Pro-life “taking a stand” on an Airplane

[upant]

So for the next several days I wait outside Jimmie’s home every morning. When he comes out I follow him down the street yelling over and over “Jimmie’s a liar! Jimmie’s a thief! Jimmie Sample never pays his debts! Jimmie Sample beats his wife! Jimmie’s a stupid, stupid man!” ( Add other insults, including obscene language.)

speech has consequences, even if you are free to say it.
the laws of defamation may apply.
you would not be arrested for saying it but would be subject to the laws of your state for slander.

Freedom of speech under the law means you can’t be prosecuted or punished for what you say unless you commit a breach of the law in how you go about it.

if it works why change it?

Actively encouraging bigotry against and / or advocating maltreatment of a person or group because of their group membership, especially if it’s a group they were born into such as national origin, ethnic origin or gender: or a group defined by their beliefs such as a religion or religious denomination.

bigotry does mean intolerance

so standing in a pulpit claiming homosexuality is a sin and unrepentant sinners will go to hell is hate speech? the preacher is being intoolerant.

is this really hate speech or said out of a concern for the persons eternity

I want it to be illegal to indulge in hate speech. I want the targets of hate speech to have some useful legal recourse.

so the preacher in the pulpit would have to go to jail for teaching his religion.

I leave that to the lawmakers.

like the ones that are bought by the likes of soros or koch?

 

[Zaccheus]

if it works why change it?

Where did I say I wanted to change it?

bigotry does mean intolerance

so standing in a pulpit claiming homosexuality is a sin and unrepentant sinners will go to hell is hate speech? the preacher is being intoolerant.

No. Intolerance is one component of bigotry; but not all intolerance is bigotry. We are fiercely intolerant of child molestation but nobody calls that bigotry.

And no, your example is not hate speech.
Hate speech in that example would be the preacher proclaiming “God hates [inserting insulting term for homosexual people]!” or shrieking 'Burn the [insulting name for homosexuals]!"

so the preacher in the pulpit would have to go to jail for teaching his religion.

Religious persecution is a thing that is.

Zaccheus

I leave that to the lawmakers.

like the ones that are bought by the likes of soros or koch?

The existence of unethical lawmakers does not disprove my point.

 

[Arkansan]

Freedom of speech under the law means you can’t be prosecuted or punished for what you say unless you commit a breach of the law in how you go about it.

By that definition every country on Earth has free speech. North Koreans, for example, are perfectly free to say things that the government of North Korea allows them to say.

 

[ATraveller]

Sweden has been very generous on migration. It has taken in more than any other country in Europe on a per capita basis during the 2015 crisis. So if the man was being deported, the reason had to be very robust.

 

[philipl]

So you are inviting him into your home? Right?

 

[hope]

bigotry does mean intolerance

so standing in a pulpit claiming homosexuality is a sin and unrepentant sinners will go to hell is hate speech? the preacher is being intoolerant.

is this really hate speech or said out of a concern for the persons eternity

Zaccheus:

And no, your example is not hate speech.
Hate speech in that example would be the preacher proclaiming “God hates [inserting insulting term for homosexual people]!” or shrieking 'Burn the [insulting name for homosexuals]!"

You say it is not hate speech but Canada does.

 

[Zaccheus]

By that definition every country on Earth has free speech. North Koreans, for example, are perfectly free to say things that the government of North Korea allows them to say.

I did not say “unless you say something the government forbids.” I said "unless you break a law in how you go about it:.

For the sake of clarity I will rephrase that.
“Unless you break a law that forbids something other than saying what you think.”

Examples: defamation or slander. Breach of the peace (because you run around screaming in a public place). Using your freedom of speech to advocate murder. That kind of thing.

 

[Zaccheus]

so standing in a pulpit claiming homosexuality is a sin and unrepentant sinners will go to hell is hate speech? the preacher is being intoolerant.

You say it is not hate speech but Canada does.

I’m not personally responsible for the law in Canada. My statement stands.
Also: source? Where does it say that in Canadian law?

 

[Arkansan]

“Hate speech”, advocating for murder, and the like, all fall under “saying what you think”.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I use the example given by Christ in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I keep on hand the places who are equipped to house, clothe, feed, people and I make donations to those places. When I encounter someone in need, I make arrangements for that person to be served by the agency who is equipped, just like Jesus taught. The Good Samaritan did not run a background check, he simply got the suffering man to a place where there would be compassion.

What is commendable is for a young person to have the compassion for a stranger.

 

[hope]

I have already given you links of prosecutions.

 

[upant]

No. Intolerance is one component of bigotry; but not all intolerance is bigotry. We are fiercely intolerant of child molestation but nobody calls that bigotry.

it is the component used to go after religious organizations.

And no, your example is not hate speech.
Hate speech in that example would be the preacher proclaiming “God hates [inserting insulting term for homosexual people]!” or shrieking 'Burn the [insulting name for homosexuals]!"

better check with SPLC, how many christian leaders does it give negative press on for being anti-something. SPLC is being used by several tech companies to police content

Religious persecution is a thing that is.

why isn’t hate statements about christian groups hate speech? some of it is downright disgusting. why doesn’t SPLC track anti-christian groups?

The existence of unethical lawmakers does not disprove my point.

agendas push decisions, I don’t want politicians being arbitrators on what is hate speech. christians will lose.

 

[upant]

What is commendable is for a young person to have the compassion for a stranger.

i think many miss the point that he was in legal custody: this is not an injured person on the side of the road, this is not a stranger, this is not a sojourner.

the bible and catholic church claim God gave authority to the government to do its job. let them do it. change the laws if you don’t agree with them.

 

[exnihilo]

Sweden is dead since this is what people think is a noble act.

 

[Zaccheus]

“Hate speech”, advocating for murder, and the like, all fall under “saying what you think”.

And a man beating his wife falls under ‘having a family quarrel’. He’s still guilty of a crime.

 

[CatholicSpirit]

A man who is not arrested for a crime often proves that there is lacking evidence as to whether or not a crime was committed.

An offensive thing to say about our example “person” is to walk down the street and say, “that man was beaten by his wife on a regular basis.” Yet, society does not approve of the alleged domestic violences against a husband as easily.

Though, it is an equally offensive remark to some.

Back to the article:

The female here was a prior employee of the system and did not feel as though due process was in place. If she is interviewed she might explain her decision to behave dismissively towards the allegations presented.

Political issues which are “hot button” are typically used around elections. The person sitting in Sweden’s immigration enforcement may run for President and this man’s statistic could have been crucial. Or perhaps a business person who is seeking leverage in the US market?

As a Christian, I stand by her.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

Yay, let’s praise the wife-beater! Those pesky republicans are so immoral to not allow criminals into the country. Shame on them!

 

[TheOldColonel]

I remember the days when you could stand on an airplane, have a smoke and chit-chat with the stewardesses. In those days, a man wouldn’t think of flying without a jacket, tie and a pack of Lucky Strikes.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[TheOldColonel]

The good news is that nobody panicked.

 

[CatholicSpirit]

I’m not sure Republicans exist in Sweden, and Benjamin Franklin did not endorse parties, he endorsed a Republic. Good luck learning the difference.

I’d also like to know how you interpret George Washington’s Farewell Address, the part where he said “you are Americans first.” Does the prison system represent that, and a company setting up a visa for a foreign worker at the same time… does that also seem morally sound?