First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Oh Boy: 40% of Millennials Would Censor 'Offensive Speech'
9449 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
The thing that worries me is how many people believe in at least some kind of censorship, so even many of the 60% may, as well. E.g., Westboro Baptist Church. Neither Baptist nor a church, of course, but unless they infringe on someone's rights (stealing, assault, etc.), then the law is powerless (as it should be).

The right to all to have free speech, ideally, allows the correct ideas to rise to the surface. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. But, without free speech, it would be even worse.
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
Well those people are bloody retarded then...
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

I said 1971, it refers to "The Constitution for the United States of America"


There's a typo in your original post then.



http://rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/constitutionnorthamerica3.pdf

It's also worth noting that the article you linked confuses the two as the UNITED STATES Constitution wasn't around in the 1700's. If you're confused, than you probably don't have both constitutions. I do.


Do you mean the Bill of Rights? If so, isn't it typically regarded as a part of the Constitution?


The first "Bill of Rights" is at the bottom, which contradict your google search referring to this particular amendment only covering "opinions"

Again, you're not necessarily wrong, you just used a bad source. Which is fine because most people don't know there's 2 Constitutions.

One for America.

And one for UNITED STATES.


Regardless of semantics, there's a difference between the legality of the examples provided by Bant and the legality of hate speech.


To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)

The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/


PrinceJudar wrote:

Hmm, from what I got out of it, he was referring to libel and slander. Threats. The sort of matters where restriction is warranted.


Having rewatched it, I got the same. Thus, I retract my previous statements regarding the video.
51057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 12/19/15

Magical-Soul wrote:


GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

^

GrandMasterCoolio, this is a fail of the Internet. Not saying you're wrong, but your source is not legitimate. If you want to cite a right, you go to the constitution of 1791, you do not use a search result from anything else.

The constitution is hard for newer generations to interpret. But I'm sure there are a few users here(myself included) who can interpret it for you.


You mean this constitution? The United States Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788.

As for my quote, it's a direct quotation of the First Amendment.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Wrong. That's the "UNITED STATES Constitution"

I said 1971, it refers to "The Constitution for the United States of America"

http://rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/constitutionnorthamerica3.pdf

It's also worth noting that the article you linked confuses the two as the UNITED STATES Constitution wasn't around in the 1700's. If you're confused, than you probably don't have both constitutions. I do.

The first "Bill of Rights" is at the bottom, which contradict your google search referring to this particular amendment only covering "opinions"

Again, you're not necessarily wrong, you just used a bad source. Which is fine because most people don't know there's 2 Constitutions.

One for America.

And one for UNITED STATES.



Do you actually have a .Gov/.Edu source that explains the difference between the two you are talking about?

2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:



I actually can't see the typo I made? Could you be more specific as opposed to screen capping the entire post?

It's also worth noting that "legal" doesn't not apply to the constitution. You are now getting "law" and "legal" mixed up. That constitution I linked is the oldest one in the world. There was no "legality" at the time and it's not retroactive.

Not trying to nit pick too much, just thought I'd chime in.

273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/15 , edited 12/19/15
...I no longer have good feelings about the millennials.

actually come to think of it I don't really have that many good memories of those people. I have no idea what made me think they were the better generation.

Shutting people up is one thing, bringing the government into it is a whole other can of worms. A VERY ****ING DANGEROUS OTHER CAN OF WORMS.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/19/15 , edited 12/19/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

I actually can't see the typo I made? Could you be more specific as opposed to screen capping the entire post?


You said you were talking about 1971 in your last post when your first one talked about it being from 1791. The first post was correct in its date, whereas the more recent of the two (1971) was wrong and contradicted the first claim.


Magical-Soul wrote:

I said 1971, it refers to "The Constitution for the United States of America"
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

crazsli wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:


GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

^

GrandMasterCoolio, this is a fail of the Internet. Not saying you're wrong, but your source is not legitimate. If you want to cite a right, you go to the constitution of 1791, you do not use a search result from anything else.

