If you had a site that hosted rioters and conspirators and a number of rioters were caught and the evidence pointed to a site. Would you limit the warrant to only the people you caught or would you want it broad enough to identify the conspirators that were not caught? The point is to find the conspirators that are not the ~200 rioters.
If you had a server hosting any other illegal content I would imagine any warrant would be broad and have it all list all users, visitors, and information related to the investigation. Why would you limit the warrant to be the few perpetrators already in custody that spilled the beans that led you to the site to begin with? If you go through the trouble of getting a warrant, you make sure you can find all the information you want because of the trouble required to get it.
"I am going to kill your family at 123 abc str. Your City, State"
is something that a reasonable person would think as a legitimate threat and requires action to defend myself and family.
" everyone go to 123 abc str. your city, state becuase he is X"
is incitement for others that a reasonable person would think as a legitimate threat and requires action to defend myself and family.
"i hate X Race"
does not cause damage by itself. It requires an action following the statement to cause damage.
You are absurdly retarded if you think there is any equivalence.
When is the right to speak that isn't damaging (in and of itself) or threatening ever to be restricted? You have a nice little straw village flooded in gasoline for a dumb cupcake like you to burn.
Here's the thing cupcake. I do think freedom of speech is inalienable even with the limitations you mention. Recognizing that slander, libel, and incitement are nto the same as political speech is a simple enough distinction that everyone agrees with.
Yet, even the ACLU disagrees with you. So either the ACLU and everyone you disagree with is a nazi apologist or you are full of shit. I wonder what would have happened if antifa ignored them. I bet no one would have died or had been injured just like all the other nazi/white supremacists rally's in the past. When you antagonize for violence don't be shocked someone punches back.
But a cupcake like you has warped any sense of liberty. You are the monster you hate.
I must have missed where that was happening because everything I have seen showed that they were peaceful until antifa showed up. care to show me where that occured before antifa showed up.
also the point still stands that the court has rejected restricted any form of hate speech.
No, it isn't. There is no such thing as hate speech only free speech. Every court decision has protect speech and rejected any attempt to outlaw hate speech.
Or it means the people chanting "anti-white" or the twitters advocating white genocide. At some point you have to denounce hatred where ever it comes from.
Because racists, neo-nazi's have always been around and only recently when it became fashionable to hate white people or straight people did their numbers and violence grow.
Why is it recently that neo-nazi protests started getting violent? They have been around for years, yet, only recently have violence occurred to such a degree and it just so happens to coincide with groups like antifa, BAMN, and blm. Why is it violence always occurs whenever antifa or BAMN show up?
When you allow hatred toward a race, go figure that race creates a movement to defend it from perceived injustice.
Are opinions that dangerous? Do we need to censor every opinion that googles deems dangerous? Apparently, a corporate friendly version of reality with only approved sponsored good-think is the future.
Maybe I need to read their website to see what is so dangerous. I always thought they were idiots and racists but if they are taken this seriously by so many maybe they have some truth that is dangerous to those that are afraid of them speaking.
We are a society. Government, people, corporations are all participants of society and if we as a society value things like freedom then it is the duty and responsibility of every member of society to protect freedom even if you disagree. When large segments of the population and society advocate censorship governments won't be far behind. See the ACLU civil suit to the Charlottesville revoking their permit to assemble.
From yours and others comments we should hand all power to corporations to create a slave state because at least it isn't the government's boot I have to lick.
I must have missed the camps. Maybe if I concentrate hard enough I will remember. Ann Frankly, I think you are offensive for even implying that I am apart of that lot. I did notzi the problem with anything I wrote that had any apologetic except for inalienable rights every citizen has. Furher more, the more you conflate the meaning of nazi the more you water down its meaning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
BTW, i don't cast my self with any lot. If you have a bone to pick with me... Take a number and good luck.
I sited a different example than the popular one that I think you are eluding to. There are 2 examples for discrimination and protected class in Colorado dealing with cakes and gay marriage as a political issue.
The first one, is the one you are talking about that, yes, the couple used their religious belief to inform corporate policy that was against the law in Colorado that sexual orientation is a protected class.
The second one is the one I linked. A baker refused service to a christian couple because they wanted a cake with bible verses (admittedly anti-gay verses). However, the Colorado law didn't specify religion so the courts ruled in favor of the baker but they ignore the federal law which lists religion as a protected class for public accommodations. There are civil suits in the works contesting that court decision.
Sometimes, violence is needed. At least the next time anyone wants to "counter protest" they remember the crack on their skull the last time they thought it fashionable to "bash the fash" or "punch a nazi".
Care to point it out. I was agreeing with OP "Hate speech is free speech" except that legally, hate speech doesn't exist as it is a distinction without difference.
Slashdot Mirror
If you had a site that hosted rioters and conspirators and a number of rioters were caught and the evidence pointed to a site. Would you limit the warrant to only the people you caught or would you want it broad enough to identify the conspirators that were not caught? The point is to find the conspirators that are not the ~200 rioters.
If you had a server hosting any other illegal content I would imagine any warrant would be broad and have it all list all users, visitors, and information related to the investigation. Why would you limit the warrant to be the few perpetrators already in custody that spilled the beans that led you to the site to begin with? If you go through the trouble of getting a warrant, you make sure you can find all the information you want because of the trouble required to get it.
