- 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
0
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:16 am to Smeg
quote:
Now that she's been called out she's trying to say "oh, I meant hate speech that includes threats of violence"
I care about what she does, not really what she says or feels, especially if she corrects it right away when she messes up.
Don’t get distracted.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Is it?
Really?
Incitement is protected?
100 percent yes
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:21 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
They are Nazis and we must kill the Nazis” is not.
Wrong. No law means no law. The founders obviously knew threats existed and still worded it the way they worded it. No law, don't make it more complicated than it is than it is
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:22 am to Radio One
Does she actually DO anything?
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:24 am to Radio One
We need to destroy the very concept of hate speech as an exception to the 1st Amendment.
This post was edited on 9/16/25 at 8:25 am
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:27 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Hate speech is not protected when it incites lawless actions
This is the literal leftist talking point on "hate speech"
This is LITERALLY how the UK enforces their draconian regulation on speech
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:27 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
This is the shite that led to the Brits not being able to speak out against immigration without being arrested.
Correct
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:39 am to Henry Jones Jr
you're not wrong
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:41 am to TigerCoon
quote:
Threats and speech to incite violence are NOT protected.
Even calls to violence are protected unless specific and imminently actionable. Brandenburg v. Ohio and Hess v. Indiana. The first amendment doesn't prevent your employer from firing your arse for nasty posts, but Bondi looks like an idiot with these tweets.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:41 am to Radio One
quote:
clean up the mess
What mess? Would it be better for you if she called it "threats of violence" instead? Same difference, it's still a crime.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:41 am to Radio One
quote:
You didn’t hear? She announced yesterday that she’s cracking down on HATE SPEECH.
That’s my thought truly is scary because that’s the UK model. Stick to threats or inciting violence.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:43 am to TBoy
quote:
Did she actually post that doxing is a federal crime?
What doxing is: distributing someone's personal information that is not publicly available
What doxing is not: sharing your words and information that you publicly shared with the world on social media
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:44 am to Radio One
"Hate speech" is a term invented by the Leftists, so, by using their term, Bondi has limped into the fight rather than marched into the fight.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:44 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
That’s my thought truly is scary because that’s the UK model. Stick to threats or inciting violence.
No, stick to the constitution which says no law.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:45 am to Radio One
I don’t know if this will or won’t remedy her statement, but she’s a liability to this admin and needs to go.
This post was edited on 9/16/25 at 8:46 am
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:45 am to Ingeniero
so,
1) "I'm gonna kill that person" is a threat.
2) "somebody should kill that person" isn't a threat, but it's inciting violence.
2 is protected?
1) "I'm gonna kill that person" is a threat.
2) "somebody should kill that person" isn't a threat, but it's inciting violence.
2 is protected?
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:45 am to Radio One
She was never a good pick. The best pick would have been SG Josh Divine from Missouri, but he’s a judge now.
A serious, competent, and effective AG replacement would be SG Scott Stewart from MS, but he’s probably not “firebrand” enough
A serious, competent, and effective AG replacement would be SG Scott Stewart from MS, but he’s probably not “firebrand” enough
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:47 am to Smeg
quote:
She said "hate speech isn't protected", but it is.
Way to leave out half the quote....
quote:
Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.
This post was edited on 9/16/25 at 8:48 am
Posted on 9/16/25 at 8:51 am to NC_Tigah
Some people don't understand the difference between speech that is based on hate that uses slurs...etc and speech that is a call to action via death threats.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News