"Not protected hate speech"
-
Professor Greenfield probably didn't go to school the day they taught the First Amendment.
-
It would be better to find an appropriate legal response.
Would taking their photographs and putting them up all over town be considered unconstitutional? Some of them might have paid jobs, after all.
-
It would be better to find an appropriate legal response.
Would taking their photographs and putting them up all over town be considered unconstitutional? Some of them might have paid jobs, after all.
@Doctor-Phibes said in "Not protected hate speech":
Would taking their photographs and putting them up all over town be considered unconstitutional? Some of them might have paid jobs, after all.
Interesting question.
AFAIK, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're outdoors.
Have at it, and then watch what happens should they get fired.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in "Not protected hate speech":
Would taking their photographs and putting them up all over town be considered unconstitutional? Some of them might have paid jobs, after all.
Interesting question.
AFAIK, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're outdoors.
Have at it, and then watch what happens should they get fired.
@George-K said in "Not protected hate speech":
@Doctor-Phibes said in "Not protected hate speech":
Would taking their photographs and putting them up all over town be considered unconstitutional? Some of them might have paid jobs, after all.
Interesting question.
AFAIK, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're outdoors.
Have at it, and then watch what happens should they get fired.
Ostracized would be good enough. Their lives could be made quite a bit more miserable than the people they wanted to insult.
-
@George-K said in "Not protected hate speech":
@Doctor-Phibes said in "Not protected hate speech":
Would taking their photographs and putting them up all over town be considered unconstitutional? Some of them might have paid jobs, after all.
Interesting question.
AFAIK, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're outdoors.
Have at it, and then watch what happens should they get fired.
Ostracized would be good enough. Their lives could be made quite a bit more miserable than the people they wanted to insult.
@Doctor-Phibes said in "Not protected hate speech":
Ostracized would be good enough. Their lives could be made quite a bit more miserable than the people they wanted to insult.
Absolutely. The right to free speech includes the responsibility for dealing with the repercussions thereof.
As long as it's not illegal, go for it.
That said, I can see some asshole doxxing or SWATing these clowns.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in "Not protected hate speech":
Ostracized would be good enough. Their lives could be made quite a bit more miserable than the people they wanted to insult.
Absolutely. The right to free speech includes the responsibility for dealing with the repercussions thereof.
As long as it's not illegal, go for it.
That said, I can see some asshole doxxing or SWATing these clowns.
@George-K said in "Not protected hate speech":
That said, I can see some asshole doxxing or SWATing these clowns.
That's pretty much inevitable if you stick photos of them up all over town. Personally speaking, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.
Just how dumb do you have to be to think that Hitler had the right idea at this point in history? I'm not sure that level of idiocy is actually measurable.
-
@George-K said in "Not protected hate speech":
That said, I can see some asshole doxxing or SWATing these clowns.
That's pretty much inevitable if you stick photos of them up all over town. Personally speaking, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.
Just how dumb do you have to be to think that Hitler had the right idea at this point in history? I'm not sure that level of idiocy is actually measurable.
@Doctor-Phibes said in "Not protected hate speech":
Just how dumb do you have to be to think that Hitler had the right idea at this point in history? I'm not sure that level of idiocy is actually measurable.
No one, afaik, is saying that. Well, maybe someone is - but not me.
The point, which I appear to be failing to make, is that this attorney has no concept of what the First Amendment states.
Or for that matter what SCOTUS declared in the Skokie case.
-
Naziism is wrong, IMO. I don't know what percentage of Americans are Nazis, but I doubt it's very high. Maybe 25% at most. Basically the right-most half of the Republican party.
But IMO 25% Nazis, is too many Nazis. I'm sorry if that offends anybody.
-
I understood your point, George. I’m just left a little mystified by people actually doing this. I guess they could conceivably be trolling, it's just a bizarre thing to do. The Twitterati seem to think it's staged, but if you were going to stage it, surely you'd make them look less sad and lonely.
-
It's their right.
OTOH, if the members of that synagogue decide to kick their ass, I'm sure the town has ordinances against excessive noise, creating a disturbance, etc. Fines should be stiff- at least $50 - and maybe a day of community service some Sunday...
-
It's their right.
OTOH, if the members of that synagogue decide to kick their ass, I'm sure the town has ordinances against excessive noise, creating a disturbance, etc. Fines should be stiff- at least $50 - and maybe a day of community service some Sunday...
-
Surely there are better ways to make them look even more stupid. Remember that guy playing the tuba?
https://www.wqxr.org/story/video-tuba-mocks-white-supremicists-ride-valkyries/
-
