Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U...
by orf on Friday June 01, 2018 @07:51PM
(#17211574)
> So it’s better to not empower the government to decide what is hate and what isn’t
The government cannot just arbitrarily expand hate speech to include something which is patently not hate speech. The courts would not uphold it, neither would the judiciary or the public at large.
Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U...
by abstrakraft on Friday June 01, 2018 @08:20PM
(#17211712)
10 years ago, I would have argued the same about the gov't just arbitrarily expanding asset seizure laws, but here we are.
Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U...
by stordoff on Friday June 01, 2018 @08:28PM
(#17211759)
If they made it law (which strictly speaking requires parliament, not the government), the courts _would_ uphold it.
Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U...
by steve_musk on Friday June 01, 2018 @08:44PM
(#17211843)
Unless you get an extreme president who stacks the courts with extreme judges...
[0] “As we have seen, during the days of slavery and later segregation, laws suppressing free speech were often aimed at abolitionists and civil rights advocates, not at slave owners or Jim Crow advocates. This reflected social and political power in local states and communities where attitudes towards race were very different than today.“ https://www.hoover.org/research/harm-hate-speech-laws