>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.
If SCOTUS can (reasonably) determine that shouting fire is not protected, threats aren't protected, why not determine that racist hate speech is not protected also?
Every single country other than USA has laws protecting minorities from hate/villifying speech
Brandenberg v. Ohio
Speech that is intended to "incite imminent lawless action" is not protected.
I can burn a cross on my lawn because I hate black people, but I can't burn one on your lawn as the first step in hanging your black ass.
Because there's a difference between inciting a panic/violence and just calling someone a nigger.
>>69542941
you can't name the jew in many European countries. Is that a good thing, commonwealth peasant?
>>69543291
>>69543139
No there isn't, when you factor in the effect that hate speech has on people.
>>69543291
True, and by making hate speech fall under that category just means you're not only admitting they can't control themselves, but that you think everybody should put up with their inability to control themselves. By force if necessary.
>>69543362
It doesn't matter what effect it has on people. They have an obligation to practice self control.
>>69542941
It's 2016 you greasy Chink
Get over it.
>>69543362
hate speech =/= actual violence
>>69543496
It is verbal or emotional violence.
>>69542941
>shouting fire is not protected
Wasn't this debunked?
>>69543362
If "no there isn't" is your response to a Supreme Court ruling, then you don't know enough about the American legal system to have this conversation.
>>69543521
verbal violence doesn't kill people. physical violence does. those are two different things
Shouting fire is allowed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#The_Schenck_case
>The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.
The only things we have laws about are CP, and specific bombing threats.
I think those laws are shitty, but we're better than literally any other country in the world for free speech.
because society changes, like the gentle meme that drifts back to the sea, praise kek
>>69543676
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with legal system, it is simply a political theatre stacked with justices from the right or left depending on whom is in power at the time. They then make rulings accordingly. Basically a political shitshow.
>>69543521
No it's not. Even if emotional violence was a real thing, it wouldn't matter because no one's been physically hurt.
You have no validity for this claim at all. You will continue to ignore facts and talk out of your ass.
>>69543832
Just delete the thread before you embarrass yourself any further.
>>69543944
Can't handle the truth? #sorrynotsorry
>>69543832
>The only legal authority to define and interpret the constitution
>Nothing to do with the legal system
Are you just a New Zealand on holiday?
>>69543832
>has nothing to do with legal system
>They then make rulings
petrol, Select all images with cars
>>69543832
Scotus interprets laws and decides outcomes according to our Constitution. It has given many people important rights over time such as the right to an attorney and being read your Miranda rights.
>>69544007
>ignoring smartest opposers
>changing goal posts
>meme control
Lad.
>>69544152
>>69544101
>>69544032
>>69544010
You're not disputing what I said
GOP picks far-right judges, Dems pick centre-left judges and they make rulings accordingly. It has nothing to do with the legal system. SCOTUS can interpret the same thing 100% differently depending on whether Dems or GOP managed to get a majority on it.
>>69544007
FTFY
>>69544489
Pathetic, did you do this in MS Paint/
>>69544284
Politics change all the time and Republicans aren't nearly as conservative as they use to be. The Justices are old but not shy of being moderate on issues if the circumstances call for it and I think their records prove that.
Honestly there might not be or ever be a far left judge in the Justices because America just might not want that shit ever. Not that we control who they pick but you really underestimate the power of public influence.
Picking far left is mainly beneficial to minorities and "victims". At least that's what they claim. Theyre are no victims or struggling minorities in America so idk what the problem is.
Bottom line is we don't need one and no one wants one except that small minority of sjw faggot fairy fucks.
>>69544623
well, since you are not debating its accuracy and instead attacking its quality, i assume my work is done here brother.
>>69542941
I would have liked a job when I was 12. I even tried but they said "sorry kid, against the law!"
So I sold drugs instead.
>>69542941
>Every single country other than USA has laws protecting minorities from hate/villifying speech
And its frequently used to silence people who speak the truth about minorities. Just look at Wilders. He's being prosecuted for hate speech. While all he said was that moroccans are more criminal than average, and that we should deport criminal moroccans.
