What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The N word should be considered hate speach (1 Viewer)

The Goat said:
Mr. Cross said:
It should be against the law to use it.
Click to expand...
The first amendment would like to have a conversation with you. This is specifically why it was created.
Click to expand...
Just in case...I went the really easy route:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

 
The Goat said:
The Goat said:
Mr. Cross said:
It should be against the law to use it.
Click to expand...
The first amendment would like to have a conversation with you. This is specifically why it was created.
Click to expand...
Just in case...I went the really easy route:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
Christo, please. That document don't mean jack #### no mo, Christa.
 
The Goat said:
The Goat said:
Mr. Cross said:
It should be against the law to use it.
Click to expand...
The first amendment would like to have a conversation with you. This is specifically why it was created.
Click to expand...
Just in case...I went the really easy route:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
Next time you go to the movies, yell fire and see how far the first gets you. Speech is restricted all the time. Campaign finance reform is another infringement on the first as well.

 
I think I'll just go with David Carroll and use the word Negro. It actually sounds much cooler while at the same time even more offensive, if you listen to David Carroll.

 
Gawain said:
The Goat said:
The Goat said:
Mr. Cross said:
It should be against the law to use it.
Click to expand...
The first amendment would like to have a conversation with you. This is specifically why it was created.
Click to expand...
Just in case...I went the really easy route:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
Next time you go to the movies, yell fire and see how far the first gets you. Speech is restricted all the time. Campaign finance reform is another infringement on the first as well.
Click to expand...
There have been limitations on free speech since before anyone here was born. They're not infringements. Inciting lawless action is one of them; so is hate speech.

To draw a better parallel would be to make the word "fire" illegal.

 
The Goat said:
There have been limitations on free speech since before anyone here was born. They're not infringements. Inciting lawless action is one of them; so is hate speech.
Click to expand...
I think that's true in Canada; but in the U.S., hate speech is constitutionally protected.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), a group of white racists were convicted under a local ordinance prohibiting hate speech because they burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the racists, overturning the conviction and striking down the ordinance under the First Amendment.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the father of a deceased soldier sued the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing his son's funeral with signs containing hate speech ("God Hates ####", etc.). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist, holding that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment.

In The Blues Brothers (1980), the Illinois Nazis got to march while yelling out fragments of hate speech.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Goat said:
There have been limitations on free speech since before anyone here was born. They're not infringements. Inciting lawless action is one of them; so is hate speech.
Click to expand...
I think that's true in Canada; but in the U.S., hate speech is constitutionally protected.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), a group of white racists were convicted under a local ordinance prohibiting hate speech because they burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the racists, overturning the conviction and striking down the ordinance under the First Amendment.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the father of a deceased soldier sued the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing his son's funeral with signs containing hate speech ("God Hates ####", etc.). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist, holding that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment.

In The Blues Brothers (1980), the Illinois Nazis got to march while yelling out fragments of hate speech.
Click to expand...
While in Canada quoting certain Bible versus can be hate speech. One area the Supreme Court has been pretty good at is protecting Free Speech, with the exception of some of the restrictions the court allows on campaign regulation. Free speech needs to be protected.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Goat said:
There have been limitations on free speech since before anyone here was born. They're not infringements. Inciting lawless action is one of them; so is hate speech.
Click to expand...
I think that's true in Canada; but in the U.S., hate speech is constitutionally protected.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), a group of white racists were convicted under a local ordinance prohibiting hate speech because they burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the racists, overturning the conviction and striking down the ordinance under the First Amendment.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the father of a deceased soldier sued the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing his son's funeral with signs containing hate speech ("God Hates ####", etc.). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist, holding that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment.

In The Blues Brothers (1980), the Illinois Nazis got to march while yelling out fragments of hate speech.
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to nitpick a little bit here, because the Court hasn't said hate speech is always constitutionally protected. Chaplinsky is still good law, and states are still allowed to ban "fighting words," and burning a cross on someone's lawn (which is what happened in R.A.V.) would certainly qualify as fighting words. The problem was that Minnesota's statute only banned fighting words that related to a person's "race, color, creed, religion or gender." The Court said that was viewpoint discrimination, because it allowed some types of fighting words, while banning others. A statute that simply banned all "fighting words" would probably be constitutional. Of course, it would be a nightmare to enforce, but it would be constitutional.

 
You're allowed to own a rosary, but you're not allowed to strangle people with it.

You're allowed to publish hate speech, but you're not allowed to incite imminent violence with it.

Rosaries and hate speech are both protected by the First Amendment. That doesn't mean that otherwise illegal acts will be deemed legal just because rosaries or hate speech are involved. It means, rather, that otherwise legal acts may not be deemed illegal just because rosaries or hate speech are involved.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
What's Normal? Baby Showers, when did this become a Co-Ed event?
2
Replies
99
Views
2K
Zow
Zow
cosjobs
Safest / easiest way to get rid of old laptops
Replies
22
Views
358
ChiefD
ChiefD
Max Power
  • Poll Poll
Should Schools Ban Cell Phones in the Classroom?
2 3 4
Replies
157
Views
4K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top