SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

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

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

JustSomeOldGuy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:49 am

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#16

Post by JustSomeOldGuy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:00 am

RoyGBiv wrote:
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.
or maybe even Reagan :deadhorse:
member of the church of San Gabriel de Possenti
lay brother in the order of St. John Moses Browning
USPSA limited/single stack/revolver

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 12063
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#17

Post by C-dub » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:10 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
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.
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 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


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3440
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#18

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:31 pm

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
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.
or maybe even Reagan :deadhorse:
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.

(written with tongue firmly planted in cheek).
Ding dong, the witch is dead


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#19

Post by ninjabread » Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:19 pm

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.
Maybe the good guys should start rioting so antifa can be charged with disorderly conduct. :evil2:
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


strogg
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:51 pm
Location: DFW (Denton County)

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#20

Post by strogg » Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:28 am

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.
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...

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4139
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#21

Post by Jusme » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:06 am

strogg wrote:
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.
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...

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. :mrgreen:
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 23848
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#22

Post by The Annoyed Man » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:57 am

Jusme wrote:
strogg wrote:
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.
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...
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. :mrgreen:
Perfect answer.
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

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6078
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#23

Post by Pawpaw » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:40 pm

Jusme wrote:
strogg wrote:
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.
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...

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. :mrgreen:
I tell them, "My Momma tried to raise a gentlemen. Unfortunately, she got me instead." :biggrinjester:
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

NRA Benefactor Life Member


android
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS rules "hate speech" constitutionally protected.

#24

Post by android » Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:36 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.
There are numerous, no, NUMEROUS, cases of police being given the middle finger and the courts ruling it is protected free speech.

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.

Post Reply

Return to “Federal”