Dattier said:

Awww, look who wants other people to be precise in their speech all of a sudden.

You're neither a doctor nor a therapist. You won't even read an interview about it that treats transgenders with empathy. I know; I've literally offered a link. Everything you know about transgenders is what has been fed to you by rightwing propaganda. Just like the war on Christmas, gay marriage, comin-fer-our-guns, wokeism, socialist indoctrination in public schools, the gay agenda, and George Soros, mutilating kids' genitals and whatever Kamala just said join the long list of bogus fear-mongering topics conservative propagandists serve their low-information, jowl-wagging, pearl-clutching sheep. You fall for every one of them.

Click to expand...

GhostOf301 said:

This is exactly what I am talking about. You think that your opinion of what hate speech is is what matters. I have never said anything hateful about trans kids. I believe they suffer from an illness that they need treatment for. That is not hate, that is actual empathy. Affirming lies and promoting sex changes or gender affirming care is evil, not empathy.

Also, the 2020 election was rigged for the democrats ro win. That doesn't mean that Trump didn't lose.

Click to expand...

SDevada said:

Also Datt, the conservatives hate this idea because it limits their ability to spew hate-filled lies, like the lies Ghost parrots about trans children. I would also like to point out that Trump recently admitted that he lost the 2020 election—further proof of how he was able to brainwash people into believing what he knew to be a lie.

Click to expand...

GhostOf301 said:

Glad that you can admit that the people who are running the DNC are not intelligent people.

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

I'll deflect based on your basic, bogus, loaded language.

Hate speech and misinformation are already illegal under many circumstances. Intelligent people understand the difference between unpopular speech and speech that breaks laws.

Click to expand...

timo0402 said:

This response makes little to zero sense. The right wing is literally trying to protect innocent minors from seeing or being subjected to child porn that is infiltrating school libraries under the auspice of “acceptable, inclusive, necessary, etc.” books, depicting homo erotic behavior. And in that vain, they’re absolutely correct to protect those children from that content.

Which was a nice way to sidestep the ACTUAL conversation of what Kamala wants to do- eliminate and prosecute any adversarial political speech that she as dictator doesn’t like. And btw, this isn’t the first time she’s done this. She did this back when she was a senator as well.

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

As is the Constitution, as consistently interpreted by courts: "Only that expression that is shown to belong to a few narrow categories of speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words."

And taking a page from the rightwing coloring book/rhetoric guide, why are conservatives protecting child porn?

Click to expand...

GhostOf301 said:

So you are okay with the same people who compare conservatives to nazis being in charge of deciding what is hate speech? The same people who told you that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation being in charge of deciding what is misinformation? Don't deflect to the source of the video. I am talking specifically about the words directly out of Queen Kamala's mouth. Using the DOJ to go after platforms that allow "hate speech" or "misinformation". It appears that you support that. Which is not surprising.

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

The only part in quotation marks in that rightwing propaganda tweet you shared is unobjectionable.
I would want -- and fully expect -- something like that to be closely monitored. The ACLU would be all over it, for one.
All the other stuff? That was added by your latest rightwing puppet master on Twitter.

Click to expand...

GhostOf301 said:

This is the part we're worried about, and you know it.

"Government agencies and government officials are forbidden from regulating or restricting speech or other expression based on its content or viewpoint. Criticism of the government, political dissatisfaction, and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are nearly always protected by the First Amendment."

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

As is the Constitution, as consistently interpreted by courts: "Only that expression that is shown to belong to a few narrow categories of speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words."

And taking a page from the rightwing coloring book/rhetoric guide, why are conservatives protecting child porn?

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

You're the one who always brings up children's genitals.

Click to expand...

timo0402 said:

I guess by Datt’s reaction he’s cool with policing free speech.

Click to expand...

timo0402 said:

I guess by Datt’s reaction he’s cool with policing free speech.

Click to expand...

GhostOf301 said:

How do the lefties here feel about this?

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

GhostOf301 said:

Oh no. You are the party of the sick and perverted. They exist on the right, but it is normalized on the left.

Click to expand...

Dattier said:

I thought of both that type of hat and of polyamory before realizing where your sick mind was going with that.

Click to expand...