Calling it "hate speech" is infringing on the first and setting the guy up for expensive harassment. First they came for the clowns, wait, that's not how it goes. _XC
Um, other people calling it hate speech doesn't infringe on his first amendment rights. Not remotely. Not in any way, in any universe. And you know this. You can be quite the 'Constitutional Scholar' when you want to be. Burying your head in the sand on this point only to defend bigoted speech seems a little odd to me to say the least. I'll let you sort that out though...
Um, when the usual grievance suspects start bleating about "hate speech" and "fighting words" you know the next thing they'll do is organize social (which is fine) and political (which is not) pressure to stop the speech. They'll pass ordinances - we have one in Cary, NC which prohibits political signs greater than a certain size. I'm not a slippery slope guy, but this movie has already been screened. -XC PS - I think about 99% of what comes out of the mouth of the "civil right establishment" is bigoted and don't care. So I really don't care what some guy who thinks it's a good idea to hang a chair on his front lawn does. I probably wouldn't care if he burned a stuffed bunny. (Manga joke) PPS - Don't be the second guy to call me a bigot today, please. I promise you I've hired more people of color, and more importantly more people of low status, than almost anyone you'll ever meet. Because I just don't care.
The chair is a metaphor for Obama. In the south, they used to hang black people 'who didn't know their place' from trees to keep other black people in their place (subservient to whites). Hanging the chair from a tree is nothing but a metaphor for hanging Obama from a tree because he is a black man who has moved beyond his station and needs to be put back in line. It is a vile and hateful metaphor which uses imagery from some of the darkest most shameful times in our republic. Opposing this speech is something that I would think any decent not racist person would do. Suggesting that opposing this kind of speech is infringement is something a racist would do. I have read nothing about any legal penalty that this man has faced for his hateful speech. If he faced a legal penalty I would hope that any american concerned with the our constitutional right to free speech would take the position that such legal action was contrary to his rights and petition the government to back down. You care enough about the guy to say "Calling it "hate speech" is infringing on the first and setting the guy up for expensive harassment." At no point have you suggested that you think the guys metaphor is offensive and hateful. You have however said that speech leveled in opposition to his speech is infringing on his constitutional rights. I only see you defending bigotry and opposing voices that oppose bigotry. Hiring black people to work for you isn't charity, it's just a financial transaction, it doesn't prove one way or the other whether you are a bigot. My grandpa and father did a lot of bushiness with black people, had em over the house, went to the bar with them and both of them were still racist. Your position that opposing hateful speech is infringement upon the speaker sounds like an extra legal defense of bigotry to me.
Why is it the first thing a liberal does to a conservative is accuse him of racism? Unless the conversation is about women in which case we're sexist. Or poor people in which case we're heartless. The best thing about hubski is.... when the "troll-be-gone" button works. WTF, I just realized this was someone I wanted to ignore. -XC
I think Cliff is a racist because he supports the abridgment of peoples first amendment right to oppose hate speech. He never even acknowledged that the speech he wanted to stop was merely speech in opposition to racist hate speech nor that that the racist hate speech was racist. He pretends to be a great lover and defender of the constitution while at the same time muzzling free expression. I don't know what other conclusion to draw from what he has said. Neither his own defense of his racist position and that of newgreens defense of Cliffs not being racist were arguments that were structured toward the matter at hand. Holding racist positions and positions that support the suppression of Americans rights to free speech aren't disproved by being nice to a black person. I embarrassed myself, and apologized and then more clearly stated my arguments on why Cliffs position was a racist position that wasn't consistent with his stated values. In turn he said that I was calling him racist because he is a conservative, called me a troll and ignored me. I understand that it's often more comfortable to ignore criticism when you find that you can't justify your own position and try to put the burden of that discomfort on the other person but I think that type of behavior is also cowardly and intellectually dishonest.
Whatever you say man. I just think it's a little odd that you trumpet the Constitution so much, then turn around and call free speech that is critical of a bigot infringement. I have to confess that your convoluted logic stating that your fear of the government restricting his speech IN THE FUTURE through a new law passed in reaction due to the support of angry protestors means that the speech of his detractors magically qualifies as infringing under the first Amendment in the present....I dunno. Not making sense to me. At all. And I didn't call you a bigot, -it struck me as quite strange I confess. You seem to be taking on position that you fear the government would adopt in response, -labeling perfectly legal and Constitutionally protected speech as something that is not protected and runs afoul of the Constitution.
It's legal to say we should ship all the blacks back to Africa, an action which if taken would totally be contrary to all kinds of rights. It's legal to say the chair hanging racist should face the death penalty for what he is has done, what would be unconstitutional is to execute him for it. I don't think you understand the first amendment or you have a dog in this fight that doesn't care about the constitution.