Posted on Mar 14, 2024
New Hate Speech Laws Threaten Freedom Across the West
1.05K
75
14
19
19
0
One of the first things you learn—or should learn—in Civics 101 is that there is no freedom at all without freedom of expression. Free speech is the essential freedom from which our other rights flow. It’s a right that we have taken for granted in the West.
But a new wave of hate speech laws has changed that. In English-speaking countries with long traditions of free expression—countries like Canada, Britain, and Ireland—this most basic freedom is under attack.
But a new wave of hate speech laws has changed that. In English-speaking countries with long traditions of free expression—countries like Canada, Britain, and Ireland—this most basic freedom is under attack.
New Hate Speech Laws Threaten Freedom Across the West
Posted from thefp.comPosted in these groups: 
Freedom of Speech
1st Amendment
Freedom of Speech 1st Amendment
Edited 2 mo ago
Posted 2 mo ago
Responses: 4
13
13
0
Popular speech doesn't need protection. Sadly, truth is usually the least popular and people don't want to hear it.
(13)
(0)
Amn Roger Omberg
TRUE, like a bolt of lightning that hits the home you are sleeping in, that's truth.
(4)
(0)
Amn Roger Omberg
Another note that has been witnessed today, the US Congress has found it necessary to restrict ILLEGAL flights ordered from the FREAKING WH(OBIDEN)to shuttle into the USA at midnight, without any ID,s, into the interior of these, UNITED STATES, or should I say flights of ILLEGAL immigrants. Mind You this happens after this SOB has a SOTU saying the name of LAKEN Rielly, I believe, the beautiful young lady from GA, killed recently by an ILLEGAL from Venezuela. THIS IS TRUTH! CAN WE BELIEVE IT?? OUR GOVERNOR ABBOTT from TEXAS, has been fighting the OBIDEN DEN of Thieves for almost 3 yrss, now! OBIDEN has tried every trick in his arsenal, but each time HE has tried to over throw our state government, our GOVERNOR, has been a little sharper than NOBAMA/OBiden. And there is more to come, I think , ???it is now time for the STATE OF TEXAS TO ACTUALLY OWN AN ABRAMS TANK FULLY LOADED, would there be any vets out there interested???Cause I for one, am damn tired of this POS!
(3)
(0)
12
12
0
There is a huge difference between our countries and I am so very glad there is. Just because I do not like an idea does not equate to having someone's right to say it restricted, I just need to consider the source and move along.
Acknowledging that there are some types of Speech restricted by Law, (Incitement of Violence, Defamation, etc) my statement pertains to general forms of speech.
Acknowledging that there are some types of Speech restricted by Law, (Incitement of Violence, Defamation, etc) my statement pertains to general forms of speech.
(12)
(0)
5
5
0
@LtCol Charlie Brown Lt Col Charlie Brown, Ma'am, hate speeches that hurt the sentiments of others or that incite hatred against authorities should be made unconstitutional, if not already so. Having said this, passing legislation that infringes upon freedom of expression or speech that hasn't or which doesn't hurt another's sentiments is cross the line of democracy. Hence, Canada and the UK might have just stolen away freedom from its citizens and residents. Quite sad.
(5)
(0)
Amn Roger Omberg
I agree with the comment, one must be careful not infringe, on another's right for that freedom.
(3)
(0)
COL Randall C.
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana, I'm curious about your comment. Who interprets what speech 'hurts the sentiments of others'?
Does it have to be a vulgarity-laced tirade or if you say that "Trump Sucks" or "Biden Sucks", and the person is greatly offended, does that count?
If someone says that those advocating for abortion choice are murderers and those advocating for restricting abortion are "forced birthers" does that count?
What if you're in a hallway and go to pass by someone that has long hair and you say "excuse me ma'am" and it turns out to be a man with long hair that is greatly offended, does that count?
I've seen reports about a law that was passed that basically requires someone to be a mind-reader to know if what they say is going to be offensive because it is entirely up to the individual hearing it (regardless if they are a party to the conversation) to determine if it is offensive.
While I agree that people should be a lot more kinder in their discourse, I for one am greatly against the government being the arbiter of something subjective or even defining an objective test for something subjective.
It probably is an academic exercise though (I say 'probably' because you never know...) because the Supreme Court has held that government cannot prohibit or punish speech. There can be limitations based on public safety (the "fire in a theater" example) and solicitation of criminal conduct (the "incite to riot" example), but outside of those limitations it can't be infringed.
As one of the prior Supreme Court Justices described it, the First Amendment is a broad guarantee of "freedom for the thought we hate".
Does it have to be a vulgarity-laced tirade or if you say that "Trump Sucks" or "Biden Sucks", and the person is greatly offended, does that count?
If someone says that those advocating for abortion choice are murderers and those advocating for restricting abortion are "forced birthers" does that count?
What if you're in a hallway and go to pass by someone that has long hair and you say "excuse me ma'am" and it turns out to be a man with long hair that is greatly offended, does that count?
I've seen reports about a law that was passed that basically requires someone to be a mind-reader to know if what they say is going to be offensive because it is entirely up to the individual hearing it (regardless if they are a party to the conversation) to determine if it is offensive.
While I agree that people should be a lot more kinder in their discourse, I for one am greatly against the government being the arbiter of something subjective or even defining an objective test for something subjective.
It probably is an academic exercise though (I say 'probably' because you never know...) because the Supreme Court has held that government cannot prohibit or punish speech. There can be limitations based on public safety (the "fire in a theater" example) and solicitation of criminal conduct (the "incite to riot" example), but outside of those limitations it can't be infringed.
As one of the prior Supreme Court Justices described it, the First Amendment is a broad guarantee of "freedom for the thought we hate".
(5)
(0)
SSgt Kelly D.
COL Randall C. - Well said Sir! Who decides where to draw that line? It is not a power Congress, especially the current one, should have.
(5)
(0)
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google