Originally posted by EmperordmbAnd this is where we disagree, words can be a tool of oppression, where a power imbalance exists removing individuals and groups freedoms. But we've discussed this before more than once. I'm not bothering again.
As much as anti-Christian speech offends me personally, it is not my place at all to tell anyone else what they are or aren't allowed to say.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
And this is where we disagree, words can be a tool of oppression, where a power imbalance exists removing individuals and groups freedoms. But we've discussed this before more than once. I'm not bothering again.
who decides when speech is oppressive
say we snapped our fingers and hate speech laws became an amendment in America
who would enforce the law..
hmm the executive branch...
who heads the executive branch?
Originally posted by Putinbot1
And this is where we disagree, words can be a tool of oppression, where a power imbalance exists removing individuals and groups freedoms. But we've discussed this before more than once. I'm not bothering again.
You can not bother if you want, but I am genuinely curious if you could give an example of an anti-christian statement you feel would merit the law get involved. Or I guess I could give an example. What if someone said all Christians are pieces of shit? I'm not saying I believe that, but if someone said that should the law get involved?
If that isn't something worthy of the law getting involved then what kind of comment would you suggest would be worthy, short of threatening violence?
Originally posted by Putinbot1
The Judiciary and the houses. They keep each other in check.
until the midterms the conservatives controlled every branch lol
100 years ago most of you leftists would’ve been thrown in jail for hate speech if hate speech laws were a thing
alabama would def see “it’s just a lump of cells!” as hate speech against the unborn
israel would see anti-israel protest as anti semitic speech
how shortsighted of you
Originally posted by Putinbot1
All of this is very different in a presidential system where an elected head of state has so much power. An example of democracy albeit an insane one like Brexit, would never be allowed in the US. The people would never be given the freedom to determine/**** up themselves like.
You're correct, every time we f*ck up the UK is like "hold my beer".
You're our Duff.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Finland: Hate speech laws and blasphemy laws
Sweden: Hate speech laws
Norway: Hate speech lawsBullshit
I personally believe that free speech is more than just allowing hate-speech. As you can see from my posts.
But as I also pointed out, it's a moving goalpost a "thought-policing" slippery slope. I think it represents a greater danger to free speech, long term, than most other speech restrictions.