TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of speech these days focusing hate on the individuals and ideals that laid the groundwork for the society we live it. I agree that laws are not the answer, but effective communication and education are in order. Every time those who "know what's good for us" attacks time-proven society-affirming ideals and values in the name of progressivism a rebuttal should be forthcoming.

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.

With Gorusch declining to participate, wouldn't that make the rule 8-0?

So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?

bblhd672 wrote:So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?

Trumps fault. Clearly. or Bush.

bblhd672 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.

With Gorusch declining to participate, wouldn't that make the rule 8-0?

So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?

Was it 8:0? I was reporting what I had read elsewhere, and I linked the actual decision here instead of the article I read. That article said 8:1. Mea culpa.

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.

Link is now dead.
Google still works.

cheezit wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.

Link is now dead.
Google still works.

Hmmm..... did I get duped? Let me do a little research.....

Here we go.......

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettab ... h-n2343286

The Supreme Court affirmed Monday that terms or phrases deemed to be offensive are still protected as free speech under the First Amendment. The high court unanimously struck down a disparagement provision of federal trademark law in Matal v. Tam, a case in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied an Asian-American rock band a trademark for their name “The Slants” because they found the name to be offensive.

The TownHall article points to: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf, which I am still able to pull up.

There's some interesting commentary in the first few paragraphs of page 4.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

cheezit wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.

Link is now dead.
Google still works.

Hmmm..... did I get duped? Let me do a little research.....

This decision came down in June. Not that MSM reported on it, but they are dredging it back up to try and criticize the POTUS. Looking through some of the links, our great friend Piers Morgan thinks there should be exceptions for Nazis. That should tell you everything you need to know about who is opposed. They couldn't report that even their progressive justices voted the same way as the "alt right" ones did. They are only now bringing it up to try and throw dispersions on the Constitution.
They are now calling it a precedence, despite the history, of SCOTUS rulings, for the past hundred years or so including ruling against Macarthy in the 50s.

Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?

Jusme wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

cheezit wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

The decision was 8:1 in favor. True hate speech is a problem, but it isn't one that needs the intervention of law enforcement.

Link is now dead.
Google still works.

Hmmm..... did I get duped? Let me do a little research.....

This decision came down in June. Not that MSM reported on it, but they are dredging it back up to try and criticize the POTUS. Looking through some of the links, our great friend Piers Morgan thinks there should be exceptions for Nazis. That should tell you everything you need to know about who is opposed. They couldn't report that even their progressive justices voted the same way as the "alt right" ones did. They are only now bringing it up to try and throw dispersions on the Constitution.
They are now calling it a precedence, despite the history, of SCOTUS rulings, for the past hundred years or so including ruling against Macarthy in the 50s.

To anyone who argues that this is a "first" for a 1st Amendment ruling, I'd ask them how it is then that you can walk into any XXX store in the land and buy/rent media materials that objectify women, lesbians, gays, [insert race here], rape, bondage, etc., and then tell you how it is that offensive speech isn't covered by the Constitution.

You're right that the ruling was in June, and we have the mainstream Democrat Steno Pool (AKA "the media") to thank for not knowing about it sooner I suppose.

ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?

I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?

I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.

That would fit with the Left's ideology. It would be wrong, in their eyes, to prosecute BLM for inciting violence against police. However, it's right up their alley to infringe the RKBA by making some good ol' boy ineligible for an LTC because he used a four letter word for feces.

ninjabread wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?

I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.

That would fit with the Left's ideology. It would be wrong, in their eyes, to prosecute BLM for inciting violence against police. However, it's right up their alley to infringe the RKBA by making some good ol' boy ineligible for an LTC because he used a four letter word for feces.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just honestly don't know if profanity is considered protected speech or not. It's a fair question, but I'll have to defer to someone who actually knows.

Good job by the Court!