Friendly reminder that the first amendment does not cover hate speech

but it does.

>Fighting for the rights of a people who were literally enslaved in America for hundreds of years is a crime
heh

>right to commit crimes without consequences
no thanks.

so, what content defines "hate speech"?

please anons sage when you reply to these shills

>isn't smart enough to look deeper at the issue
heh

I hate OP

Have you guys thought to look it up in wikipedia or a dictionary?

No?

I'm not really surprised desu

>isn't smart enough to look even deeper into the issue
hehh

>le make the exact same post face
Great content my dude

>Friendly reminder that the first amendment does not cover hate speech

Fuck off leaf. Nobody chanting kill cops was arrested. Hateful towards cops, advocating violence.

BLM leaders call for extermination of whites and that's not hate speech either.
>muh feewings
>meme arrows
Nice autism, newfag.
>Feelings are not relevant
Nice retardation, leaf.
Have you ever read the 1A?

I feel like you have probably never even read your own constitution lmfao

>The first amendment only covers opinions I agree with
Nice to see another quality leafpost

>no u

Child. Either strong bait or stronger leaf.

>everyone who disagrees with me is jewish
nice

>A
>FUCKING
>LEAF
TOTAL WAR WITH KEKNADA WHEN?
MAKE IT HAPPEN, DONALD
WE WILL FUCKING RAPE YOU FUCKING MAPLE SYRUP NIGGERS INTO THE STONE AGE

>make retarded post
>get called out
>BAIT BAIT BAIT
hahahaha

try it faggot see what happens

YOU'RE FUCKING DEAD, KID

sage you niggerbrains

This place has gone to shit, with the full cooperation of the average 15 year old Cred Forumstard who bumps shill threads because he wants to "win" a "debate" online.

Yes it does. SCOTUS said so here
wikiwand.com/en/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

the price of free speech is putting up with all the idiot yahoos going "JEWS DID WTC NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER"

Not in canada it doesn't

There's no such thing as hate speech.

It's a made up buzzword.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

yes, it does stupid faggot leaf

>a leaf

Congress shall make no law etc etc
Go freeze to death

FUCK YOU LEAF!
I HATE YOU!
I HOPE ALL YOUR FELLOW KEKED LEAFS DIE OF CANCER IN YOUR ASS.

REEE STOP BUMPING THIS SHILL THREAD YOU DUMBASSES

TYPE SAGE IN THE OPTIONS FIELD

dumbass you didn't even follow the link. Brandenburg v Ohio hasn't been overruled

I know you fucking dumbass.

Take a couple minutes and try to really think hard about what I might have meant by linking that

nice thread

Green is solid as fuck

If complete freedom of speech was allowed, all views could be evaluated based on viability and merit. Banning "hate speech" simply gives validation to ideals that would otherwise simply be ridiculed in society.

The only good counterargument in this thread and it comes from a fellow leaf.

Americans step up

>I.. I WASN'T BEING AN IDIOT! I... I JUST MEANT IT TO MEAN SOMETHING SMART WHICH I WONT ARTICULATE TO YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF!

kek damage control harder leaf

yeah, nice, because you fucktards keep bumping it to page one

hahahaha

Why are Canadian shitposts so consistently unfunny? You're like Australia's retarded little brother. Who is also a tranny.

>not posting DUDE LE TRUMP LMAO is shitposting

Get back in your general you fucking european

unfriendly reminder that if you don't sage this thread you are contributing to the shill problem just as much as CTR

no, shilling and obviously trolling are though

Do you honestly believe that hillary clinton pays people to post on Cred Forums?

You self-important deluded fuck

See what I mean?

And this.

Its like a young child bashing randomly on a xylophone and thinking its making music.

Give me an honest yes/no answer.

Does hillary clinton's campaign pay people to post on Cred Forums?

hahahaha you really are a shill aren't you

>brock [6:21 AM]

>I want 150 from Cred Forums, whatever you can get from 8. I want 1000 top reddit drivers exposed and I want content analysis for their posts. I want the people who are really driving their narrative.

magafeed.com/was-a-super-hillary-pac-hacked/
4archive.org/board/pol/thread/80396290#p80397101

Yeah, pretty much.

