Yzermandius19

God does not oppose love or marriage God does not think gay's should have any less rights than heterosexuals

where else did they get the idea that there is an authority greater than the state that give us these rights and so the government should not infringe on them? only Christian nations invented that idea and they all credited God as the inspiration for it it's not a coincidence without faith in God, those rights wouldn't be enshrined in any constitutions they are referred to as God given rights for a reason, it is not merely an expression

fair enough

I am arguing in favor constitutional rights the morality of those rights and why banning hate speech it is a bad idea, if your goal is to reduce hate, because it increases hate you are arguing that popularity makes morality, argument ad populum fallacy you are arguing that legality makes morality. appeal to authority fallacy you're getting blown out of the water

it is man who restricted the speech not God God inspired the Charter

god endowed mankind with freedom of expression that includes picketing outside of hospitals if you don't like how people use those rights too bad for you

your arguments are dependent on logical fallacies I already made multiple arguments that are better than anything you have offered yet by several orders of magnitude

no those are different America doesn't have stupid hate speech laws for a reason but child porn and threats of violence are illegal for obvious reasons apples to oranges

like I say kindergarten banning hate speech doesn't end racism it emboldens racists and gives them the moral high ground on the free speech banners it's like you are trying to make racism cool and you are attacking me for thinking that's a bad idea? sad

cry me a river freedom hater

I don't do that to people but others should be free to do so I can claim free speech all I like just watch me

I never take anything you say seriously because you are unable to raise your reasoning above a kindergarten level it's like talking with a five year old

it's not okay but it should be legal not everything that isn't okay has to be banned especially when what you want to ban is protected by a right as important as free speech

to protect free speech from restriction just because some people are offended by the way other use the right that sets a terrible precedent, the government cannot be trusted with that authority they will use that to ban all sorts of speech that shouldn't be banned and often isn't even hate speech just by claiming it is hate speech and they already are doing that

you are really sickening that you want to restrict free speech for no good read far more sickening than those who want to allow hate speech

I'm Italian, I'm well aware anyone can call me a wop anytime whoop dee doo I certainly don't want their free speech rights restricted to prevent that I respect free speech unlike some overly sensitive snowflakes who put their feelings above free speech those who want to restrict free speech are committing a far worse offense than anyone using slurs grow up

yes there is offensive speech is free speech no matter how many people are offended free speech is a right, specifically to protect controversial speech no wants to ban uncontroversial speech, so there is no need for a constitutional right to protect speech everyone likes if you don't get that, you don't understand free speech at all

invoking group rights as justification for restricting individual rights is asking for extra rights for some groups at the expense of more important rights for everyone you can be against something and yet not for it being banned you can be for something and not for it being mandatory smart people know this dumb people don't

women are individuals they have the same rights as other individuals they don't get extra rights for being chicks same goes for other groups one group should not have more rights than other groups

there is no infringements on their rights whatsoever groups don't have rights individuals have rights, regardless of what group they belong to and there is no individual right to never be offended by someone else's speech, whether it is hateful or not this is totally ridiculous grasping at straws to claim their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is imposed upon if someone offends them that is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard, and that is saying something next you'll be invoking "general welfare" to ban speech you don't like what a clown show

none of which is good excuse to restrict free speech rights individual rights > "public morality" negative rights > positive rights fck that french revolution bullshit and the horse it rode in on there is no right to not have to encounter being offended by someone's free speech whether that speech is hate speech or not nor should there be

they said as much in the first line of the Charter it's the first line for a reason it isn't just a throwaway statement

the freedoms of others aren't impeded by others rights to protest at the hospital when they are, that is already illegal no new law required your proposed restrictions are not reasonable

so what? distinction without a difference

God it is in the first line of the Charter rights from God > privileges from governments if rights were mere privileges, there would be no need for a constitution, to protect those rights from government infringement