The Maelstrom of Violence

[Kinser79]

(09-07-2017, 09:53 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 09:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle.  Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.

Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.

Canada has specific laws against promoting genocide or practicing hate speech.  Thus, depending on how you define 'free speech', you can reasonably say that Canada doesn't have free speech.  It makes one wonder, however, if the guy saying there is a big deal difference in Canada is in favor of genocide or hate speech?  Me, I'm in favor of neither.  I'm in great sympathy with what Canada is doing.

Kinser would sing a different tune if the hate speech were "Bring back slavery" or "Kill all f@gs".

That isn't clear.  If one claims that any typical adult can shrug off hate speech or cries for genocide, you can live in a society full of cries for genocide mixed with hate speech.  Me, that's not the sort of society I'm looking for.  Not all of us perceive the world as Kinser does.  It seems reasonable for legislatures to feel the same as I and act on it.  Canada is quite explicit and rational in banning certain specific things.  Under the principle that negative rights do not grant an ability to harm, if you think promoting genocide and hate is harmful, you have a consistent legal position.

The awakening's Civil Rights Act is based more on commerce than free speech.  If you are running a business, you can't discriminate.  Words while not running a business hits a different legal crack.  Me, I'm in favor of free speech, but not hate speech and definitely not genocide.  I feel the 'free speech' language is often a cover for those favoring genocide and hate.  If the Alt Right weren't acting as a cover for neo Nazi and Neo Confederates, it would be far easier to sympathies with the them on other forms speech.  As is, you have to wonder.

So-called hate speech is not recognized as a different category under US law.  The SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter and it is unlikely for it to change its mind in the near future.  As such so-called hate speech is protected as all other political speech.

https://www.thefire.org/there-is-no-such...te-speech/

Oh and Bob, Federal Law and judicial rulings supersede Massachusetts law. Though I do think that there is room to sue the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the basis of that statue if one were so inclined. But equally it could be ruled constitutional since is mentions ACTS and not speech and only applies to ACTS and not speech thereby. Suffice it to say that attempts to limit so-called hate speech has a poor record in Federal Court.