Hey anons, Holla Forums is celebrating this recent SCOTUS decision on freedom of speech or freedom to hate.
>>>Holla Forums10114392
What do you anons think? Is this Good!™ news? Links:
Current and future hate speech laws declared unconstitutional, prohibited/abolished.
archive.fo
Red Skins can keep their team name and logo, not hate speech says SCOTUS.
archive.fo
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
wont stop private sector from dropping people for le excellent views so sort of a mixed bag
It's a good thing. Those laws can be turned against us, prohibiting agitation against the state or corporations.
Hate speech wasn't illegal in Burgerland to begin with.
It's a two way street, we can just subvert them and FUCK them over to wang street.
Remember, freedom ain't free in a porky society. The sky is the limit with how we can convince people and convert en masse
Also, yeah, the liberal bourgeoisie have been trying to slant any conflict theory as a sort of "hate speech", so this is ultimately good for us.
Looks like the "socialism is classist hate speech against the rich ;_;" will remain just impotent whining.
This.
Awgh
"free speech" has become "you're free to incite violence & be openly racist & whatever else, just don't insult capitalism or the establishment". in the same way, modern christian conservatives are "interpreting" freedom of religion as "we are free to persecute you based on religious beliefs b/c otherwise you would be persecuting us by not doing whatever we say" but if you're mean to a christian you're literally satan.
this is meaningless.
Holla Forums seems to think free speech = "I can say whatever I want without any consequence what so ever".
which isn't true at all even after this ruling.
I still think it is problem for freedom of religion if a Christian church has to give a gay wedding and doesn't want to.
It is.
This.
What's your point? Feefees?
When did espousing marxist/socialist views get you in trouble, anywhere?
who is going to force them to hold a wedding without their consent?
i dont know any gay people who would go to a church that hates them, then DEMAND a marriage ceremony from a group that despises them. they'd just go somewhere else to get married, or go to a judge. total non-issue build u as an excuse to persecute other religions.
conservatives are all about feels before facts, yeah.
why else would they need that law?
read some history you shit
Pretty sure that's not an actual law and is made up by the right to fear monger
It's tempting to call it useful but SCOTUS would probably renege if the politically incorrect statements were communist.
Don't take that ruling as saying that OUR rights are guaranteed. The second any anti-capitalist speech gains momentum expect to be trampled on.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
They tore my clothes off. They knocked me down, and when I lay naked on the ground, they kicked and beat me until I was almost insensible. With a lighted cigar they burned the letters I.W.W. on my buttocks; then they poured a can of tar over my head and, in the absence of feathers, rubbed sage-brush on my body. One of them attempted to push a cane into my rectum. Another twisted my testicles. They forced me to kiss the flag and sing The Star-Spangled Banner. When they tired of the fun, they gave me my underwear for fear we should meet any women. They also gave me back my vest, in order that I might carry my money, railroad ticket, and watch. The rest of my clothes they kept. I was ordered to make a speech, and then they commanded me to run the gauntlet. The Vigilantes lined up, and as I ran past them, each one gave me a blow or a kick. Then they let me go.[12]
Looks good to me. "Hate speech" bullshit is just an excuse to punish different people differently for the same crimes. It would have been better if they had eliminated "hate crimes" altogether.
Free speech means free speech for the capitalists, not anyone else.
TBH I don't really care though, because I along with millions of other guys love hot teenage girls and know that they're fully capable of consent, but socialists don't care about our freedom of speech. The socialist movement is full of feminazi Redditscum who deserve to have their speech trampled on because they don't care about free speech as soon as it becomes triggering or politically unpopular.
Well, free speech is supposed to be about freedom from repercussion. That's the whole point: you aren't supposed to be denied your ability to voice your opinions for fear of tyranny. That is separate from people ostracizing you, as that isn't really "tyranny". But that isn't the point.
Well, in 1965 they had purges in Indonesia, 3 000 000 alleged communists where killed in the events following a failed coup d'état.
There is also the red scare, McCarthyism, Latin-American military juntas and their death squads. Murder campaigns during fascist era of Europe.
Not to forget that a lot of the victims of the soviet union where socialists that opposed Bolshevism.
Forgot /pols/ hero, Fjotolf. The man that jewed the jews, by shooting a bunch of teenagers partaking in a "socialist" summer camp.
Wew
1. Restrictions on speech will end up being used against us. A would-be revolutionary who fails to account for the system they live in is doomed to fail.
2. Banning hate speech is like outlawing drugs. It doesn't get rid of the bigots, it just shoves them into the dark corners where they're harder to see. Personally I want everyone to see the bigots.
Yes, this is good. On both universal (as in, the society is better off with it) and strategic (as in, it preserves our own right to rally people against porkies) grounds.
That may be, but majority ostracizing a minority is a serious problem in its own right.
One more reason to hate California.
Not any time in the past 20 years in America. It's an old-meme ideology and people think it's quaint.
My workplace, year 2017.
It's just the first example that came up in my mind fam.