Why don't you tell me?

>magafeed.com
>Cred Forums

Great sources there m8

When in doubt, look to the flag.

>too embarrassed to actually say it
hahaha

Yes. Now go back to disappointing your parents, faggot.

Friendly reminder that the 1st and 2nd ammendment shall not be infringed, so with regards to burgers you're wrong.

Free speech means every speech even the speech you don't like.. it doesn't mean only the speech i agree with..

So the effort to create the bogus term hatespeech and say that oh now the 1st ammendment no longer applies, is bogus.

Nice bait, leaf. Anything can be considered hate speech.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

objectively wrong

Friendly reminder that no amendment protects your feewings

>I feel

Nice of you to alert people to how stupid you are.

Anyways, hate is subjective. It's an awful idea to limit free speech on a subjective basis. It is profoundly idiotic.

This is why we must ban all leafs.

Aussie shitpost is witty and usually contains a form of bantz.

Canadian shitposting is cringeworthy and full of liberal kike tears.

Why are you still here?

>megafeed
>nice source

nice dismissal of the evidence for no legitimate reason

Everybody believes in freedom of speech for opinions they agree with.

Everybody, without exception.

If freedom of speech is to mean anything at all, it must pertain *precisely* to opinions you despise.

>I can't understand basic concepts

...

I hate the OP
I hate the Zionists
I hate the chimpouts
I hate the terrorist

ooh de lallay ooh de lally ooh de lallay oh

I hate the OP
I hate his microdick
even though it's funny
it makes him cry too quick
I love to laugh at him
because he is a faggot

ooh de lally ooh de lally ooh de lally ooh

I hate the op
probably a nigger
IQ of a monkey
genetically inferior
I'll bet he is lazy
not knowing whom he's working for

ooh de lally ooh de lally ooh de lally ooh

sage and kys

actually in the decision linked to by this retard
>The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

So there are already limits on it

>is from
>thinks his opinions are relevent

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>I don't understand the definition of incite, or the definition of imminent

imminent lawless action

Yeah call to violence for instance. But not "niggers are fucking aholes"

The whole point of free speech and why it should not be infringed is that the whole point of it is to be able to say unpopular things, and things the establishment does not like.. without being thrown in jail for it.

Something you apparently don't understand. It's free speech or it's not free speech.. free speech means all speech unless it's directly call to violent acts (which is a criminal offense). Like if someone says "i want to kill that guy right now" they can potentially face legal repercussions for death threats if someone wanted to press charges and drag them to court for it.

Yeah that 666x360 image in which you can't read anything except post-debate and correcttherecord really proves you right

TC is exactly the sort of person we don't want to import to the west. Odds are he is a low IQ non-white.

Free speech is only needed for controversial topics.

I wasn't trying to say that they're the same, just that the courts have already put limits in place. So saying you have absolute freedom of speech today is incorrect.

It doesn't because hate speech doesn't exist.

>Friendly reminder that the first amendment does not cover hate speech

>The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

>The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969.

>Overruled Decision
>Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
>The Court held that the state, in exercise of its police power, has the power to punish those who abuse their rights to freedom of speech "by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow." In other words, words with a "bad tendency" can be punished.

>Overruling Decision
>Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

>I can't understand basic concepts

if you were actually interested in the truth maybe you would investigate a little more but we all know you just want (you)s and your Hillary-supporting superPAC paycheck

also, you were BTFO a while ago and admitted it by posting
>The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

"hate speech" like "nigger" and "I hate niggers" ARE therefore protected under the 1st amendment. your central point has been refuted, why are you still shitposting?

>le don't think things through man

It's almost like you changed your IP so I wouldn't know it was you

[THIS POST WAS REDACTED DUE TO VIOLATION(S) OF UNITED NATIONS LAWS REGARDING HATE SPEECH]

Actually, as I was trying to explain to with this post supreme court decisions can be overturned

BTFO

speech isn't direct call to violent action desu, like making imminent death threats. But they can say ooga booga dindu nigger etc. all they want.. which btw. blacks do the same thing. pic related. Some of the things they say could potentially be prosecuted btw. but many of those things are indeed still under freedom of speech.

