or maybe even ReaganRoyGBiv wrote:Trumps fault. Clearly. or Bush.bblhd672 wrote:So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?
SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:49 am
Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
member of the church of San Gabriel de Possenti
lay brother in the order of St. John Moses Browning
USPSA limited/single stack/revolver
lay brother in the order of St. John Moses Browning
USPSA limited/single stack/revolver
Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.The Annoyed Man wrote:Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just honestly don't know if profanity is considered protected speech or not. It's a fair question, but I'll have to defer to someone who actually knows.ninjabread wrote:That would fit with the Left's ideology. It would be wrong, in their eyes, to prosecute BLM for inciting violence against police. However, it's right up their alley to infringe the RKBA by making some good ol' boy ineligible for an LTC because he used a four letter word for feces.The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 4339
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm
Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
No, you need to go back much further. It was the fault of Washington, Jefferson and those other radical, hateful rich white men who had the gall to get upset over a few taxes. Without those original alt-right wackos we would all be happy subjects in the socialist utopia that is the U.K.JustSomeOldGuy wrote:or maybe even ReaganRoyGBiv wrote:Trumps fault. Clearly. or Bush.bblhd672 wrote:So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?
(written with tongue firmly planted in cheek).
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm
Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
Maybe the good guys should start rioting so antifa can be charged with disorderly conduct.C-dub wrote:I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:51 pm
- Location: DFW (Denton County)
Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
You know it's a sad day in this world when that happens. I actually had a coworker of mine who warned me a while back that she's from Texas and says sir, ma'am, etc a lot. And I went, "wait what? I don't mind... why would you think that?" And then I learned, some snowflake actually did get butt-hurt from innocuous gestures of kindness from her. Only in California...C-dub wrote: I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 5350
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
- Location: Johnson County, Texas
Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
strogg wrote:You know it's a sad day in this world when that happens. I actually had a coworker of mine who warned me a while back that she's from Texas and says sir, ma'am, etc a lot. And I went, "wait what? I don't mind... why would you think that?" And then I learned, some snowflake actually did get butt-hurt from innocuous gestures of kindness from her. Only in California...C-dub wrote: I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
I address everyone in the same manner. I never had anyone get angry, but did have one tell me that I didn't have to say ma'am, every time I answered. I told her my mother would get up out of her grave, and "whoop" me, if I addressed a lady in any other manner, and then "whoop" me again for making her have to get up out of her grave, and I did not want to have to deal with that.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second
-
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 8
- Posts: 26852
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
- Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
Perfect answer.Jusme wrote:I address everyone in the same manner. I never had anyone get angry, but did have one tell me that I didn't have to say ma'am, every time I answered. I told her my mother would get up out of her grave, and "whoop" me, if I addressed a lady in any other manner, and then "whoop" me again for making her have to get up out of her grave, and I did not want to have to deal with that.strogg wrote:You know it's a sad day in this world when that happens. I actually had a coworker of mine who warned me a while back that she's from Texas and says sir, ma'am, etc a lot. And I went, "wait what? I don't mind... why would you think that?" And then I learned, some snowflake actually did get butt-hurt from innocuous gestures of kindness from her. Only in California...C-dub wrote: I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 6745
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
- Location: Hunt County
Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
I tell them, "My Momma tried to raise a gentlemen. Unfortunately, she got me instead."Jusme wrote:strogg wrote:You know it's a sad day in this world when that happens. I actually had a coworker of mine who warned me a while back that she's from Texas and says sir, ma'am, etc a lot. And I went, "wait what? I don't mind... why would you think that?" And then I learned, some snowflake actually did get butt-hurt from innocuous gestures of kindness from her. Only in California...C-dub wrote: I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
I address everyone in the same manner. I never had anyone get angry, but did have one tell me that I didn't have to say ma'am, every time I answered. I told her my mother would get up out of her grave, and "whoop" me, if I addressed a lady in any other manner, and then "whoop" me again for making her have to get up out of her grave, and I did not want to have to deal with that.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.
There are numerous, no, NUMEROUS, cases of police being given the middle finger and the courts ruling it is protected free speech.The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?
Here's an article that goes into some detail.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/ ... e-message/
Pretty much every cop in the country knows this, but you'll likely get arrested anyway, so I'm not going to waste my time trying it.