Progs Lose HATE Speech Case

[GURPS]

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment


From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”​

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.​

suck it up snowflakes .... you do not get to BAN Speech, just because YOU don't Like it

 

[TWL]

The Washington Redskins trademark case was delayed until the outcome of this case. It's likely the Redskins will keep their trademark and name due to the ruling of this case.

 

[GURPS]

It's likely the Redskins will keep their trademark and name due to the ruling of this case.

that was mentioned on the radio this morning .....

 

[Wishbone]

And here i was hoping Democrats would get gored by their own ox a few times before this was decided.

 

[GURPS]

And here i was hoping Democrats would get gored by their own ox a few times before this was decided.

no, but they will now ..... hate speech laws just went out the window

 

[Sapidus]

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment


From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”​

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.​

suck it up snowflakes .... you do not get to BAN Speech, just because YOU don't Like it

Are you brain damaged?

Did you even read the case?

The band that brought the case are all liberals and using the "slants" to reclaim the word for asians. This is exactly the type of thing you spend half your time crying about. Now you are going to try to change the narrative and say it was a win for your side? Ha. You really must be a confused old man

 

[Gilligan]

Are you brain damaged?

Did you even read the case?

The band that brought the case are all liberals and using the "slants" to reclaim the word for asians. This is exactly the type of thing you spend half your time crying about. Now you are going to try to change the narrative and say it was a win for your side? Ha. You really must be a confused old man

Sorry, shortbus. Yet another fail. You rock!

The point that matters has nothing to do with the specifics of the case with respect to who the plaintiffs were. The point that matters is that here, right now, all over the country, you lefty snowflakes are investing a lot of time and effort in aggressively shutting down free speach that you do not like.

And you just got a slapdown on that...from the SC.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The band that brought the case are all liberals and using the "slants" to reclaim the word for asians. This is exactly the type of thing you spend half your time crying about. Now you are going to try to change the narrative and say it was a win for your side? Ha. You really must be a confused old man

The case was about the US Patent and Trademark Office denying the band's trademark of "THE SLANTS".

 

[Wishbone]

Are you brain damaged?

Did you even read the case?

The band that brought the case are all liberals and using the "slants" to reclaim the word for asians. This is exactly the type of thing you spend half your time crying about. Now you are going to try to change the narrative and say it was a win for your side? Ha. You really must be a confused old man

Based on that statement I KNOW you didn't read it completely.

Priceless Post Of The Day: Shortbus calling other board members brain damaged.

 

[Sapidus]

The case was about the US Patent and Trademark Office denying the band's trademark of "THE SLANTS".

Exactly dummy. They argued that they should be able to use the name and the supreme court agreed. They are liberals. I recently read an article where they were quoted extensively saying they did it to reclaim the word so that it wouldn't be offensive any longer when people heard it. They would change the meaning of it to be something they called themselves and now felt proud of. In essence taking away the power from bigots who used in a derogatory way.

 

[Wishbone]

The effect of the ruling has nothing to do with reclaiming anything... The effect of the decision stops governemt from denying trademarks based on whether someone if offended, objects to language etc.

The effect is going to assist the Washington Redskins going forward as well.

 

[GURPS]

Are you brain damaged?
Did you even read the case?

are you?
did you read the decision ?

There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

The band that brought the case are all liberals and using the "slants" to reclaim the word for asians. This is exactly the type of thing you spend half your time crying about. Now you are going to try to change the narrative and say it was a win for your side? Ha. You really must be a confused old man

really really me more about myself

its a WIN for Freedom of speech ....
its a win for the Redskins ....

YOUR Side has lost .... careful what you wish for when your side files a lawsuit

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”​

Exactly dummy. They argued that they should be able to use the name and the supreme court agreed. They are liberals.

Who Gives A #### ........
It Does NOT Matter ..... if they are Stalinist's or Maoists
there is now no longer any exception for 'hate speech' in the 1st amendment

YOUR kind can NO LONGER block speech they find hateful

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Exactly dummy.

You know, for a while there, I almost felt sorry for the amount you were picked on.

 

[Gilligan]

Exactly dummy. They argued that they should be able to use the name and the supreme court agreed. They are liberals. I recently read an article where they were quoted extensively saying they did it to reclaim the word so that it wouldn't be offensive any longer when people heard it. They would change the meaning of it to be something they called themselves and now felt proud of. In essence taking away the power from bigots who used in a derogatory way.

LMAO. OK, fairytale teller.

 

[Wishbone]

LMAO. OK, fairytale teller.

I loved that story too!

 

[Sapidus]

are you?
did you read the decision ?

There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment



really really me more about myself

its a WIN for Freedom of speech ....
its a win for the Redskins ....

YOUR Side has lost .... careful what you wish for when your side files a lawsuit








Who Gives A #### ........
It Does NOT Matter ..... if they are Stalinist's or Maoists
there is now no longer any exception for 'hate speech' in the 1st amendment

YOUR kind can NO LONGER block speech they find hateful

First of all the Redskins decision has yet to be made moron.

Exactly. I am not against free speech if you will recall it was you who was crying last week about Kathy Griffin and how scared and hurt Trump and Co must be.

It's also you lunatics who are threatening to shut down the performance of Juluis Ceaser featuring Trump at the moment

Seems like you are triggered snowflakes when it fits your narrative but the moment someone else is offended you cry free speech.

so again whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Wishbone]

A Casino would love to have you at their roulette table Sap.

You just can't help but double down every time you lose.

 

[Sapidus]

A Casino would love to have you at their roulette table Sap.

You just can't help but double down every time you lose.

So is it not true you were adjacent what Kathy griffin did and outraged?

is it not true that you conservatives are picketing a play at this moment that features Trump being killed?

Seems like you want it both ways.

You want protection so you don't have to be offended but don't care about offending others

 

[GURPS]

First of all the Redskins decision has yet to be made moron. - so you do not think this decision will impact THAT CASE ? do you not under stand ho LAW Works

Exactly. I am not against free speech if you will recall it was you who was crying last week about Kathy Griffin and how scared and hurt Trump and Co must be.

- Links? I pointed out how tasteless it was nothing more

It's also you lunatics who are threatening to shut down the performance of Juluis Ceaser featuring Trump at the moment
- sorry I have not been to the theater in yrs .... but say you'd be ok if it were Obama getting killed nightly

Seems like you are triggered snowflakes when it fits your narrative but the moment someone else is offended you cry free speech.

so again whats good for the goose is good for the gander. - I am not sure how this fights campus hate speech issues, but rock on with your bad self calvertnewb

 

[GURPS]

You want protection so you don't have to be offended but don't care about offending others

Did you by the DVD for "Death of a President" ?