Forums | MacLife

kb5zhh wrote:

What would a conservative definition of hate speech be?

Of course, this is all about you distracting from the main point.

There was a point?

Well I knew that was coming.

Farmerkev wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

What would a conservative definition of hate speech be?

Of course, this is all about you distracting from the main point.

There was a point?

Yes. Shall I re-port Metacell's post again? That's just one point of many good points that have been made in this topic.

kb5zhh wrote:

What would a conservative definition of hate speech be?

I can't speak for all conservatives - but how would I define it?
Speech specifically intended to incite hatred, violence, and/or discrimination against a particular group of people.

Calling the christian right a bunch of smurfing morons is not hate speech.
Calling the christian right a bunch of smurfing morons that need a good beating is.

resedit wrote:

I didn't claim it was homosexual activists.
It is a violation of religious freedom though.

Well then why are you talking about it?  You said that in general, homosexual activists are seeking to take away your "right" to practice religion as you see fit.

And this is quite a stretch, anyway.  You've taken your religion out of the church, out of the home, and are seeking to lead prayers in a public school–a school where other children may not adhere to the same religious beliefs.

No, it would not be unconstitutional.
Many publications are not allowed at schools - because they are hate speech.
You use a liberal definition of hate speech, and guess what the Bible can be classified as.

...and do you feel that you possess enough knowledge of First Amendment jurisprudence to claim that the Constitution would not prohibit such a thing? 

The Court has severely limited even the fighting words doctrine.  By whatever measure a school is allowed to ban "publications" on school grounds (a claim you've made repeatedly but have not once substantiated with a shred of proof), there is not any legal significance (how many times can I repeat this?) to the term "hate speech," and the constitutional burden that would be placed upon any government entity seeking to "ban the Bible" would be insurmountable.

Earlier in this thread (or perhaps the other thread) you identified yourself as a homosexual activist.
You want a liberal definition of what hate speech is.

I don't "want" anything.  I have no desire to see the term "hate speech" have ANY legal significance whatsoever.  In this way, whatever I say is "hate speech" is, in fact, "hate speech."  It's a matter of opinion, and it's my opinion.  I don't need to convince you.  There is no central tribunal that decides what is "hate speech." 

In fact, I've just done a quick review and have found that university hate speech codes have LOST in every legal challenge before federal courts.

Last edited by bratboy (2006-03-16 3:41 pm)

XYZ wrote:

Please stop trolling. I realize you're trying to get the topic locked. Posting links of random forums and responding with empty things like "hah priceless" doesn't qualify as useful input for the topic.

Don't.

Really, just smurfing don't.

XYZ wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

XYZ wrote:

Please stop trolling. I realize you're trying to get the topic locked. Posting links of random forums and responding with empty things like "hah priceless" doesn't qualify as useful input for the topic.

Don't.

Really, just smurfing don't.

I've never been to that forum and I'm not going to waste any more time on BS. Please contribute to the topic or move on. If you want to harass me, send PMs.

1- I didn't post the link
2- it is very valid proof that you asked for since it's the same people

Well, the evil ACLU is completely opposed to "hate speech codes" and has brought several sucessful legal challenges against them, in public schools.

Similarly, under a speech code in effect at the University of Michigan for 18 months, white students in 20 cases charged black students with offensive speech. One of the cases resulted in the punishment of a black student for using the term "white trash" in conversation with a white student. The code was struck down as unconstitutional in 1989 and, to date, the ACLU has brought successful legal challenges against speech codes at the Universities of Connecticut, Michigan and Wisconsin.

These examples demonstrate that speech codes don't really serve the interests of persecuted groups. The First Amendment does. As one African American educator observed: "I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next."

A link to their page on hate speech codes on campuses.

Tallgeese wrote:

a) FRC intends to incite discrimination

Yes

b) said behavior is considered by all of us to be hate speech

Yes.

resedit wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

a) FRC intends to incite discrimination

Yes

b) said behavior is considered by all of us to be hate speech

Yes.

So what are we talking about again? Can we just go out for ice cream sundaes now?

Farmerkev wrote:

XYZ wrote:

Lies. If you or moron can produce something real, from this forum, please do so.

This forum is the only reality you can grasp?
You should try 54 and see just how much your "oppressed" personage is actually protected here when people can tell you exactly what they think and feel without fear.
I suspect you already know.
By all means, continue on with your Lancome Lady impersonation.