We need American style free speech.
>>69543832
>The Supreme Court has nothing to do with legal system,
Australian retardation in action.
>courts have nothing to do with the legal system
>>69543933
Your brain and behavior isn't a physical thing?
>>69545729
What are you asking exactly? My brain is a physical thing. Yes. Behavior is a noun describing the general theme of your actions or words whether they involve physical implications or not.
Saying something mean does not cause physical damage to someone. Your brain isn't going to explode by being called a nigger. You just gotta deal. Lol :)!
>>69546070
Attempting to process your ignorant hateful stupidity is already causing physical damage in my brain and will impair my behavior in the future just knowing there are people as stupid and hateful as you out there.
>>69546555
And he should be prosecuted for that, according to you? You being a baby who cant handle others opinions means they should be silenced?
Yeah okay.
>>69546662
So now its okay to crush babies you don't like in addition to turning everyone around you into a cynical cunt with your constant shitty behavior?
>>69546971
It doesnt matter how you feel, mate. If you're a babby who gets upset about others opinions, thats your problem.
Remember: offence is always taken, never given. You can be the bigger man and ignore it, or you can be an immature cry baby and whine about it.
It certainly isnt a matter for the courts.
>>69546555
That statement doesn't prove anything. It's just sjw triggerdness crying.
>>69547177
No, it doesn't matter how you feel, hate speech meant to coerce certain behavior will be illegal in your lifetime and you can still get sued for it today, so go ahead and try to do it in real life today, so some court precedents can continue getting set and your hateful type can keep being shut up.
>>69547280
It proves that you can't use the no physical harm cop out when you intentionally try to cause violent emotional harm because its the same thing.
>>69547617
What is violent emotional harm? A statement that causes someone to feel emotionally negative is not violence.
Violence is a physical act that causes someone to be physically hurt as in being disabled, shot, stabbed, punch. A barrier of contact has been broken by their flesh touching yours.
A statement that comes out of my mouth travels without physical confrontation.
Just got to deal :) !
>'Every single country has laws prohibiting speech'
That's because ONLY the US has the constitution that GUARANTEES free speech. They can't take it away. No matter what they do. They can't make laws that overwrite it. They can't undo the Guarantee. Nobody can. These little bitty few words are the basis on which our government is formed, and if they tried to UNDO the guarantees without the people agreeing (major majority, 38/50 states) then it would actually undo the constitution.
That's because the US Constitution is not just 'a law'. Its the charter that sets up the US government, and its the contract that it agreed to with its people.
>ban hate speech? breach of contract
>>69543362
What is self control?
>>69548478
Just look at any comprehensive definition of violence on the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
There are several examples of non physical and psychological violence defined by the world health organization like intimidation, deprivation, maldevelopment, shame, humiliation, etc.
>>69542941
Let me explain it to you. You can say whatever you want with few excpetions (e.g. FIRE). But here in the US, if you call a nigger a nigger, and he cracks your fucking jaw, that's what you get. It's something a non-American like you would never understand.
Also, gr8 b8 m8.
>>69547551
>hate speech meant to coerce certain behavior
Any speech that has measurable, physical negative effects is punishable by law. But that isnt hate speech. Hate speech laws would mean if I say "I hate niggers" would be punishable, even it has no measurable effect on anyone.
>sued
I dont live in the USA sunshine. You cannot sue anyone for emotional damages in the Netherlands.
>>69543362
>muh feels
Wow it's fucking nothing faggot
>>69544010
Don't throw me in with that knoblet
>>69551301
>knoblet
>>69542941
Unpopular, hateful, hurtful speech is the entire reason for the first amendment.
>>69549044
You get that nigger charged with assault. Sounds like a win-win so long as you don't have a glass jaw.
>>69542941
>hate speech
Nah, fuck off.
>>69542941
>shouting fire is not protected
>threats aren't protected
that's a call to action u retard
