"As for the "hate" speech part of your reply, while not on topic, I'll still take a stab at it.
1st - The term "hate speech" is one with absolutely no legal meaning. "
Never said it had legal meaning. My definition of "hate speech" is speech that is intended to invoke a violent reaction, and I believe the only time I used the phrase in that post was in reference to the girl who was convicted of causing her boyfriend to commit suicide. That, to me, is speech that was used to provoke someone to commit violence - in this case, self-inflicted violence. Do you believe that people have a constitutionally protected right to convince others to kill themselves?
"Your FCC regs info is not only a distraction but is a bait and switch attempt as those arguments are beyond a false equivalency. Think of them more like the old saying that 'freedom of the press extends to the man who owns it (the press).' He decides what he is willing to allow and not allow to be printed in his newspaper, and he is the final decision maker regardless of a persons right to say something."
Talk about false equivalency... this argument falls apart as soon as you suggest that the man who owns the press decides what's printed because in these cases it's not always his decision. These are Federal regulations that restrict free speech. I don't know if you're old enough to remember Lenny Bruce; if not, do a google search. He's the man who was most responsible for topical comedy as we know it today. The government efforts to stop him from saying the things he wanted to say - he was arrested ON STAGE more than once - led to a downward spiral into drug abuse that eventually led to his death. George Carlin's classic "Seven Words" routine led to a federal lawsuit against Pacifica Corp which owned a radio station in NYC that broadcast the routine over the air. Jim Morrison of the rock group The Doors was busted in FL for exposing himself on stage at a concert. These are all example of the federal government stepping in to control freedom of speech - these were your "man who owns the presses" in the purest sense of the term. The feds would not allow them to print - or say, or do - what they wanted, and to argue that the feds somehow "own the presses" by controlling the airwaves is an admission that the feds are restricting free speech in that space.
The links you provided are a lot to unpack, so I will get to them when I have the time.
|