The constitution is hard for newer generations to interpret. But I'm sure there are a few users here(myself included) who can interpret it for you.


You mean this constitution? The United States Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788.

As for my quote, it's a direct quotation of the First Amendment.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Wrong. That's the "UNITED STATES Constitution"

I said 1971, it refers to "The Constitution for the United States of America"

http://rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/constitutionnorthamerica3.pdf

It's also worth noting that the article you linked confuses the two as the UNITED STATES Constitution wasn't around in the 1700's. If you're confused, than you probably don't have both constitutions. I do.

The first "Bill of Rights" is at the bottom, which contradict your google search referring to this particular amendment only covering "opinions"

Again, you're not necessarily wrong, you just used a bad source. Which is fine because most people don't know there's 2 Constitutions.

One for America.

And one for UNITED STATES.



Do you actually have a .Gov/.Edu source that explains the difference between the two you are talking about?



That's strange, if you're looking for information. You don't normally go to a biased source.

If you don't already own one of the constitutions. You can look them both up here online.

You can even find the history of both. I can link you if you wish.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

I actually can't see the typo I made? Could you be more specific as opposed to screen capping the entire post?


You said you were talking about 1971 in your last post when your first one talked about it being from 1791. The first post was correct in its date.


Magical-Soul wrote:

I said 1971, it refers to "The Constitution for the United States of America"


Wrong, the constitution was ratified in 1971. That's what it says at the top of every legitimate constitution.

The one you linked too is not American. It is U.S.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/19/15 , edited 12/19/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

Wrong, the constitution was ratified in 1971. That's what it says at the top of every legitimate constitution.

The one you linked too is not American. It is U.S.


Here's the full conversation. I underlined the dates to point out what I mean.


Magical-Soul wrote:

^

GrandMasterCoolio, this is a fail of the Internet. Not saying you're wrong, but your source is not legitimate. If you want to cite a right, you go to the constitution of 1791, you do not use a search result from anything else.



GrandmasterCoolio wrote:

You mean this constitution? The United States Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788.



Magical-Soul wrote:

Wrong. That's the "UNITED STATES Constitution"

I said 1971, it refers to "The Constitution for the United States of America"

http://rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/constitutionnorthamerica3.pdf


Also, it says in the document you linked me to that it was ratified in 1791 -- not 1971. So the first date you mentioned would be correct and the second date, the one that contradicts the first, would be incorrect.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

Wrong, the constitution was ratified in 1971. That's what it says at the top of every legitimate constitution.

The one you linked too is not American. It is U.S.


Here's the full conversation. I underlined the dates to point out what I mean.


Magical-Soul wrote:

^

GrandMasterCoolio, this is a fail of the Internet. Not saying you're wrong, but your source is not legitimate. If you want to cite a right, you go to the constitution of 1791, you do not use a search result from anything else.



GrandmasterCoolio wrote:

You mean this constitution? The United States Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788.



Magical-Soul wrote:

Wrong. That's the "UNITED STATES Constitution"

I said 1971, it refers to "The Constitution for the United States of America"

http://rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/constitutionnorthamerica3.pdf


Also, it says in the document you linked me to that it was ratified in 1791 -- not 1971. So the first date you mentioned would be correct and the second date, the one that contradicts the first, would be incorrect.


Right, right, 1791. There's the typo! Thanks!
Timmn 
5377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
62 / M / Secret Government...
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

GotenLoooovesCorn wrote:

Maybe we should define what "offensive" is before this gets out of hand...


But what is "offensive"? I'm sure that there are many things that are offensive to you that wouldn't bother me, and the reverse is also true. So, how do you define it? Where do we draw the borders?
13579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
Millennials suck. I know this because I am one.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

Right, right, 1791. There's the typo! Thanks!


No problemo.
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 12/19/15


D4nc3Style wrote:

I've offended someone by saying "Merry Christmas" just because they didn't celebrate it and said it was "not politically correct" Fuck that.



Me too. These people need to chill out.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.