Quote:
Originally Posted by JWBear
I have no problems (and fully support) hate speech laws. They are intended to increase to punishment for violent crimes that are the result of prejudice, bigotry, and hate. These laws do not apply in Ms Coulters case – she did not commit an act of physical violence.
I have a problem punishing motives and mindsets of any kind even if fully understood. And find people who would dangerous
Yes.
As seen by the gleeful tirade against Colter if we were to plug in a name of someone you completely disagree with targeting another group I wonder if your reaction would be the same
Ad hominem? Hardly. To reply to a nasty and inappropriate remark by condemning said remark is not an ad hominem attack.
WB attacked her looks is that germane to the issue at hand or acceptable to you during other political discourse?
And yes, I would react the same way if any other public figure made a remark of that type.
Fair Enough.
Yes.
Doesn't take much more justification to bring governmental power to bear in silencing speech.
No.
well if a mob starts forming or a sufficiency of punishment sub committee is ever put together I hope that they are as generous as you would be
I’m not trying to cast a shadow on you – just trying to interpret your post as best I can. You seem to be (to me, at least) defending her actions; as if you agreed with her and believe there was nothing wrong with what she said. If this is not what you meant, I apologize.
|
You use the phrase "her actions" and tone of the thought police. I am defending her right to "her free speech" and others their right to make their own conclusions
If this is not what you meant, I apologize.