- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 41% of college students believe hate speech should NOT be protected by the constitution
Posted on 6/1/19 at 8:29 am to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 6/1/19 at 8:29 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Conservatives are criminalizing peaceful protesting y
Tell us about this
2
Posted on 6/1/19 at 8:31 am to RLDSC FAN
Shocking. Hate speech absolutely has to be protected. Offense is taken, not given. What you may find offensive, I might not. It’s a very individualistic thing. If you start trying to outlaw hate speech, you will have to be very specific. It’s a slippery slope. Next thing you know, any kind of controversial speech about anything or anyone could be labeled hate speech. Even these “Nazis” have that right to free speech. They might be foul pieces of shite, but even they need to be protected. There is a law, however, that says if your speech directly influences harmful acts, you can face criminal charges. That’s fine. But you can’t outlaw certain types of speech.
Posted on 6/1/19 at 1:00 pm to biglego
quote:
Tell us about this
This law allows the government to charge protesters with trespassing, even when they have permission from the landowner to protest there
LINK
quote:
THIS WEEK, THE Louisiana House of Representatives introduced new legislation aimed at criminalizing the activities of groups protesting the extraction, burning, and transport of oil and gas. The bill is similar to a model created by the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council. Indeed, in the wake of the massive protest movement at Standing Rock, which attempted to prevent completion of the Dakota Access pipeline, at least seven states have introduced or passed “critical infrastructure” legislation.
Also
LINK
quote:
Last March, the NLG shared an overview and analysis of the wave of anti-protest legislation sweeping state legislatures across the country. At the time, we were looking at 25 bills proposed in 19 states—all focused on limiting the right to protest or removing liability for harm caused to protesters. One year later, the number of anti-protest bills has reached 58 in 31 states with no end in sight. Nine bills have already been introduced (or-reintroduced) in 2018 alone. Conservative think tanks, private companies, and law enforcement agencies are now openly working with Republican lawmakers to crack down on dissent, chill the right to protest, and increase penalties for demonstrators and the organizations that support them
I’m sure you’ve equivocate on all this as conservatives don’t really care about protecting the first amendment, they care about their political sports team and nothing more.
This post was edited on 6/1/19 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 6/1/19 at 2:26 pm to RLDSC FAN
Bunch of damn snowflakes...
Posted on 6/1/19 at 5:05 pm to biglego
quote:
biglego
Anxiously awaiting your response
Posted on 6/1/19 at 5:10 pm to Draconian Sanctions
The problem with these “protests” is that they turn ugly. Sometimes by happenstance and sometimes it was never planned to be peaceful. You can protest, but you can’t inhibit legal happenings. That is why all those bills have passed. Yes, I’m sure some coporate big wig managed to get some some things thrown in there to protect his pockets, but Democrats and “liberals” do the same shite.
Posted on 6/1/19 at 5:27 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
THIS WEEK, THE Louisiana House of Representatives introduced new legislation aimed at criminalizing the activities of groups protesting the extraction, burning, and transport of oil and gas
Oh you mean the people trying to protest on the BR I10 bridge and the Sunshine Bridge.
Yea that shouldn't be legal
Posted on 6/1/19 at 5:29 pm to Deactived
The bill allows the government to charge you with criminal trespass even when you have permission of he landowner to be there 
Posted on 6/1/19 at 5:29 pm to DeafJam73
quote:
but Democrats and “liberals” do the same shite.
Deflect deflect deflect
Posted on 6/1/19 at 5:31 pm to Deactived
quote:
Oh you mean the people trying to protest on the BR I10 bridge and the Sunshine Bridge.
Yea that shouldn't be legal
We should let them do it at their own risk and not charge anyone that hits them. There are thousands of products made from oil that I guarantee you every one of those idiots uses on a daily basis
Posted on 6/1/19 at 5:39 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:Where are you reading that?
The bill allows the government to charge you with criminal trespass even when you have permission of he landowner to be there
Scruffy doesn’t see that in the article about LA’s legislation.
Scruffy disagrees with the legislation being built on a “conspiracy to protest”, rather than the act itself.
Not a fan of laws directed at punishing acts like this that haven’t happened yet.
Also:
quote:The primary sponsor of LA’s Bill is a Democrat.
In Louisiana, the majority of members of the House — 64 out of 105 — have signed on as sponsors of the critical infrastructure bill. Its primary sponsor, Major Thibault of Pointe Coupee Parish, is a Democrat, as are eight co-sponsors.
Posted on 6/1/19 at 5:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
That's not in the article
This is though
This is though
quote:
In Louisiana, the majority of members of the House — 64 out of 105 — have signed on as sponsors of the critical infrastructure bill. Its primary sponsor, Major Thibault of Pointe Coupee Parish, is a Democrat, as are eight co-sponsors
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:04 pm to Deactived
quote:
Oh you mean the people trying to protest on the BR I10 bridge and the Sunshine Bridge.
Yea that shouldn't be legal
So as long as you agree with the aim of the project, the protest shouldn’t be legal?
This post was edited on 6/1/19 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:08 pm to fallguy_1978
quote:
do it at their own risk and not charge anyone that hits them.
So you want to make manslaughter legal as long as you’re against the protest in question?
This post was edited on 6/1/19 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:09 pm to Scruffy
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:13 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
So you want to make manslaughter legal as long as you’re against the protest in question?
So you're advocating protesters have the right to keep me from traveling to where I wish on a public highway?
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:17 pm to Draconian Sanctions
No. You shouldn't be able to protest on a major interstate's bridge disrupting traffic and commerce
Why you don't get this I have no idea. Oh wait, I do
Why you don't get this I have no idea. Oh wait, I do
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:19 pm to Centinel
If the protest is related to the area the street is on then yes
If not then no
If not then no
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:19 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If the protest is related to the area the street is on then yes
Why are the protester's rights more important than mine?
Posted on 6/1/19 at 6:25 pm to Centinel
quote:
Why are the protester's rights more important than mine?
Street paid for with public funds therefore freedom of speech (protest) must be respected. Reasonable place and time restrictions mean the place must be applicable to the protest. Even if it’s deemed that it isn’t you can detain and release without charging with a crime.
And being allowed to run said protesters over is obviously completely ridiculous
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News