I know you don't realize that in PC canada, but grow a little tough skin instead of having penis skin all over your body.. sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Now run along to your safe space, people online said some bad things to you.

>nor does it protect Canada from becoming the 51st state

gorrila warfare nigga

...

>Friendly reminder that the first amendment does not cover hate speech

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

>In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.

>thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence.

>thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence.

>thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence.

great post

He's already been explained this 3 times, and he still doesn't get the difference. He's larping on the leftists authoritarians wet dream to censor the shit out of anyone who disagree with their views..

leftists are the biggest pussies, they fear also masculinity for same reason they fear someone better or stronger than them. So they act manipulative to get their way.

>guerilla*

Unless you're african-canadian, then I guess it's gorilla.

>Friendly reminder that the first amendment does not cover hate speech
>Actually, as I was trying to explain to (You) with this post supreme court decisions can be overturned

So you agree your OP is wrong then? Anything case can be fucking overruled by the supreme court, it's a nonsensical argument. The current law as it stands allows hate speech, therefore your OP is absolutely wrong.

Dude you're a fucking dumbass

I've shown you retards that supreme court decisions can be overturned

HAHAHHA OK SO LET'S GET YOUR """ARGUMENT""" STRAIGHT:

>the supreme court has consistently ruled that "hate speech" is protected by the constitution
>the 1A itself makes no exception for hate speech
>despite all the evidence, hate speech isn't protected by the constitution
KEK

Yes but what you HAVEN'T shown is that there is any reason to believe that the 1A doesn't protect hate speech

retard

>I've shown you retards that supreme court decisions can be overturned

And that decision can also be overturned again, checkmate

>the supreme court has consistently ruled that "hate speech" is protected by the constitution
>consistently
>47 years ago
heh

Leaf confirmed for poor reading comprehension

Guys sorry but I've gotta go get drunk and hopefully fuck a hot bitch

Same time tomorrow?

Also, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the SCOTUS used the 1st amendment to protect "hate speech", which in fact contradicts your central claim. Just because rulings can be overturned does NOT invalidate the fact that the 1A DID and CURRENTLY DOES protect "hate speech" in US law.

reminder to sage shill threads

not an argument

Kill all niggers.

Did I qualify ?

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE to support the claim that "the 1st amendment doesn't protect hate speech"?

one last post because I love you all

We are arguing about the interpretation of the literal text of the first amendment, which can change over time as it has before

>presented massive amounts of evidence contrary to his view point
>flees to wallow his sorrows in a bottle

you didn't address my points

Friendly reminder that hate-speech is precisely the kind of speech that needs by definition the 1st amendment.

Also, fucking LEAF

>click on thread to see what flag posted this
>checks out

A fucking leaf

Wrong, the 1st amendment does not SPECIFICALLY cover hate speech. It also doesn't SPECIFICALLY cover thousands of other types of speech. It simply covers the freedom of speech. We do not get to pick and chose which types of speech it does not cover.

>leaf doesn't understand the US constitution

The U.S. Constitution's first amendment does protect "hate speech." What it doesn't protect is incitement to violence. A long time ago it didn't protect "fighting words" but that's since been overturned. You can call someone a coalburning bitch, or a plantation nigger, or a mine chink, or lazy wetback, or a kike who should have been burned in an oven all you want. At least if you're in the USA instead of the authoritarian regimes in Europe.

You are a complete nigger

friendly reminder that "hate" speech is a conceptualization of speech which is made by an individual.

>meme arrows
Die, nigger.

You're not even American; what do you know about how our constitution is supposed to be interpreted.

If the things we said to each other couldn't offend anyone, we wouldn't even need to write free speech into our Constitution, b/c it would already be implied.
If you don't like it, stay in Cucknadia.

>hate is subjective. It's an awful idea to limit free speech on a subjective basis. It is profoundly idiotic.
This. The government would just use it to suppress """dissidents""".

SeeWhy the fuck do you even come to this cesspool of hatred if you think "hate speech" is wrong. Are you a fucking masochist or something.

But it does

You did not answer the question.

Friendly reminder that i don't care about your constitution stupid leaf

Topkek!

It does in our country you deplorable Toronto cuck

>the highest digits confirm truth.

Are you implying that the ADL isn't a Jewish organization?