Hate Speech or Free Speech?
| More news stories on Censorship |
|---|
Adam Liptak, International Herald Tribune, June 11, 2008
Editor’s Note: The New York Times, which owns the International Herald Tribune, frowns on our posting excerpts of its articles. Nevertheless this is an important article, a harbinger of the coming assault on the First Amendment under the leftist legal theory that “hate speech” is not free speech. This has already happened in most Western countries. The case of Canada is the primary focus of the article, which we strongly urge you to read at its original site.
{snip}
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
{snip}
(Posted on June 12, 2008)
Comments
Canada is heading toward big, big problems, but the good news is that they’ve brought it all on themselves……..And, of course, I’m referring to the self-appointed elites.
How much fun it’s going to be to watch the anguish, and gut-wrenching displays, from the rabid multicults when it all begins to unravel.
And, make no mistake about it, because unravel it will.
Posted by Ranger at 6:26 PM on June 12
This quote from the orignnal article is very revealing:
Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false [emphasis added], provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.
So, whoever wrote the above statement apparently thought that telling the truth about minority groups and religions may be punishabble, for otherwise the use of adverb even in the above quotation would be unnecessary.
After reading the original article, it becomes clear to me what do the Liberals want to liberate us from: they want to liberate us from protections of First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, too).
Would you still object deporting Liberals to China (or similarly liberal country)?
Posted by A Reader at 6:42 PM on June 12
“when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
So says Comrade Waldron, and he and others like him might be able to make their case except for two glaring points. This is with hypothetically considering the US Constitution “living document,” thus temporarily conceding this point for the purposes brevity.
1.) The USA does have state laws that promote “hate crimes” persecutions. If the lopsided use of these is any indication how “hate speech” laws would be applied, then it is without question that far from creating an “atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack,” they will only be directed at opressing white Americans, not all “Americans freedoms of speech. Speech that encourages the rape, torture, or murder of “whitey” will not be prosecuted, but of course even suggesting that certain practices of nonwhites is less than acceptable by whites, such as genital mutilation or raping women and children who show “immodesty” in dress, will be prosecuted.
2.) That is exactly how these laws are applied in every Western country that has them; thus, establishing both the precedent and probability, that this is exactly how they will be applied here in the USA. Nothing more needs to be said.
These are “laws” that are only intended to demonize and degrade the freedoms of whites, and to reduce them to a second class “slavery” status at the hands of nonwhites who can physically and verbally abuse them with utter impunity, period!
As always, God help us all!!!
Posted by John PM at 7:20 PM on June 12
We often gloat about the U.S. being the only country with free speech - but that freedom will vanish in the blink of a Ginsburg. All it will take is for Congress to pass a law that forbids it, and a Supreme Court decision upholding that law as “constitutional”. And then U.S. free speech will go the way of all the other nations.
Posted by HideouslyWhite at 7:30 PM on June 12
“Any man has the right to say what he thinks and any other man has the right to knock him to the floor for it.” -Mark Twain
Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 7:32 PM on June 12
People should have the right to say what ever they want….people have the right to dislike what is being said but they do not have the right to use the might of the government to silence people because they don’t like to hear what is being said….that is outright tyranny.
Freedom of speech for all not just for some!
Posted by Lisette at 7:33 PM on June 12
This is what I commented:
“Hate speech” laws are wrong on several levels:
1) One man’s “hate speech” is another man’s “citing of pertinent facts”. Such laws are typically interpreted to mean that any statement that can CAUSE hatred toward certain (non-white, non Christian) groups is “hate speech”. Hence it would be “hate speech” to simply cite F.B.I. statistics regarding interracial crime. This would be absurd.
2) Nobody has the right to dictate what another person may say. This right was not created by the U.S. constitution; it is a natural right and as basic as the right of self defense. It is no coincidence that the same countries that limit free speech also limit self defense. Their philosophy is that government is the final arbiter of rights. They are, in a manner of speaking, godless societies - because they believe in no higher law than that of government.
3) lastly, we find such laws being selectively enforced with a strong bias against whites and against Christians. Hence, we don’t find Muslims be prosecuted for reading hateful passages from the Qur’an. We don’t find blacks being prosecuted for inciting hatred against whites.
Posted by jewamongyou at 7:40 PM on June 12
Won’t have to wait too long. There is already very little free speech in the USA. After the leftists get into power, there will be none.
Posted by at 8:03 PM on June 12
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
Translated this means the usual, tolerate or be punished. The language used is terrorist language and meant to intimidate.
Posted by at 8:08 PM on June 12
This is one of the most interesting, and disturbing, articles AR has posted in a while. There’s definitely a risk that the US will prohibit what minority interest groups consider “hate speech” and then we’re really in trouble since that will make dissemination of non-establishment information much more difficult.
—DP
Posted by DP at 8:14 PM on June 12
Either hate speech is legal or there is no such thing as free speech!
Hate speech prohibitions will be used to further a multiculturalist political agenda today and White genocide tomorrow.
I guess those who feel angry/guilty over White success through conquest relish (or are indifferent to) the possibility of destroying White people and will go to great lengths to silence any protest of their “brave new world.”
My fatalistic vision of the future is not the only possible scenario however.
For the multiculturalist readers at Amren, imagine a different future where the Facist (as opposed to Libertarian) Far Right begins to make a serious comeback across the USA and Europe.
At first the movements are small and dismissed as relics of the 20th century. The movements do not stay small very long and begin to expand rapidly in a world of scarce resources and bitter struggles over the few that remain.
Pretty soon, the architects of the hate speech laws find they have fallen out of favor with the new administrations and are arrested as enemies of the White race. When evidence of their crimes is asked for, they are informed that their very words undermine the cause of all White people. They are told that hatred comes in many forms and preaching against ones own race is a particularly odious form of it. In the controlled press the dissenters are vilified as traitors who must be imprisoned, reeducated and or executed.
Having laid the foundations of Facism when it seemed such policies would benefit their multiculturalist ideals, few observers listen to the prisoners claims of unfair treatment. The average man barely thinks about liberty at all by this time and goes about his business (with much government regulation ofcourse). “How quaint” the worker says to himself, “that once people were free to question their government; to condem and scorn it in public. Life must have been terribly inefficent in those days.”
The factory he works in shuts down for the day and he returns home to his wife and two children. His children will work at the factory when they mature and his wife must either have at least one more child or go to work at the factory herself. Afterall, a citizen’s duty is to diligently serve the state.
The sun sets and his part of the world is cloaked in darkness, much like the minds of countless well intentioned men before him who toiled and struggled but did not see the long term effects of their actions.
Those who seek to destroy the White race and those who are indifferent to its destruction have paved a road to Hell with their “good” intentions.
Posted by True Resistance at 8:29 PM on June 12
According to the original article, we’re supposed to criminalize “hate speech” because of terrorism such as 9/11. As if doing so would mean that fanatical Muslim extremists would quit being fanatics.
Posted by Question Diversity at 8:44 PM on June 12
“A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment.”
Where did this moronic Canuck come up with this unlikely scenario?
The most incendiary speeches I’ve heard lately have come from the pulpit at a black church; the “angry racist mob” being its highly “inspired” congregation.
I’m not saying that these “sermons” aren’t entitled to Constitutional protection; only that today a black man has a lot less to fear from mob mentality than an unsuspecting white.
So why did this writer choose to make his point using an implausible racial context? Besides being blinded by having his head in his hindquarters, I think he’s a victim of white guilt who doesn’t really care much for the concepts of free speech or an open market of ideas; much as many illiberal American liberals.
Posted by KonfederateKarl at 8:48 PM on June 12
While hate speech won’t get you thrown in jail here like in other places such as Canada or Europe(though the marxists here would LOVE to), an american who says the wrong thing or criticizes the wrong group, especially blacks, gets punished in other ways, such as a loss of job etc. A University of Texas professor who bascially said that the reason that larger numbers of blacks/hispanics do poorly in school or drop out is because more of them come from a culture and from families where education is not stressed and failure is not a big deal. University officials did everything in their power to get him kicked out and he would have been had he not had tenure. Even afterwards, he was ostracized by many. There have been numerous americans, such as entertainers etc. who have lost their jobs by saying the wrong thing. Many newspapers here suppress the truth about minorities by simply not reporting crime stats and other criticisms. Face it, america may not throw people in jail but they’ll get you in other ways.
Posted by KC at 10:11 PM on June 12
And what’s really ironic of course is that if what they claim to oppose (communications intended to or having the effect of ginning up hate for a group) was ever actually made illegal and the law was enforced without bias, 99% of all liberal academics would be in the dock within a year’s time. Take the hatred of white men out of liberalism and you don’t have much left.
Posted by Svigor at 10:20 PM on June 12
Over time, if a man is denied the right to verbalize his grievences, he will turn violent and strike out at everything in his way. The founding fathers in their wisdom knew this and so the first amendment became part of our constitution. The very fact that anyone would challenge a mans right to speak out only shows that the challenger is either tyrannical in nature or has a low level of intelligence. What the elitists seem not to comprehend is that it is in the nature of man to either speak with his tongue or with the sword. Push a man too hard and for too long and the result becomes predictable. The elitists either cannot grasp this simple concept or they believe they are exempt from this most basic of natures laws.
Posted by at 10:22 PM on June 12
Our organization, Resisting Defamation, has set up seminars to promote knowledge of the sludge of demeaning epithets expressed against the diverse white American peoples. See our ad at:
http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/metro.asp
Posted by Bo at 10:32 PM on June 12
“The New York Times, which owns the International Herald Tribune, frowns on our posting excerpts of its articles.”
Legally, you can reprint any Times article in its entirety whenever you want, just like the Times can print the content of a Congressional bill. What Congress does is news, and what the Times does is news. If the Times pretends to disagree, sue their butts off and make a lot of money.
Posted by ben tillman at 10:51 PM on June 12
It’s funny that the major movements of the 1960s were supposedly about promoting “freedom” for all. Civil rights, free love, free sex, free use of drugs, women’s lib and abortion rights were all supposedly about promoting “freedom.” But ultimately, it turns out the only way to keep all this going is to silence free speech. This exposes as a sham the claim that these movements were about promoting “freedom.” And as far as “civil rights” go, shouldn’t freedom of speech be considered the ultimate “civil right?” No, because the phrase “civil rights” has been given a very narrow definition by the left, that is, giving nonwhites privileges over whites to make up for those that were supposedly denied them in the past. That is yet another example of how the left has controlled and redefined our language.
Posted by Tim in Indiana at 11:06 PM on June 12
Where I work they fired a white guy for being ignorant. The exact words used were, ‘That red-neck needs to be fired.’
This isn’t confined to the production floor… a large number of white collar’s use the word, ‘redneck’, a racial slur, in an effort to prove to everyone how enlightened they are.
I shudder to think of the world after another 20 years fighting ‘hate speech’.
Posted by at 12:25 AM on June 13
Agree with A reader 6:42pm,6/12. The idea of hate speech in USA is derived from the nutty legally contrived concept of discrimination. The idea that people can not be allowed to discriminate about sex, race, and age. (None of this nuttiness existed before 1950’s) I fact, the law itself favors certain groups and by definition it is against the equality clause. Either we are equally allowed to express our selves by association and speech or we are not! Discrimination can not be enforced any more than hate speech because most everyone would be convicted sometime in ones life! Free speech is essential to free thought and the democratic republic of our founders. This is most likely the reason the enemies of USA are vigorously attacking our longheld historic principles. Those who hate free speech hate US also. Hate speech is not a free democratic idea but a stalinist totalitarian tactic. Presecuting people for who they associate with or talk about is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination. Those who do not like our principles are mostly foreigners who have come here to destroy our rights. V
Posted by at 1:24 AM on June 13
I’m glad the neocons are expressing outage that one of their own, Mark Steyn, is being censored by the Canuck gov’t but where were they the last twenty years when Ernst Zundel, James Keegstra and others on the far right received prison sentences for their beiefs?
Actually, they often cheered on the prosecutors.
While I don’t find the arguments put forth by anti-semites and holocaust revisionists very convincing, they deserve the same right to free speech as everyone else.
Posted by Madison Grant at 2:07 AM on June 13
There isn’t a week that goes by where “hate speech” laws aren’t pushed. Europe is already an abomination, Canada is also, and the article is quite right. Only the United States of America, stands alone in allowing free speech, but will Americans protect this sacred priviledge?
Posted by Bobby at 2:08 AM on June 13
“A slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts.”
- Euripides (480-406 BC)
Posted by A. Windaus at 3:34 AM on June 13
The show trial of Mark Steyn and Maclains magazine (ironicaly a very PC publication)in Vancouver brought Canada’s insane, Stalinesque kangeroo-court triokas, (called in true Orwellian fashion Human Rights Tribunals) to the attention of the whole of the Western world. Their attempts to stifle the free speech of Canadians- in other words to punish though-crimes- have been ongoing for many years. There is one recent and particularly revolting decision by one of these unaccountable “courts” that shows just how much power these “organs” (Solzhenitsyn tells us that this was the favored word that the omnipotent NKVD/KGB in the USSR used to describe themselves- and it fits, having an almost obcene feel to it) have ammassed. A Christian pastor named Rev. Steven Boission was brought before these little Stalins because an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund filed a complaint about him. This person didn’t know pastor and had never heard him speak. He was not a victim (whatever this word means in these contexts) as was even noted by the head Stalina Lori Andreachuck in her decision. Nevertheless (and incredibly) he was ordered to print an apology refuting his long held faith in the local newspaper, was forbidden-FOREVER- from saying anything “offensive” about anyone in the protected classes (in this case homosexuals)…EVEN IN PRIVATE EMAILS(!), was ordered to pay a substantial fine, as well as pay for the entire cost of the complaintant’s legal fees.
Now, in Canada, we are persecuting Christians for their faith. Now, in Canada, we are enforcing Islamofacist fatwas with the power of the state. Now, in Canada, we are forcing people to “confess” in public forums to their thought crimes as the USSR did to their victims after they had been crushed and humiliated in show-trials.
As a Canadian I am deeply angry and concerned.
If there is anything good to come out of these most recent show trials, where the defendants had power and connections, it is that these odious commissions are now exposed to the harsh light of day in all of their discusting glory. There RCMP is now conducting an investigation into these commissions. Canadians (the ones who are awake anyway) now know to what extent their freedoms have been eaten away by neo-Marxists withing goverment. And, probably most importantly, the writers and newspapers and the intelligensia (largly leftists) are mostly united in their revusion of these commissions.
Posted by White Canadian at 4:22 AM on June 13
>>>“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month
Waldron first needs to pull his head out of another part of his anatomy… then rethink this. Too much of this absurd legislation is enacted to prevent reasonable QUESTIONING of certain historic events, as well as stating one’s valid beliefs. In the aftermath of WWII, European nations saddled themselves with this type of censorship. Now the people not only are punished for asking the background of criminals facing charges.wrong questions, but even commenting on the race or religious
That an inordinate amount of crime perpetrated in European nations is done by mostly Black African or Muslim immigrants is self-evident. Yet dare state this common knowledge, and see where it lands you, should you visit any European nation. That this knowledge is demonstrably true, nevertheless does not alllow you to state that fact.
Posted by Fed Up at 8:39 AM on June 13
There is an ongoing ‘human rights’ case here in Canada. A fellow in southern Ontario who runs a restaurant asked a patron to refrain from smoking weed right outside the main door. This patron had legal permission to smoke grass for medical purposes. He proceeded to bring a human rights case against the restaurant owner for ‘discrimination against medically-challenged people’, or something moronic like that. The weed dude gets all his expenses paid for by the government, as he is the complainant. The restaurant owner has to pay out of his own pocket for all his legal expenses, and he will not be reimbursed if he wins. It’s doubtful he will win, as defendants never win under human rights tribunals. They certainly are a national embarrassment, but keep in mind, until very recently, as concerns Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine, most Canadians had no idea of this flagrant abuse of democracy and free speech. I hope that the rest of the world does pillory Canada for this, as it might spur our politicians to take action and demolish the ‘human rights’ tribunals.
Posted by Matt at 10:30 AM on June 13
“but will Americans protect this sacred priviledge?”
If privilege, it is granted by politicians, oops I mean the State, and can be removed by them.
Free speech is a Right. It can be violated, but still remains a right.
Posted by it'z a right at 12:54 PM on June 13
Last week, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined €15,000, or $23,000, in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.
And how exactly does this “provoke” racial hatred? To provoke hatred, one must foment it where it was not before. I can’t imagine a scenario where Ms. Bardot’s statement would have dome that.
So the only logical conclusion is that she was fined not for provoking racial hatred, but merely for expressing her opinion (which, BTW, wasn’t actually hateful, just critical). Nothing everyone here doesn’t already know, but I figured I’d point it out anyway.
Posted by BW Sam at 1:51 PM on June 13
I am in a bad mood - I wonder if this will lead to my arrest.
The nanny state in England arrested a man in his apartment this week when a neighbor heard a thump and rather than check on the neighbor himself called the police. The man had fallen off his couch laughing at his favorite comedian on the tele. Still, he was pepper-sprayed, hand and foot cuffed, booked and is now on probation.
In France the government says that there is no scientific bases for race so any racial referrence is illegal and subject to punishment.
Yes, the Europeans surely know the way of progress.
Posted by Whiteplight at 2:04 PM on June 13
In order to inflict their tyrannical philosophy on all others, Liberals (Socialists, Marxists) must use laws and government to serially kill all liberties, since in their eyes individual liberty is license to disobey them.
If and when the Left succeeds in revoking that license, “America” is dead.
Posted by Gary at 2:56 PM on June 13
It is clear from the article and especially the audio BackStory that the NYTimes supports the spread of this kind of censorship legislation to the United States.
This is just the beginning of a full court press in the media to do away with the First Amendment.
Riley
Posted by Riley DeWiley at 4:12 PM on June 13
Hate speech gets in the area of thought crimes Who wil determine what is “hate speech”? The thought police. It would be a nightmare visited upon our nation people would be afraid to talk.
Posted by Nosmo King at 5:38 PM on June 13
Hate speech laws themselves aren’t really a racial issue. It’s who’s making these laws and who they are prosecuting that’s the issue.
Posted by at 5:45 PM on June 13
“There is an ongoing ‘human rights’ case here in Canada. A fellow in southern Ontario who runs a restaurant asked a patron to refrain from smoking weed right outside the main door. This patron had legal permission to smoke grass for medical purposes”
This is crazy. The restaraunt owner wasn’t keeping the man from smoking his medically approved weed, he told him not to do it in front of his establishment. Why wasn’t that man taking his meds at home? I have medicine I need to take everyday, I don’t take it in front of businesses but in the privacy of my own home. I just wonder if the man smoking weed was looking for a lawsuit and a way to get some money?
Posted by at 9:24 PM on June 13
”..Nobody has the right to dictate what another person may say. This right was not created by the U.S. constitution; it is a natural right and as basic as the right of self defense…they believe in no higher law than that of government…”
Posted by jewamongyou at 7:40 PM on June 12
This is what the Founding Fathers believed, and your last statement was exactly what they were afraid of—forced obedience to made up laws, as opposed to adherence to natural laws.
I blame the schools for indoctrinating our children in the exact opposite doctrine as that of the Founding Fathers: There is no higher authority than the government.
After all, the Founding Fathers, according to current educational dogma are ‘dead White men’ whose ideas are ‘over 200 years old’ and not relevant to today’s society—especially the Second Amendment. I’d say their ideas are more relevant than ever—and they’d sit up in their graves if they saw how leftists have mis-interpreted and legislated away the tenets of the Constitution.
The new heroes are communists such as Che (I saw a parent today with a Che key chain), and MLK and others who have ‘taken a stance against a Racist White Society’—Cesar Chavez is now part of the high school curricula. I assume Castro (and his wonderful health care plan) will be next and it will only be a matter of time before Marx himself is lionized.
Well put jewamoungyou.
Spread the Word.
Bon
Posted by BonBon at 9:24 PM on June 13
“Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.””
Here’s the problem Jeremy, WHO decides what is hate or a vicious attack? It’s pretty simple, as long as you don’t direct people to physically attack or murder someone, you have the right to express the opinion you want.
Posted by at 2:31 AM on June 14
I am astonished and appalled that what purports to be a serious mainstream “newspaper” could call anyone who advocates abolishment of the First Amendment to the US Constitution a “prominent legal scholar” instead of an “insane, tyrannical crackpot”. I have perhaps a better perspective on this issue than most folks, as I have already spent three years in prison for something I once said.
The US Bill of Rights does not actually grant any rights; it recognizes them as natural conditions of human life. The same Constitution that recognises my right to free speech is the one that recognizes the right of these “prominent legal scholars” to live. I’ll respect their rights only to the extent that they respect mine, once they are finished posturing as enemies of the US Constitution that every member of the US armed forces swears to defend us against when they take the oath, “I swear to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
People are not the property of their governments, and governments that believe otherwise are owed no loyalty.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 8:13 AM on June 14
Free speech is a Right. It can be violated, but still remains a right.
Posted by it’z a right at 12:54 PM on June 13
It is an inalienable right protected by the unique Constitution of the United States of America….nobody can touch that…they try but like Judge Alito said it is impossible to bend….thanks to the foresight and wisdom of the founding fathers.
God Bless America…she will survive the enemies foreign and domestic!
Posted by Lisette at 8:44 AM on June 14
Of course, they modern liberals will attempt to suppress free speech as a hate crime. Modern liberalism is all about using the government as a tool to force neo-liberalism upon the society at whole. It’s completely unAmerican but that’s what they stand for folks.
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 1:53 PM on June 14
The US doesn’t have that much free speech anyways. See the recent incident in the Colorado state legislature. A legislator, Douglas Bruce, used the phrase “illiterate peasants” in a speech. The chairwoman Kathleen Curry immediately denied him the right to speak, and it looks as if he’s going to be censured by the Colorado legislature. And this guy’s a legislator! If even he is not allowed to speak freely, for all practical purposes we’ve got no free speech left.
I’m surprised this hasn’t appeared on Amren yet.
Posted by at 6:59 PM on June 14
Anonymous:
Douglas Bruce was covered on AR:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/04/colo_lawmaker_r.php
Posted by Question Diversity at 8:47 PM on June 14
I don’t give a flying screw if the Europeans are mistaken. This isn’t Europe, it’s Amemrica, and we enjoy freedom of speech here, and I for one, always will.
Posted by at 12:19 PM on June 15
If even he is not allowed to speak freely, for all practical purposes we’ve got no free speech left.
I’m surprised this hasn’t appeared on Amren yet.
Posted by at 6:59 PM on June 14
Amren is on top of the issues that the mainstream media is keeping away from the American people…and it was discussed the minute it happened….things go fast that it is old news.
Posted by Lisette at 3:01 PM on June 15
At a time when minorities are improving their lot and, discrimination is on the wain, the left is still seeking problems to solve and, enemies to attack.
Someone, somewhere has to be liberated, problems must be solved in humanities press toward progressive utopia, run by a nanny state.
They will never stop!
Posted by Zrazys at 7:13 PM on June 15
“People are not the property of their governments, and governments that believe otherwise are owed no loyalty.”
I don’t wish to disappoint you on your justifiable outrage, but if this article has any weight to it, you are the property or subject of the corporation of United States.
http://www.arizonafreepress.com/columnists/Kirwan/JK2008/jkw_060808.htm
Posted by at 2:09 PM on June 16
In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence…
That’s NOT 100% true…IF you are a minority…YOU are protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT…IF you are WHITE…you are NOT!…more and more laws are being enacted as hate speech laws to MUZZLE the WHITES in this country!…WE are HELD-HOSTAGE by these laws and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!…WE are not allowed to speak freely…for fear of retaliation!…minorities have no such fear…they are, in fact, ENCOURAGED!
Posted by Suzan Donoghue at 5:13 PM on June 16
A groveling and defeated people reduced to using limp-wristed expressions such as “the n-word” are not a people who enjoy or value the freedom of speech…
Posted by at 1:32 PM on June 18
Some morons think a building will be more stable if you remove part of its foundation.
Free speech forever!
Posted by H. Dumpty at 1:06 AM on June 26