"you're a pedophile."
that statement alone can cause damage by itself.
"I am going to kill your family at 123 abc str. Your City, State"
is something that a reasonable person would think as a legitimate threat and requires action to defend myself and family.
" everyone go to 123 abc str. your city, state becuase he is X"
is incitement for others that a reasonable person would think as a legitimate threat and requires action to defend myself and family.
"i hate X Race"
does not cause damage by itself. It requires an action following the statement to cause damage.
You are absurdly retarded if you think there is any equivalence.
When is the right to speak that isn't damaging (in and of itself) or threatening ever to be restricted? You have a nice little straw village flooded in gasoline for a dumb cupcake like you to burn.
Did we legitimize Mahmud Ahmadinejad or his views when we let him speak?
https://www.rferl.org/a/107877...
Here's the thing cupcake. I do think freedom of speech is inalienable even with the limitations you mention. Recognizing that slander, libel, and incitement are nto the same as political speech is a simple enough distinction that everyone agrees with.
Yet, even the ACLU disagrees with you. So either the ACLU and everyone you disagree with is a nazi apologist or you are full of shit. I wonder what would have happened if antifa ignored them. I bet no one would have died or had been injured just like all the other nazi/white supremacists rally's in the past. When you antagonize for violence don't be shocked someone punches back.
But a cupcake like you has warped any sense of liberty. You are the monster you hate.
me too. I think if more people had ignored the nazi white supremacists they would be left to obscurity like before.
I must have missed where that was happening because everything I have seen showed that they were peaceful until antifa showed up. care to show me where that occured before antifa showed up.
also the point still stands that the court has rejected restricted any form of hate speech.
You are very wrong.
https://www.thoughtco.com/hate...
Who would have thought...
No, it isn't. There is no such thing as hate speech only free speech. Every court decision has protect speech and rejected any attempt to outlaw hate speech.
I'm kind of live and let live.
You are two decades behind the times. http://www.berkeleyside.com/20...
Or it means the people chanting "anti-white" or the twitters advocating white genocide. At some point you have to denounce hatred where ever it comes from.
Because racists, neo-nazi's have always been around and only recently when it became fashionable to hate white people or straight people did their numbers and violence grow.
Why is it recently that neo-nazi protests started getting violent? They have been around for years, yet, only recently have violence occurred to such a degree and it just so happens to coincide with groups like antifa, BAMN, and blm. Why is it violence always occurs whenever antifa or BAMN show up?
When you allow hatred toward a race, go figure that race creates a movement to defend it from perceived injustice.
There have been BLM marches that chant for violence and dead cops... How is that not evil?
Are opinions that dangerous? Do we need to censor every opinion that googles deems dangerous? Apparently, a corporate friendly version of reality with only approved sponsored good-think is the future.
Maybe I need to read their website to see what is so dangerous. I always thought they were idiots and racists but if they are taken this seriously by so many maybe they have some truth that is dangerous to those that are afraid of them speaking.
Yes, it is. There is no such thing as hate speech only free speech. Every court case tried has failed and has always upheld free speech.
And a few can act on what they consider those things to be. Do you want an age of corporate approved thought?
We are a society. Government, people, corporations are all participants of society and if we as a society value things like freedom then it is the duty and responsibility of every member of society to protect freedom even if you disagree. When large segments of the population and society advocate censorship governments won't be far behind. See the ACLU civil suit to the Charlottesville revoking their permit to assemble.
From yours and others comments we should hand all power to corporations to create a slave state because at least it isn't the government's boot I have to lick.
I must have missed the camps. Maybe if I concentrate hard enough I will remember. Ann Frankly, I think you are offensive for even implying that I am apart of that lot. I did notzi the problem with anything I wrote that had any apologetic except for inalienable rights every citizen has. Furher more, the more you conflate the meaning of nazi the more you water down its meaning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
BTW, i don't cast my self with any lot. If you have a bone to pick with me... Take a number and good luck.
I sited a different example than the popular one that I think you are eluding to. There are 2 examples for discrimination and protected class in Colorado dealing with cakes and gay marriage as a political issue.
The first one, is the one you are talking about that, yes, the couple used their religious belief to inform corporate policy that was against the law in Colorado that sexual orientation is a protected class.
The second one is the one I linked. A baker refused service to a christian couple because they wanted a cake with bible verses (admittedly anti-gay verses). However, the Colorado law didn't specify religion so the courts ruled in favor of the baker but they ignore the federal law which lists religion as a protected class for public accommodations. There are civil suits in the works contesting that court decision.
We just need a big rock to put into the caldera to plug it up. Oh, and a big 'mission accomplished' sign then we know issue is over.
lol, just wow.
We need a final solution to nazi's and nazi apolgists. amirite? You are the monster you hate.
Sometimes, violence is needed. At least the next time anyone wants to "counter protest" they remember the crack on their skull the last time they thought it fashionable to "bash the fash" or "punch a nazi".
Care to point it out. I was agreeing with OP "Hate speech is free speech" except that legally, hate speech doesn't exist as it is a distinction without difference.
From what I gather ITT, nazi's don't deserve the ability to call emergency services.
I would hope then that their enforcement to the ToS is unified and unbiased because I have seen too much accepted racism of a particular group.