fox news.
Didn’t they pay 3/4s of a billion dollars for lying on TV?
In a country with first amendment rights, and still settled out of court?
The fundamental function of our government is to ensure the safety of its citizens – those in the Oval Office and Sacramento are fundamentally failing to uphold that sacred duty.
Conservatives have consistently argued against this. The entire small government movement, with Libertarians at its helm and having taken over the Republican party, ideologically limits the government’s coercive power to protection of property rights only, not citizens. The uncritical belief in the right of property and gun ownership necessarily leads to the protection of the citizens, according to conservative ideology, regardless of the real facts.
And it’s contradictory to argue the government must ensure the safety of its citizens while supporting gun proliferation and opposing hate speech laws, both for which the Republican party is renowned. Easy access to guns makes people less safe to themselves, as they’re more likely to kill themselves than use it otherwise. And not understanding what hate speech is, and thus being inherently willing to oppose it from a position of ignorance, lets hateful speech abound as much as guns. And it’s unsurprising when the two mix to catastrophic results.
The fundamental function of our government is to ensure the safety of its citizens
The Canadian government issued a lot of lockdowns during covid. The people who argued against these lockdowns were conservatives. The government was able to keep the lookdowns in place because the Canadian constitution actually does state the government must protect the health and safety of citizens. The government argued that removing the lockdown would go against the constitution. Also, interesting note, the rights of Canadians are ranked. Health and safety is above freedom of assembly, which made the government’s argument even stronger. Conservatives definitely don’t want the government to be legally compelled to protect the health of citizens. It would result in a whole bunch of rules and regulations they wouldn’t like.
The argument being made in the article isn’t genuine. They only want health and safety to be considered a priority in this one instance and nowhere else, because it helps them in this argument, but not in others.
opposing hate speech laws
You mean ignoring the 1st amendment ?
We can get to that, but first we need to start at the beginning: What is hate speech? Would you know it if you heard it?
Why would we need to start with a definition if we don’t agree the government needs to be making laws about it?
I don’t believe in the term as you are using it. The freedom of speech is paramount to a free nation.
We already have laws against speech that compels violence but otherwise people should be free to say what they want.
I don’t believe in the term as you are using it.
What is hate speech to you, then?
opposing hate speech laws
Just like obscenity. You know it when you hear it.
That problem with that approach is its basically your subjective definition of what’s obscene or hateful. I mean, that’s fine usually. When it comes to laws, though, that affect not just you, it’s important to have a definition of it, or to clearly characterize its elements so that one can argue what hate speech is.
Naturally, our country doesn’t have a legal definition of it, so, hate speech doesn’t exist legally.
In contrast, Germany, with its unique history, does have hate speech laws: Section 130 of the German Criminal Code prohibits “Incitement of Masses” (Firefox translated this for me… )
- Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated section 6 (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeded five years or a fine.
This one sounds like something fearful capitalists would implement for Communism lol.
Have you seen me struggle to figure out how to define rule 1?
Civility and related stuff is actually really hard to define. “I know it when I hear it” is valid enough.
And yes, Germany does not have freedom of speech. America does. That’s why America doesn’t have hate speech laws.
Remember, the government defines “hate speech”, it’s whatever the government doesn’t like. It’s not what you think hate speech is.
I mean, look at the UK and how they abuse hate speech laws, it’s a great example of how the idea of free speech and idea of outlawing hate speech are incompatible.
And McCarthy was about those with security clearance. Allegiance to hostile nations is still something that’s looked for.
How do you define it? Germany has laws around their socialist past. Should America have laws against socialism and democrats since that is where the Nazis got their ideas?
Those so-called “nonviolent” crimes include rape, hostage-taking, human trafficking, domestic violence and much more.
This is a blatant lie. From the actual proposition itself:
Examples of violent felonies include murder, robbery, and rape.
FOX could make their points without blatant lying, but that wouldn’t get you as worked up, so they choose to lie
