Again sorry Vince if anyone here in or age group has a question on what hate speech is I'd say they've live as ignorant people that use word games to justify their vile ideologies

As Ben Franklin said "we're all born ignorant but you have to work hard to stay that way"...congratulation you embody that phrase in all your posts

It is not my fault that you are depending on a Fictional piece of verbiage to prove a point.

Again, please give us the LEGAL definition of "Hate speech" and when you can not, ask where ignorance is to be found.

My grand kids now live in Idaho and we visited them there this weekend for one of the boys birthday. We didn't really explore the area much(South Eastern Idaho) and the people we meet were all nice. At the airport, in Idaho Falls, as we were waiting to board our plane. I spotted a white male with the iron cross tattooed to his elbow. Idaho is known for having the one largest number of Neo-Nazi's and white supremacists groups in the west. So when they moved there I was concerned about my grandsons being at some point coming across people like that.

I think anyone who displays a symbol like that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun period EOS. The kids in the picture choking AOC...all of them should not be allowed to own a gun and if they have one now it should be taken away from them. The kid who stood in front of the native American with his stupid **** eating grin should never have a weapon or any of the kids who have displayed the 3 finger white power symbol in their high school photos.

Any form of hate speech or symbols should be the low bar for preventing people from having a gun of any type.

If we should succeed in getting background check websites and social media sites should be asked for so they can be searched for hate speech.

Yes "anyone" who wants to buy a weapon should be put under a psychological evaluation...everyone!! plus safety and ethics classes about how the gun is tool and not an end all for being angry.

We should have on going buy back programs for those willing to give up weapons they don't need if they feel they want to give up a weapon.

Some excellent ideas here.

I'm waiting for the flag waving pick and choose Xtians to get with the pages in their precious book

Thou shalt NOT kill
Love thy neighbor

Etc etc

You can't BE a Christian and be a white supremacist.

EOS

I'm waiting for the flag waving pick and choose Xtians to get with the pages in their precious book

Thou shalt NOT kill
Love thy neighbor

Etc etc

You can't BE a Christian and be a white supremacist.

EOS

You wouldn't think so, but the transformation of Jesus from a champion of helping the poor to being a gun loving, capitalist who hates the environment and wants to eliminate the social safety net is truly amazing. And to see the hero of his followers being an adulterer who appears to consider The 7 Deadly Sins as his goals in life is truly fascinating.

. . .the transformation of Jesus from a champion of helping the poor to being a gun loving, capitalist who hates the environment and wants to eliminate the social safety net is truly amazing. And to see the hero of his followers being an adulterer who appears to consider The 7 Deadly Sins as his goals in life is truly fascinating.

Hypocrites? Parasites? Wolves in sheep's clothing?

Nothing a little shofar can't fix, drives em right back down, did the trick at Jericho! Get comfortable, this youtube is a tad on the lengthy side:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8rxOW-YQT2E

This is not "Hate speech" my friend, because by legal definition, there is NO SUCH THING . . .

Now that is some fancy footwork right there. Neat trick, It isn't a crime on the books so therefore it doesn't exist! Hey wow look at this trick: racism isn't a crime too . . . POOF . . . gone, no such thing!

This is not "Hate speech" my friend, because by legal definition, there is NO SUCH THING . . .

Now that is some fancy footwork right there. Neat trick, It isn't a crime on the books so therefore it doesn't exist! Hey wow look at this trick: racism isn't a crime too . . . POOF . . . gone, no such thing!

Actually the "neat trick" is using a fabricated terminology and comparing it to a real world issue like racism. You continually confuse the legal interpretation of a "call to action" with things spoken that you disagree with.

1) 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.

Please, educate us all!...and give us the Legal definition of "hate speech"...When you can not do so you will begin to understand the difference between free speech and spoken words others find "Offensive".

Huge difference my friend, huge.

Actually the "neat trick" is using a fabricated terminology and comparing it to a real world issue like racism. You continually confuse the legal interpretation of a "call to action" with things spoken that you disagree with.

Racism is not a crime. Hate speech is not a crime. Both are real things. Nice deflection with the "call to action" stuff. I agree on that and don't confuse it at all.

You are attempting to show that hate speech does not exist because it is not a crime.

[Edited on 8/19/2019 by BrerRabbit]

You are attempting to show that hate speech does not exist because it is not a crime.

Absolutely not. I am saying that it is fictional phrase devised by leftist Professors to describe verbiage they find offensive. It can not be legally defined and therefore it does not exist.

Disagree?...Give us the legal definition that would give this conjured up term credibility in a Court of Law.

You are attempting to show that hate speech does not exist because it is not a crime.

Absolutely not. I am saying that it is fictional phrase devised by leftist Professors to describe verbiage they find offensive. It can not be legally defined and therefore it does not exist.

