Political Correctness led to terrorist attacks against Christians in Sri Lanka

The problem with saying "hate speech" should be banned is who is the arbitrator to what is hate speech? I do not think some people understand that all speech is protected under the 1st Amendment. If the right of free speech is taken away and hate speech is banned then no speech will be truly protected because anything could be arbitrarily considered hate speech.

 

You should take a class on how the 1st amendment works

 

Same to you buddy.

 

I didn't deem his silly comment worthy of a response.

 

Again, you seem to be confused with how the 1st amendment works. Clutch can ban hate speech or any speech on this site. If Clutch wants to ban the word silly, or say dachuda he can do that for any reason - that's not a violation of the 1st amendment. You really struggle with this.

 

FIFY

If we tussle, are you going to cry to the mods again? I don't want to give you a mental breakdown again either.

 

Can I just say how stupid the outrage of the 'Easter Worshiper' thing is. Those people were worshipers who worshiping on Easter. I do not believe that the original comment intended to describe anyone as Worshiping Easter.

The outrage over that phrase is a waste of time and effort.

 

Are you even paying attention to what this thread is about? Senator is suggesting banning what he calls "hate speech". My response was to general free speech. In no way was my response a microcosm to Clutchfans only. Of course Clutch can limit whatever he wants on his private site. The same thing goes for businesses. They can ban whatever they want which is why the NFL can tell players they are not aloud to say certain things or wear certain things while representing the teams and thus the league. Now apart from businesses, internet sites, social media, etc... in general, a person can say anything they want unless it is inciting violence. When we voluntarily join something like Clutchfans or work for a company, we agree to submit to the rules they have in place which may limit free speech but apart from the places where we voluntarily submit to the rules in place we are free to say anything that does not incite violence.

Now in regards to the topic of this thread and Senator wanting to ban what he says is "hate speech", if we agree to do such a thing any speech could arbitrarily be labeled hate speech. Limiting hate speech is slippery slope that would erode our free speech rights. Nobody likes when people say hateful or racist things but we should all fight for their right to say them because the next thing you know something we think is harmless speech could be be labeled hateful.

 

My point is what does it actually mean to ban hate speech? It's nonsensical. Platforms control what content is allowed or not. But you can't stop someone standing in public and yelling, "Muslims Suck!" or "Christians Suck!" (unless they are violating a disturbing the peace law) so the idea of "banning" hate speech is not even a possibility.

Now someone calling for violence against a group crosses the line - that's not hate speech, it's just illegal - the same as yelling fire in a movie theatre when there is none.

So I'm not really sure what anyone is arguing in terms of banning hate speech. Senator is insane and not making any sense. It's why the KKK can exist in America - you are allowed to be a racist moron and tell the world you are a racist moron. But you are not allowed to incite violence and that's the grey area.

 

@cml750 and @dachuda86 have accomplished their goal of shifting the discussion to entirely something different. You guys need to stop taking their bait. They aren't here for a genuine discussion.

 

ISIS are supported by the Republican Party, many "centrist" Democrats and the neoconservative "Deep State," because ISIS does the "dirty work" of Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Christians who are slaughtered are merely "collateral damage" to these evil neocons. OP is ignorant.

 

No, not all speech is constitutionally protected.

You cannot scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

So why then is it OK for Islam to say that it will kill those who leave? To say it will kill those who refuse to convert? To say it will kill those who refuse to pay tax?

 

Okay... Let's play your game.

Let's ban Islam because it explicitly calls for violence and this isn't protected by the first amendment.

Now, how do you want to enforce this new policy?

 

The "War on Christmas" crew has to keep busy somehow.

 

It's not. If a person says those things in the US (Islamic or not), they will be arrested. We don't get to make laws for other countries, so we don't get a say in that - remember, you don't like things like the UN that would try to fight for that.

 

The OP wants to ban this - and many countries do. You can't stop someone from saying it - but you can arrest them and put them in jail. No different than banning theft or murder.

 

Let's not play that game, yet. Let's play the more realistic and pertinent "can we please criticize Islam without being called Islamaphobe, racists, etc".

Without bringing up other "religions" and slanderous accusations, what say everyone about my criticism?

 

We spent 2 trillion dollars trying to solve this problem and the solution made things worse.

Outsiders saying "Islam bad" isn't a solution. Even Sam Harris a vocal critic of Islam states his rhetoric isn't meant to convert Muslims. People attach their religion as part of their personal identity.

 

You have a hard-on for something or another. I have no idea what.

I’m asking that people not call Sam Harris and others “disgusting” when they criticize Islam. $2 trillion? I have no idea what that is about.

 

if you don't act like an Islamophobe or a racist, you probably won't get called one. Well, you will, because we already know you are one. But plenty of people from all backgrounds and political persuations criticize Islam without being call one. Maybe instead of whining about being called names, you should spend time trying to figure out the key differences between you and them.