Attack on the First Amendment

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They are not confused. You are confused. By your definition, a person speaking out in Saudi Arabia shouldn't be surprised by getting his head cut off, paraphrasing, as a "consequence he receives for speaking out."

What a remarkably ridiculous attempt at a comparison. Let's keep to the subject at hand, which is a town passing a resolution - not a law - encouraging manners and lack of hate speech.

THERE IS NO REMOVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THERE IS NOTHING THAT PREVENTS ANYBODY FROM CONTINUING ANY HATE SPEECH THEY WANT. THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES TO ANY SPEECH PUT IN PLACE HERE.

Pretending there is, is simply false. Comparing this to murder by a militant group in another country is beyond ridiculous and absurd.

And thinking that somebody in Saudi Arabia (using that country as an example) "gets their head cut off" shows a sad, unbelievably ignorant knowledge of what specific foreign countries are like.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

And thinking that somebody in Saudi Arabia (using that country as an example) "gets their head cut off" shows a sad, unbelievably ignorant knowledge of what specific foreign countries are like.

OK, I should have said that the person would get stoned to death. Sorry.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, I should have said that the person would get stoned to death. Sorry.

Get a grip. A town passed a resolution encouraging no hate speech. Some think a society encouraging no hate speech - and no hate murders like Trayvon Williams - is a good thing.

Don't worry - your fear that one's ability to spew hate speech, and racist and sexist slurs, will be taken away isn't impinged one iota by this resolution.

Calling that resolution an "attack on the first amendment" is ridiculous and false.