Disagree?...Give us the legal definition that would give this conjured up term credibility in a Court of Law.

So you are saying that "Hate Speech" does not exist for all practical purposes.

There is no legal definition for "racism." It is an abstract idea and technically does not exist until the results of racist action can be seen, heard,or felt.

"Hate speech" may not be a crime, but it is a reality. You certainly may differ on what hate speech is, as you may differ on what racism is.

These are ethical questions, they are not legal questions.

[Edited on 8/19/2019 by BrerRabbit]

You are attempting to show that hate speech does not exist because it is not a crime.

Absolutely not. I am saying that it is fictional phrase devised by leftist Professors to describe verbiage they find offensive. It can not be legally defined and therefore it does not exist.

Disagree?...Give us the legal definition that would give this conjured up term credibility in a Court of Law.

So you are saying that "Hate Speech" does not exist for all practical purposes.

Yes. Because it is nothing more than a rallying cry for language a segment of the population finds "offensive". The first amendment protects ALL speech unless there is a call for action as in Violence. The mere act of expressing hatred as some would define it is protected speech. If you don't care for it; it has been defined as something you find distasteful, nothing more. The term "Hate speech" is paraphrasing language judged to be abhorrent by those who would silence you if in their power. "Hate speech" is nothing more than one more attempt to apply "Politically correct" limitations on elocution that differs from your agenda.

You can prosecute racism through discrimination.

How does one pursue legal action against "hate speech"?

You can prosecute racism through discrimination.

No, you prosecute discrimination as discrimination. Whether or not the discrimination is based on racism, or because of differences over asswiping habits, makes no difference at all, it is the discrimination that is a crime.

Let's get away from the politically charged "race" term, for the purpose of clarity, and use the above hypothetical, asswiping. Just because you may not wipe your ass, or do so in an inefficient manner, does not give me the right to attack you because I find you offensive. I think we agree here.

The question arises when I decide to denounce your hygienic practices to the world, at which point some may agree with me and some may not. So I stand on the street corner with a big sign that says "BigV doesn't wipe" - Now it becomes an issue: Other non-wipers come chafing around, getting all worked up and sweaty and activating their dinkle-oozecrust reek and say "Brerrabbit is engaging in hate speech!" But then the cleanass crowd chimes in with "No Brerrabbit is exercising his right to free speech!"

So there is the scenario. Purely an ethical quandary. Same thing with racism, it is gross, offensive, and worse than never wiping your ass, but it is LEGAL. If someone wants to walk around with a cloud of flies buzzing around the seat of their pants, that is their right. Just because dirty asses are allowed in no way means they do not exist.

You can prosecute racism through discrimination.

No, you prosecute discrimination as discrimination.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.

"This law" makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including pregnancy) or religion. One then can be prosecuted for racial discrimination.

I repeat..."How does one pursue legal action against "hate speech"?"

I repeat..."How does one pursue legal action against "hate speech"?"

You are creating an argument where there is none. The law has no language on hate speech and racism. The law doesn't magically make things exist or vanish because it has no ruling on them. Law has zero bearing on ethical abstractions.

The main thing is that we have sorted through all the bullcrap and have a straight answer from you, according to BigV, HATE SPEECH DOES NOT EXIST.

The law has no language on hate speech

Exactly

HATE SPEECH DOES NOT EXIST

Thank You

Congratulations. You have managed to prove to yourself that hate speech does not exist.

Congratulations. You have managed to prove to yourself that hate speech does not exist.

Thanks!....but, I've zero '"to prove to myself"...lol

You believe "it" does, I do not. So see, we have accomplished nothing by trying to convince one that the other is wrong. So I will continue to post my opinions and you and your ilk will continue to find fault.....

Have a great day ....

. . .we have accomplished nothing by trying to convince one that the other is wrong.

A] I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I could not care less what you think. I simply stated my view. Were you trying to convince me to adopt your idea that hate speech does not exist? Why would you do that? I will grant that your idea is an interesting abstract conceit but I didn't think for one second that you would actually believe anyone would buy that nonsense.
B] Plenty accomplished: Your unequivocal assertion that hate speech does not exist provides a good reference point for understanding your entire approach to reality. This will save me a lot of oxygen.
C] Congratulations. You have proven to yourself that you have nothing to prove to yourself.

Your unequivocal assertion that hate speech does not exist provides a good reference point for understanding your entire approach to reality.

You are hilarious.

Your unequivocal assertion that hate speech does not exist provides a good reference point for understanding your entire approach to reality

You are hilarious

Yep, hilarious, ha ha ha frekin ha: Am more than used to it - your type has called me hilarious my whole life. I think Stormfront or 4chan chat forum would be a better fit for you. I am sure your kin there would find my concern over your toxic propaganda hilarious as well. Hate speech does not exist . . .my ass - you really think anybody with half a shred of conscience can sit by and take that crap and not react when you spew that poison? That is exactly the kind of ratpiss those Stormfront 4chan types get off on. Same as your Tucker Carlson White Supremacy Hoax venom. It is just flat out wrong and sick. And you know it.

