News
news UFO over North Korea?
news These odd, creepy stories will convince you this old castle in England is haunted
news Journey to the Akashic Records
news The Risks of Digital DNA
news The Gulf Breeze UFO Wave - 30 Years Later
news Television's Most Infamous Hack Is Still a Mystery 30 Years Later
news Russian citizens share photos of the weirdest things they have spotted in public
news The ‘Hallucination Machine’ Alters Consciousness in the Name of Science
news US airman takes lie detector test to 'prove he saw UFO land near RAF base 37 years ago'
news Owls In Spielberg's 'Close Encounters'
news The People Who Are Tripping Forever



Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 13 Vote(s) - 4.69 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 341682
06-19-2017 08:51 PM

 



Post: #16
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
Advertisement
Askakido  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:42 PM)
Forget the WaPo

Why not go straight to the Supreme Court's own documents of this case and get the actual full text of this case's resolution.

Of course that would not allow for mega spinning and bullshitting.

Bump
Quote this message in a reply

House of M
M Theory Cubed
User ID: 420458
06-19-2017 08:51 PM

Posts: 14,904



Post: #17
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
LoP Guest  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:50 PM)
LoP Guest  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:45 PM)
You are two sides of the same coin. chuckle

The difference is however that one of you would like to use the force of government to shut up the other. So, to be fair there is a difference. chuckle

I've never commented on the legalities of "hate speech" at any time on this forum, so I believe you are putting words in my mouth.

chuckle

Holy Mackerel Catman!


Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 397519
06-19-2017 08:52 PM

 



Post: #18
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
Good news, this may diffuse a lot of the sh*t that is going to go down this summer by antifa and blm and isis, the libs trifecta of chaos.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 341682
06-19-2017 08:54 PM

 



Post: #19
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
This just means the private institutions have to step up their game and censor the sh*t out of the bigoted fucktarts Heartflowers
Quote this message in a reply
Karu
Registered User
User ID: 356775
06-19-2017 08:54 PM

Posts: 19,747



Post: #20
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
Askakido  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:42 PM)
Forget the WaPo

Why not go straight to the Supreme Court's own documents of this case and get the actual full text of this case's resolution.

Of course that would not allow for mega spinning and bullshitting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16...3_1o13.pdf

If society fell apart, we - the people would build a new one. Most people are good at their core, and when we see things that are wrong we work to fix them together. Make friends with your neighbors, get involved with your community - because we will rebuild our lives, our communities, from horrible circumstances we always will.
Quote this message in a reply
'In Like Flynn’
More Than A Swashbuckler Was He
User ID: 417346
06-19-2017 08:56 PM

Posts: 5,059



Post: #21
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
Amen for SCOTUS on this one settling the issue once and for all. Zio/Jews are upset abt. this one. It was their baby and now its wiped out by common sense decision of "our" Supreme Court ha.

I wondered abt. Justice Neil Gorsuch but he wasn’t on the court when the case was argued, so only eight justices participated in their unanimous decision.

Are the libturds pulling their hair out right now ??? ha ha
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2017 09:01 PM by 'In Like Flynn’.) Quote this message in a reply
Karu
Registered User
User ID: 356775
06-19-2017 09:08 PM

Posts: 19,747



Post: #22
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
[Image: 0619-the-slants-getty-3.jpg]

snip:

Asian-American rock group, The Slants, are free and clear to trademark their name after a Supreme Court ruling in their favor.

The Slants had attempted to trademark their controversial name back in 2011, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shot them down based on the name being disparaging.

Monday, the Supreme Court said that law violates free speech, and therefore the trademark should be granted. It's a victory for the band, and potentially for the Washington Redskins ... whose trademark request was denied on the same grounds.

The Court's decision opens the door to a slew of arguably offensive language being trademarked.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/19/rock-band-...eme-court/

If society fell apart, we - the people would build a new one. Most people are good at their core, and when we see things that are wrong we work to fix them together. Make friends with your neighbors, get involved with your community - because we will rebuild our lives, our communities, from horrible circumstances we always will.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 408339
06-19-2017 09:18 PM

 



Post: #23
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
Hé_Zeus  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:56 PM)
Amen for SCOTUS on this one settling the issue once and for all. Zio/Jews are upset abt. this one. It was their baby and now its wiped out by common sense decision of "our" Supreme Court ha.

