any speech that lefties hate.

  • For the win!

  • Ha, good point!

• "Many of the things that people have a right to do in the United States are wrong," Waldron tells NPR's Rachel Martin. "They don't have a right to do everything that's wrong and I'm arguing that the category of things that they shouldn't have a right to do should be somewhat expanded."

  In his own assnine way he wants censorship. He cites the Westboro Baptist church and Terry Jones the Koran Burner. But I would be willing to be the "right" is his intended target. He says people say a lot of bad things, no shit Sherlock..Have you seen what's being said about Scott Walker? But I bet that sort of thing would not be covered.

  Yea people do say a lot of stupid shit, including our president, but just who would you trust to alter the first amendment? None of these libturds.

  • They can't. The ACLU's main backer IS the publishing industry.
    They wanted with the aclu's help "PIPA". PIPA would have done a great deal of damage to this country Freedom of Speech laws.

    It's NOT academic, it's still in play.

    All of this just cause this country won't get it's act together when it comes to internet security which IS the underlying problem.

    How interesting don't you think when you peal back all of the layers of bullS###?

  • I agree with you wholeheartedly. But even if he doesn't want "censorship" that is exactly what will occur. Once the wall is breached the flood cannot be stopped.

    • If there were a committee to decide what is acceptable speech, you know it would be loaded with liberals.

      • Ha, true that!