Is hate protected by the 1st?

[Guns Guns Guns]

Interesting that silencers and automatic weapons are perceived as a threat by some. Any attempt by government to limit firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, isn't it?

Regarding the orginal theme of this discussion....so this judge was wrong?

Four people accused of burning a cross outside the window of a 19-year-old mixed-race woman are not protected by the 1st Amendment...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/cross-burning.html

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It tends to make the police nervous. Not sure about the specific laws but certain weapons warrant attention, an example being silencers.

so we're servants of the government now? not it's masters where we have to keep our public servants comfortable and secure?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Surpressors are an instant 20 years, federal law. It's because they are used only for one reason, killing people. You can make the case that automatic weapons might be used for hunting but silencers are only used for the commission of crimes.

ou can't kill a person with a suppressor, unless it's big and heavy enough to bash their head in.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Interesting that silencers and automatic weapons are perceived as a threat by some. Any attempt by government to limit firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, isn't it?

Regarding the orginal theme of this discussion....so this judge was wrong?

Four people accused of burning a cross outside the window of a 19-year-old mixed-race woman are not protected by the 1st Amendment...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/cross-burning.html

yes and no. he was right that it's unprotected because a burning object close to a residential complex is dangerous, not speech. he's wrong about the hate crime enhancements because it's a 'thought' crime.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

yes and no. he was right that it's unprotected because a burning object close to a residential complex is dangerous, not speech. he's wrong about the hate crime enhancements because it's a 'thought' crime.

So burning a cross to terrorize people is OK as long as it's not a fire hazard?

 

[Damocles]

You mentioned TV shows in a thread about the 1st Amendment and hate.

So, then, he actually didn't say that?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So, then, he actually didn't say that?

Guess not, we already straightened that out.

no, you asked if hate was protected by the first amendment. I prompted you with asking about left wing shows full of hate. that answer your question?

Now, is hate - be it left wing or right wing hate - protected speech?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So burning a cross to terrorize people is OK as long as it's not a fire hazard?

is wearing an elmo t-shirt to terrorize people ok also? your ridiculous allegation that a burning cross is terrifying needs to be re-examined. a burning cross, confederate flag, a political donkey sticker, nor a brady campaign ball cap are terrifying to me. people who are that afraid of something should probably check themselves in to a psych clinic for an evaluation.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Guess not, we already straightened that out.



Now, is hate - be it left wing or right wing hate - protected speech?

yes, it is. i hate anti gun cowards who suck cop cocks, but my hate for them is protected free speech. just like your hate for guns is protected free speech.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

yes, it is. i hate anti gun cowards who suck cop cocks, but my hate for them is protected free speech. just like your hate for guns is protected free speech.

I have no hate for guns, but I would certainly hate anti-gun cowards who suck cop cocks.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

is wearing an elmo t-shirt to terrorize people ok also? your ridiculous allegation that a burning cross is terrifying needs to be re-examined. a burning cross, confederate flag, a political donkey sticker, nor a brady campaign ball cap are terrifying to me. people who are that afraid of something should probably check themselves in to a psych clinic for an evaluation.

So terrifying a woman and her children who were terrified by a burning cross set alight outside her home by people who intended to terrify them would be OK?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So terrifying a woman and her children who were terrified by a burning cross set alight outside her home by people who intended to terrify them would be OK?

yes, because if the governments followed their constitutional limits, this woman would have a gun to protect her and her kids and could rightfully shoot the bastards terrifying her and claim self defense. problem solved.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

yes, because if the governments followed their constitutional limits, this woman would have a gun to protect her and her kids and could rightfully shoot the bastards terrifying her and claim self defense. problem solved.

Didn't you just say that burning crosses aren't terrifying?

...your ridiculous allegation that a burning cross is terrifying needs to be re-examined.... people who are that afraid of something should probably check themselves in to a psych clinic for an evaluation.

So if the woman shot the cross-burners as you suggest, what defense could she give?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Didn't you just say that burning crosses aren't terrifying?

I don't find them terrifying. just like I don't find guns or hand grenades terrifying. unless they are in the hands of an overzealous SWAT team

So if the woman shot the cross-burners as you suggest, what defense could she give?

the wonders of our justice system. she gets to present her case to a jury of her peers and they get to decide if she was reasonably afraid for her life.

 

[Damocles]

Guess not, we already straightened that out.



Now, is hate - be it left wing or right wing hate - protected speech?

I'd prefer the question, "Should the government be the method of speech for any group as free speech certainly does cover what others may call 'hate'?"

Basically, is it wise to choose groups to put on plates when it is clear that it would be considered censorship if you don't allow others?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

...she gets to present her case to a jury of her peers and they get to decide if she was reasonably afraid for her life.

But you just said it was unreasonable to be terrified of a burning cross, didn't you?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But you just said it was unreasonable to be terrified of a burning cross, didn't you?

in my opinion, yes. I consider it unreasonable to be terrified of a burning cross, but that's just me.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I'd prefer the question, "Should the government be the method of speech for any group as free speech certainly does cover what others may call 'hate'?" Basically, is it wise to choose groups to put on plates when it is clear that it would be considered censorship if you don't allow others?

So any potentially offensive license plate design should be disallowed?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

in my opinion, yes. I consider it unreasonable to be terrified of a burning cross, but that's just me.

Then - in your opinion, if someone terrified of a burning cross shoots and kills a cross-burner, they are guilty of murder?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Then - in your opinion, if someone terrified of a burning cross shoots and kills a cross-burner, they are guilty of murder?

I can't make a snap judgement without knowing more facts of the case, but in this particular direct hypothetical, if it someone just terrified of a burning cross and no other issues or circumstances exist, yes.