Free Speech

REMINDER - THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HATE SPEECH IN THE U.S.
>Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

(19 Jun 2017)

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”


A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

(Justice Neil Gorsuch wasn’t on the court when the case was argued, so only eight justices participated.)

Attached: op is still a faggot.png (480x320, 243.99K)

Other urls found in this thread:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
alignable.com/aledo-tx/coulson-and-associates
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The Ruling

Attached: freeze peach 2.png (704x684 163.05 KB, 211.33K)

This is what fucking shitholes like twitter are doing - "If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of free any free speech that may lead to political or social "volatility," free speech would be endangered.

Tell that to Trumpniggers

Attached: 11388790-6844289-image-a-19_1553429394451.jpg (634x423, 96.31K)

JUSTICE THOMAS
“I continue to believe that when the government seeks to restrict truthful speech in order to suppress the ideas it conveys, strict scrutiny is appropriate, whether or not the speech in question may be characterized as ‘commercial.’”

JUSTICE ALITO

supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

Chances are those dumbasses don't even know what she said. All they do is say that she's a bad person because she said something that triggered the jews, and not actually say what triggered the jews & debate whether it's true or not.

JUSTICE KENNEDY

...

Attached: rechargeable speaker.png (1315x801 664.92 KB, 206.91K)

Attached: gooseneck.png (1308x675, 166.05K)

go to your local store and say loud "hitler was bed but i thing nazis is good ideology" tell me results of free speech

Then why is there a federal "hate" "crime" law ?

I'm starting to respect USA more and more lately.

Duh. Pleasant speech has never needed protecting. "Hate" speech has only ever needed protection.

Only because kikes monopolise speech with their media, so we wouldnt cut them out.

There is nothing to respect because laws are bent and you will be harassed by the local ZOGbot cops even though a ruling like this came out. There shouldn't even need to be a ruling in the first place. When you're white, the odds are always stacked against you. Especially when the judge and jury are full of niggers and women on their iphones.

That's why there is no more legal or political solution. We are not exempt from nature. Only violence earns respect and the side who comes out on top writes history.

Free speech is absolute in all forms


@dannyocoulson
alignable.com/aledo-tx/coulson-and-associates

My local "ZOGbot" cop literally had a shirt on condoning slavery when I first met him, so no. Go outside more, faggot.

Arent they hate crime enhancements?
Protected speech.
Hate crime felony assault.

Hate speech is a construct to protect those who are promoted to subvert white people and Western culture. Rarely is it ever used to protect white people from hate directed at them from other races.

Just because someone might chimp out on you doesn't mean what you've done is illegal

You can't fault the lemmings for noticing the hypocrisy and trying to apply the same pressure on liberals. It's too bad they're lemmings though; maybe they'd recognize Jewish influence for the problem that it represents for a sovereign nation.

Attached: Jews.png (540x300, 260.09K)

nigga nigga
nigga nigga
coon coon
spic

"hate speech" is Orwellian thought crime.
You've either got full freedom of speech, or you don't.

Most of the people complaining about hate speech don't believe in free speech either. It is just now someone has used this against them.
You can complain about not having the power to censor people the way you like, but the phoney indignation is just sour grapes.

You know in relation to this I saw bunch of boys on half chan the other day talking about a march on Washington on August 28th
Might be a half decent chance to either
A. Get the movement some press
or
B. have them crack down on us and get some good accelerationism

Attached: 1553693288431.png (563x768, 447.46K)

Ēosturmōnaþ begins tonight, Anons !

jeezus niggas needs ta git they shids togeva an maig a bermanend bred

If there's no such thing as hate speech then I should be allowed to have sex with other people's farm animals. They're both covered under the first amendment. Freedom of speech and freedom to exercise beliefs.
The only real difference is that hate speech is speaking against our Constitutional rights which means the people who speak against rights are not valid in their own rights.

Would guess you would get about 7-8 bullet holes after your first try degenerate.

That's a crime of conspiracy against my rights and the USA. I won't tolerate treats from communism.

So when will kikes and niggers calling for white extinction be prosecuted?

Bullets are their property too. It is against the Constitution and I am not at liberty to take people's bullets against my rights to take them. I will not tolerate communists forcing theft on my liberties to exercise my rights to assemble with farm animals.

The origin of Free Speech, as codified in Magna Carta, specifically allows for the use of insulting and threatening language towards anyone, specifically mentioning the King. This included threatening violence and death upon him. It doesn't get any more 'hateful' than that, and that is what 'free speech' was originally for. As such we must conclude that 'hate speech' is not only permissible, but that it was the main purpose of law enshrining freedom of speech.