Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyronix
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Viable has nothing to do with whether or not a belief is political or not, the green party is fucking worthless but Nader run's every year and viable or not, its still a completely valid political belief. And the term "Hate speech" is misleading because ultimately it is protected under the constitution. As long as it doesnt impose a "clear and present danger" its pretty much free speech, to elaborate words that "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state" are also punishable, however when from small groups this is overlooked. And ultimately hate speech doesn't "usually" call for action and is usually just rhetoric so there is often no recourse.
|
This isn't all that bad for taking a stab in the dark. Kudos to you for arguing about the "Letter vs. Spirit" doctrines without even knowing what they are!
Unfortunately for you though, most of this was either yanked from the wikis, the googles, or your asshole (or all three?)
CHECK: Correct, viability has makes no difference there, kudos again! It was a rhetorical challenge, because I was referencing centuries-old politics anyway. If you think nilbog includes "150yr old political entities" in his concept of what entails protected political subjects, you sir... are a tool. Oh, and - FUCK THE WHIGS!!!
MATE: Hate speech IS NOT something that private institutions are willing to split hairs on. Sure, it's not codified, you are legally able to stand on the sidewalk spewing bigoted nonsense *until* you are eventually cited for any number of other minor infractions at any rate. Shit like that happens all of the time (car searches anyone?). The moment you go to work, to school, to the store, or P99 for that matter, things change. Go ahead and try to file suit against your employer when you're fired for spouting racial epithets all day at work citing your first amendment rights. /popcorn