It is just flat out wrong and sick. And you know it.

No, I do not "know it" I am merely representative of a viewpoint you don't care for. That's the difference between you and me. I can tolerate opposing views without spewing bile.....You and a lot of others here can't seem to embrace that concept. But that's OK...we're all different; how boring would life be if we all shared the same emotions and views?

"Hate speech does not exist" That is correct, it's just a Moniker for an uttered phrase you individually object to. Kind of a camouflaged call for censorship.

Give me an example of something you would define as "Hate speech"..and I will wager that if it does not directly call for someone to harm another, (as in a Verbal threat) it will be nothing more than a sentence you have a label for. That's what you Libs do, is it not?....Label everything?..This guy hates women and that one is a Homophobe. "See that guy over there"? "He's a racist" and that man over near the door?..He's an old white guy who hates brown people. Every dissenter from the leftist agenda is either sick or just flat out wrong.

you really think anybody with half a shred of conscience can sit by and take that crap and not react when you spew that poison?

Perfect example, thanks. What kind of reaction are you alluding to?...Violence?...

"THAT'S 'HATE SPEECH'!!!! YOU THINK I AM GONNA LET HIM GET AWAY WITH THAT"!? Or will just schoolyard type name calling satiate you? Fact. ))>>>Not everyone is going to agree with your views, don't be such a snowflake.

Toxic propaganda

Quit responding then...lol. I repeat, you are hilarious all while continuing to react to thoughts you find "Toxic", most adults just walk away....

Remeber when BIGV, the free speech superhero, swooped in to defend Ilhan Omar from the anti-semitism accusations made against her by the "PC Police"? All she did was say something offensive to some people. Remember when he jumped all over one of his fellow right-wingers on this forum for being an easily offended snowflake and calling Omar a racist because she said maybe people should fear white males?

Me either...

But "make no mistake" it is super important to fight for people's right to be offensive (when it is convenient).

Seems like his argument totally absolves her...

But "make no mistake" it is super important to fight for people's right to be offensive (when it is convenient).

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".
--Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I stand by this

That's the difference between you and me. I can tolerate opposing views

You cry like a baby everyday on here about liberals, desperately looking for someone to argue with, and then say you are tolerant. I’m guessing you are single.

I see it as disagreeing, your mileage may vary.

"Hate speech does not exist" That is correct, it's just a Moniker for an uttered phrase you individually object to. Kind of a camouflaged call for censorship

Nice work, so satisfying for you - you got your rise out of someone. I'm not challenging your right to be offensive, just exercising my right to say you are offensive. Point: Holocaust Denial exists. I consider Holocaust Denial to be hate speech. Hate speech exists. Getting pissed off about Holocaust Denial is not a stealth call for censorship. Take it to Stormfront. They are waiting for you with open arms, got the tattoo gun all ready to put the spiderweb on your elbow.

Point: Holocaust Denial exists. I consider Holocaust Denial to be hate speech

Disagree. "Holocaust Denial" is absolute ignorance of undeniable fact. Pure and simple.

I deny "Global warming" and speak out against it. Is that hate, ignorance or just disagreeing with statistics presented as facts?

Ok, if you are uncomfortable with the term "Hate Speech" we can just call it something else. How about "deeply offensive racist sexist degrading demeaning dehumanizing intimidating humiliating speech that is protected by the US Constitution yet civil people choose of their own free will not to engage in" ?

[Edited on 8/20/2019 by BrerRabbit]

Ok, if you are uncomfortable with the term "Hate Speech" we can just call it something else. How about "deeply offensive racist sexist degrading demeaning dehumanizing intimidating humiliating speech that is protected by the US Constitution yet civil people choose of their own free will not to engage in" ?

That is closer. My "gripe" is the Left having embraced this term and freely attempting to use it as a blanket excuse to silence things they don't want to hear and feel others should not either. If your provided definition above is how you feel about that phrase, well, there is little I can do about, nor will I attempt to.

yet civil people choose of their own free will not to engage in

That is always a choice. As long as there is no violence, let people say what they will....yawn

you really think anybody with half a shred of conscience can sit by and take that crap and not react when you spew that poison?

Perfect example, thanks. What kind of reaction are you alluding to?...Violence?...

Interesting that you jump to violence as a first conclusion. Dead giveaway on your mindset.

I was simply referring to the action of posting a response to your denial of hate speech, registering my disagreement.

[Edited on 8/20/2019 by BrerRabbit]

My "gripe" is the Left

All you do is gripe because they have a different opinion than you.

Exactly, kind of like all the incessant "Grumbling" that goes on here concerning the President.

What's the difference?