US Politics Thread, 2.0

[erichkknaar]

oh my

Needs Captains Hat for the ultimate Joepedo smug.

[evil edna]

Joepedo really doesnt have the best ring to it especially after the kids hair sniffing

[Jack Coutu]

If Biden had a beard he'd finally give me free healthcare.

[Armyofme]

oh my

Needs Captains Hat for the ultimate Joepedo smug.

All men should have beard. It should be a f'in law

[Keckers]

Only if they have a full beard. Nothing sadder than someone persevering with a wispy pube face

[Corwyna]

oh my

Needs Captains Hat for the ultimate Joepedo smug.

All men should have beard. It should be a f'in law

Like in some Muslim countries?

[Armyofme]

oh my

Needs Captains Hat for the ultimate Joepedo smug.

All men should have beard. It should be a f'in law

Like in some Muslim countries?

Well, they had to get something right

[Spaztick]

oh my

Needs Captains Hat for the ultimate Joepedo smug.

All men should have beard. It should be a f'in law

Like in some Muslim countries?

Well, they had to get something right

no women drivers too

[Pattern]

Final count. 306 to 232

[Spartan Dax]

Final count. 306 to 232

306.. There's some mighty Karma in that number

[Armyofme]

no women drivers too

good point. Fuck it, im moving there

[Candy Crush]

Richard Stengel, the point man on state-owned media for Joe Biden's transition team, has said protection of hateful speech that can provoke violence is a "design flaw" in the Constitution and should be fixed with "new guardrails."
"All speech is not equal," Stengel wrote last year in an op-ed published by the Washington Post. "And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I'm all for protecting thought that we hate, but not speech that incites hate."

Stengel gave the example of "sophisticated Arab diplomats" who had questioned why constitutional rights would allow a US citizen to burn a copy of the Koran. "It's a fair question," he said. "Yes, the First Amendment protects the thought that we hate, but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw."

Stengel added that it's time to consider hate-speech laws, like those enacted by other countries to discourage incitement of racial and religious tensions after World War II. He argued that mass shooters Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen were consumers of hate speech, which created a climate that made their heinous crimes more likely.

you are in deep trouble

[Keckers]

Hilarious that they are so blind to actual problems caused by the first amendment and instead see this is as a priority. Never change Democrats.

[Stormus]

Hilarious that they are so blind to actual problems caused by the first amendment and instead see this is as a priority. Never change Democrats.

Examples of problems caused by the first amendment?

[Keckers]

The justification of super PACs

[Djan Seriy Anaplian]

Richard Stengel, the point man on state-owned media for Joe Biden's transition team, has said protection of hateful speech that can provoke violence is a "design flaw" in the Constitution and should be fixed with "new guardrails."
"All speech is not equal," Stengel wrote last year in an op-ed published by the Washington Post. "And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I'm all for protecting thought that we hate, but not speech that incites hate."

Stengel gave the example of "sophisticated Arab diplomats" who had questioned why constitutional rights would allow a US citizen to burn a copy of the Koran. "It's a fair question," he said. "Yes, the First Amendment protects the thought that we hate, but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw."

Stengel added that it's time to consider hate-speech laws, like those enacted by other countries to discourage incitement of racial and religious tensions after World War II. He argued that mass shooters Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen were consumers of hate speech, which created a climate that made their heinous crimes more likely.

you are in deep trouble

This is pretty unsettling but he’s not going to get anywhere with it tbh

[Joe Appleby]

I'm lost. What's bad with limiting hate speech?

Especially since it mentions that other countries have such laws.

Tapapapatalk

[Djan Seriy Anaplian]

I'm lost. What's bad with limiting hate speech?

Especially since it mentions that other countries have such laws.

Tapapapatalk

When you’re dealing with very reactionary groups of people it’s not a great idea to have inciting hatred as the legal threshold for criminalising freedom of expression.

[Candy Crush]

I'm lost. What's bad with limiting hate speech?

Especially since it mentions that other countries have such laws.

Tapapapatalk

Leave room for abuse, where to draw a line between free speech and hate speech?
In Scotland they are proposing a law which would allow prosecution for "Hate speech" inside your own home. So for instance, if over dinner with guests you said you did not believe that trans-women are real women, then you could be prosecuted and jailed for up to 7 years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland...itics-53580326

But, in the US, the First Amendment should prevent drastic "Hate Speech" legislation. Also, Biden does not have a majority in the Senate.

[Jack Coutu]

So saying "you are in trouble" doesn't actually make any sense at all then does it?