Well, it seems that they were right. They haven't been silenced by faggots, and now their words are being spread around because of the language they used.
Meh. I don't see how people find the energy to fight on either side.
Faggots will not be silenced by white trash.
Up here in Canada (here we go)
We have laws against "hate speech"
Which is basically a law that says "You may not publicly spread claims that paint a bad light on a demographic"
Which is why groups like the KKK aren't allowed to publicly assemble
Yes, it's against "Free speech", but who the fuck cares \:3/
Yes, hunting the poor for sport is a silly comparison, since Republicans in Congress would consider that a form of socialist handout.
The desire to see the poor die isn't a sport for right-wing authoritarians but a life mission.
And I can even write to the newspaper complaining about how the catholic church has a problem with child molesters
I can't stand on a street corner calling for the death of all jews, backed by the claim "They're all child molesters"
Any socially right-wing nutcrunch that still takes themselves seriously, especially those Tea Party pieces of shit, needs to be forever silenced.
I'm DONE with their radical agenda and I've FUCKING HAD IT with them obliterating our rights.
Furaffinity's #1 Faggot
Except No Substitutes.
But seriously, some ideologies are objectively wrong and dangerous and shouldn't be tolerated. I think we all agree blaming everyone non-heterosexual, non-WASPish for all American problems and planning to establish an oppressive theocracy is such a case.
I don't think he meant with being silenced that those Teabagger Klansmen should be put up against the wall rather than marginalized.
Stalin's genocidal megalomania has as much in common with Marx and Engels' theory as Dianetics with modern psychology...
ifwhen whackos get into power, iron clad free speech is your best defense against being silenced. And if they're the ones in charge, you are now the whacko, not them. See the problem? It's very hard to make well-intentioned legislation that can't be turned around for ulterior motives.
Environmentally-friendly regulations? Will be turned around as anti-competitive ban hammers by large companies.
Patents and Intellectual property? Will be turned around to stifle innovation, start-ups, and competition.
Tax breaks to encourage good behavior? More room for fraud.
Silence hurtful speech? It will be turned around to define whatever you say as hurtful. Criticizing a business is "hurtful" to the well being of the
businesseconomy. "Harmful" to social stability. Criticizing another religion, criticizing a politician, criticizing bigotry, criticizing oppression . . .
The point not that you can't have exceptions or legislate something, but that you have to be very careful when trying to do so. Hence why the US takes it so seriously and errs on the side of less restriction.
Students far from done, awake at one, basked in reddening glow
Gone insane from the insomnia that they surly know.
For whom the alarm tolls, time marches on
For whom the alarm tolls . . .
But in any case we just can't start declaring certain ideologies unspeakable. If that were permitted, then 50 years ago the gay rights movement would have BEEN one of those ideologies. And then where do you think it would be today?
You mean as subjective as slander or panic-mongering, surely?
You're painting government in a worse light than it's actually in. Maybe this would happen in the states, I couldn't say, but this law has never been and probably will never be redefined
Hate speech is "untrue claims meant to inspire hatred against a certain group of people"
Disagreeing with someone's policies isn't this. Rallying everyone to kill someone over claims proven untrue is
Like, we're as close as we can reasonably be to having a "whacko" in charge (he cheated, it's not my fault), and yet this law hasn't lead to a new nazi regime
here let me find the real wording
from wiki: "In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990)."
So calling gays faggots on the individual level wouldn't fall under this, but using that tone in a rally certainly would
Calling harper dumb is a personal attack on his character, and not hate speech
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)