introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
Not at all I think we are so forunate to live in a society found upon religion freedom and forefathers that were wise enough to create the rights we have to disagree.
Those to me are wonderful provision that the majority of the human race has never experience. I beleive further that because of the good laws we still have a society that is not run by extremist that would do away with groups they dislike.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
Great comments I agree I think you defined the subject very clear. Often times what seem to be absolute black a white become something we are later ashame of.
For any person to use blanket statements about any group is simply ignorance without taking in facts or getting to know people on a personal level. To act on blanket statements through law or personal violence can and often causes a hate crimes towards a group or race.
I am not taking the side of religion here, but what if - over the period of years people faiths become refined to the point that all that have faith only do good? You see instead of saying all that have faith can only do bad and never change is the same as saying science is evil and will never change to benefit mankind.
It is a blanket statement that based on personal dislike or misinformation. To state religion only does bad and has never done good is simply wrong.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
Lots of mind readers on this forum are you one too nvrgnbk. What if I say no do you think it would matter with mind readers nvrgnbk?
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
You seem to be a mind reader when I make a comment you keep telling me how I feel is that an honest attempt to start a conversation or a put down because I don't respond according to your thoughts?
I am not trying toget any answer we are having an open discussion regarding a subject rather it red heads or religion. Do you have a personal problem with that?
Once again just so you don't think I am making things up please take the time and read other post on this forum regarding religion and doing away with it no one is bashful about stating how they hate it. Then please will you look on the net regarding the subject and please listen to the news and talk radio and you will see it is a real subject.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
There are lots of subject posted on this forum. I think you should go bact and read my comments you will see I have nothing against atheist beliefs. I do have a problem with any group promoting hate speech.
If the subject adds to ideas it is helpful to all rather I personally agree with the views or not. When people demean and label groups because nothing sound can be added to the discussion or they disagree with the thought it is not hate speech but it is attempt to belittle and feel superior.
I have stated this point of veiw in almost all post to date.
My question was not directed towards Atheist it was directed at people advocating the destruction of religion which you will find beyond this forum the subjects rages all over the internet and in many countries. In fact, it is not a new idea at all we have modern history where leaders wanted to do away with religion and did.
Moreover, in most post regarding faith on this forum those that dislike Christainity certainly state their veiws openly and frankly and in many case with disrespect for Christians. I do not consider that hate speech. I do consider it hate speech when a person or a group advocates the destruction of Atheist or Christain with in a country found upon freedom of worship.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
I sure you do hate religion... Isn't it wonderful that we live in a country where extremist are controlled by the rule of law?
It is more wonderful that either side of this war are not allowed to take their views to extremes and detroy the other group in the name of progress and enlightenment.
Everytime this country has allowed people into power that where bigots they hurt thousands of people thankfully common sence won out and people came back the to rule of law and removed those hateful people from consitutional power.
The war is on I think it great we have laws controlling hate speech, that is, when it is acted out in extremes.
The founding fathers must of been truly wise in knowing the human nature.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
Thank your for the final say on the subject...
Living in a free society that allows open debate hate speech helps people to understand the nature of people. However, it is the rule of law that controls hate speech when it acts out the words against a group or a person.
This country was founded upon the rule of law and religious freedom. Anytime a group calling itself by any name wants the destruction of another group our rule of law has with stood the test and brought our society back to sanity.
Much of the justice upholding the law were created by people of faith. Good people from all walks of life have fought against bigotry in this country. To state that extreme views advocating destruction of religion or any group that act within the rule of law is freedom is simply an excuse to act on hate.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
Once again the subject is about "Hate Speech". Does advocating the destruction of religion constitute hate speech?
That is living in the United States of America not Iran. Thus, in a country that has freedom of speech should hate speech be allowed if so why?
Moreover, should hate speech be allowed in a free society and at what point does it cross the line?
And is hate speech productive does it open the line of communication between groups to solve problems?
I retract my statement regarding respect I don't believe anyone on this forum needs me to tell them what respect is I apolgize.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
Thanks for your support neither is true getting excited is factual!
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
For one it not the a million times so stop overreacting. If disrespect is so great why are you upset? Now if people don't want their beliefs respected then why all the killings in the name of respect?
So how about treating others as you wish to be treated and perhaps these super complex subjects would just vanish. Now when you advocate something higher then what has been happeing on this earh since the start of the history of man we will move forward.
Once again the subject is about "Hate Speech" how a group or person can advocate destruction of religion and it not be the same old hate speech? The same as regilion and other groups have uses to destroy nations, people and groups?