I wondered abt. Justice Neil Gorsuch but he wasn’t on the court when the case was argued, so only eight justices participated in their unanimous decision.

Are the libturds pulling their hair out right now ??? ha ha

It certainly puts a big dent in the plans of the leftist extremists to bring America to her knees. Attacking our freedom of speech is huge in their strategy, and now, pfffft - it's gone!
Quote this message in a reply
Damrod
Seeker of knowledge
User ID: 420517
06-19-2017 09:21 PM

Posts: 13,080



Post: #24
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
Karu  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:54 PM)
Askakido  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:42 PM)
Forget the WaPo

Why not go straight to the Supreme Court's own documents of this case and get the actual full text of this case's resolution.

Of course that would not allow for mega spinning and bullshitting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16...3_1o13.pdf

That was a tough read.....

39 pages of legalese....mainly about "trademarks" and whether the GOV can regulate them as being "disparaging"....

But behind it was some good stuff.

The general attitude is good I think....

IMHO

You should not be able to regulate someone else's speech just because you disagree with it....

I have and always will defend someone's right to speak freely and uncensored...even if I disagree. If someone is blabbering away on the street corner or the radio or TV and I don't like it...I can walk away or turn the channel. I do not have to stand there and "be offended"....

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

"Liberty means responsibility, which is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw

"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism"...Aristotle
Quote this message in a reply
House of M
M Theory Cubed
User ID: 420458
06-19-2017 09:22 PM

Posts: 14,904



Post: #25
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
Hé_Zeus  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:56 PM)
Amen for SCOTUS on this one settling the issue once and for all. Zio/Jews are upset abt. this one. It was their baby and now its wiped out by common sense decision of "our" Supreme Court ha.

I wondered abt. Justice Neil Gorsuch but he wasn’t on the court when the case was argued, so only eight justices participated in their unanimous decision.

Are the libturds pulling their hair out right now ??? ha ha

Oh look, Mr. Hottie is back with a new name.

chuckle

Holy Mackerel Catman!


Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 408339
06-19-2017 09:28 PM

 



Post: #26
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
Damrod  Wrote: (06-19-2017 09:21 PM)
Karu  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:54 PM)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16...3_1o13.pdf

That was a tough read.....

39 pages of legalese....mainly about "trademarks" and whether the GOV can regulate them as being "disparaging"....

But behind it was some good stuff.

The general attitude is good I think....

IMHO

You should not be able to regulate someone else's speech just because you disagree with it....

I have and always will defend someone's right to speak freely and uncensored...even if I disagree. If someone is blabbering away on the street corner or the radio or TV and I don't like it...I can walk away or turn the channel. I do not have to stand there and "be offended"....

Now Americans can once again proudly say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Quote this message in a reply
Apostle of Reality
Registered User
User ID: 411931
06-19-2017 09:33 PM

Posts: 6,406



Post: #27
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
LoP Guest  Wrote: (06-19-2017 08:37 PM)
I wonder if Californistan's Governor will make a statement of how Californistan will continue to prosecute hate speech before the evening news?

Nope.

Cause even Californiastan (where i'm at) has Freedom of Speech in our State Constitution. It's the second right enumerated.

SEC. 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

(Sec. 1 added Nov. 5, 1974, by Proposition 7. Resolution Chapter 90, 1974.)

SEC. 2.
(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

(b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

As used in this subdivision, “unpublished information” includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.

(Sec. 2 amended June 3, 1980, by Prop. 5. Res.Ch. 77, 1978.)

All Rights Reserved.

Fair Use Notice: 17 U.S.C. § 107. Small sections of copyrighted work may be present in my posts, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

“Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness.” - Alejandro Jodorowsky

Democracy dies in darkness.....
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2017 09:34 PM by Apostle of Reality.) Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 413604
06-19-2017 09:39 PM

 



Post: #28
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
Perhaps it is time for all in the USA to study their own unique State Constitutions.

How long has it been that many have done just that?
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 397129
06-19-2017 09:42 PM

 



Post: #29
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
So, technically Trumps bill to keep out certain Muslims stands.
Quote this message in a reply
She Man
lop guest
User ID: 405784
06-19-2017 09:45 PM

 



Post: #30
RE: Supreme Court: There is no ‘hate speech"
So no more Black safe spaces? In DC I rode on the back seat on the shuttle bus to the airport.
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement









Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication