SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 24019
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#1

Post by The Annoyed Man » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:29 pm

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

Middle Age Russ
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1262
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:44 am
Location: Spring-Woodlands

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#2

Post by Middle Age Russ » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 pm

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of speech these days focusing hate on the individuals and ideals that laid the groundwork for the society we live it. I agree that laws are not the answer, but effective communication and education are in order. Every time those who "know what's good for us" attacks time-proven society-affirming ideals and values in the name of progressivism a rebuttal should be forthcoming.
Russ
Stay aware and engaged. Awareness buys time; time buys options. Survival may require moving quickly past the Observe, Orient and Decide steps to ACT.
NRA Life Member, CRSO, Basic Pistol, PPITH & PPOTH Instructor, Texas 4-H Certified Pistol & Rifle Coach, Texas LTC Instructor

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#3

Post by bblhd672 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:44 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.
With Gorusch declining to participate, wouldn't that make the rule 8-0?

So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7408
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#4

Post by RoyGBiv » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:09 pm

bblhd672 wrote:So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?
Trumps fault. Clearly. or Bush.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 24019
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#5

Post by The Annoyed Man » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:23 pm

bblhd672 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.
With Gorusch declining to participate, wouldn't that make the rule 8-0?

So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?
Was it 8:0? I was reporting what I had read elsewhere, and I linked the actual decision here instead of the article I read. That article said 8:1. Mea culpa.
Last edited by The Annoyed Man on Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

cheezit
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:10 pm
Location: far n fortworh

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#6

Post by cheezit » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:24 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.
Link is now dead.
Google still works.

User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 24019
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#7

Post by The Annoyed Man » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:40 pm

cheezit wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.
Link is now dead.
Google still works.
Hmmm..... did I get duped? Let me do a little research.....
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 24019
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#8

Post by The Annoyed Man » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:44 pm

Here we go.......

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettab ... h-n2343286
The Supreme Court affirmed Monday that terms or phrases deemed to be offensive are still protected as free speech under the First Amendment. The high court unanimously struck down a disparagement provision of federal trademark law in Matal v. Tam, a case in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied an Asian-American rock band a trademark for their name “The Slants” because they found the name to be offensive.
The TownHall article points to: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf, which I am still able to pull up.

There's some interesting commentary in the first few paragraphs of page 4.
Last edited by The Annoyed Man on Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4568
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#9

Post by Jusme » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:50 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
cheezit wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.
Link is now dead.
Google still works.
Hmmm..... did I get duped? Let me do a little research.....

This decision came down in June. Not that MSM reported on it, but they are dredging it back up to try and criticize the POTUS. Looking through some of the links, our great friend Piers Morgan thinks there should be exceptions for Nazis. That should tell you everything you need to know about who is opposed. They couldn't report that even their progressive justices voted the same way as the "alt right" ones did. They are only now bringing it up to try and throw dispersions on the Constitution.
They are now calling it a precedence, despite the history, of SCOTUS rulings, for the past hundred years or so including ruling against Macarthy in the 50s.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#10

Post by ninjabread » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:01 pm

Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 24019
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#11

Post by The Annoyed Man » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:05 pm

Jusme wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
cheezit wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.
Link is now dead.
Google still works.
Hmmm..... did I get duped? Let me do a little research.....

This decision came down in June. Not that MSM reported on it, but they are dredging it back up to try and criticize the POTUS. Looking through some of the links, our great friend Piers Morgan thinks there should be exceptions for Nazis. That should tell you everything you need to know about who is opposed. They couldn't report that even their progressive justices voted the same way as the "alt right" ones did. They are only now bringing it up to try and throw dispersions on the Constitution.
They are now calling it a precedence, despite the history, of SCOTUS rulings, for the past hundred years or so including ruling against Macarthy in the 50s.
To anyone who argues that this is a "first" for a 1st Amendment ruling, I'd ask them how it is then that you can walk into any XXX store in the land and buy/rent media materials that objectify women, lesbians, gays, [insert race here], rape, bondage, etc., and then tell you how it is that offensive speech isn't covered by the Constitution.

You're right that the ruling was in June, and we have the mainstream Democrat Steno Pool (AKA "the media") to thank for not knowing about it sooner I suppose.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 24019
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#12

Post by The Annoyed Man » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:06 pm

ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?
I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#13

Post by ninjabread » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:25 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?
I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.
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.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 24019
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#14

Post by The Annoyed Man » Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:44 pm

ninjabread wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?
I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.
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.
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.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

Deltaboy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Johnson County TX

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#15

Post by Deltaboy » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:00 pm

Good job by the Court!
I 'm just an Ole Sinner saved by Grace and Smith & Wesson.

Post Reply

Return to “Federal”