Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "DeSantis threatens action against students who target Jewish students" video.

  1. Are crimes committed against the trans community hate crimes?
    9
  2. If you want to spend your taxes on relitigating well-settled First Amendment law, which can have only one outcome, just to give satisfaction to a bunch of politicians, that's on you. They are fundraising on this. You are paying. Does that sound right by you?
    6
  3. @uio890138  There is no such thing as a "hate crime." Just like there is no such thing as a "thought crime." An actual crime can be assigned a higher degree, or a greater penalty, based on an exceptionally nefarious motive, like hatred for a community. That doesn't make the motive standing alone a crime, anymore than the idea of committing such a crime would be.
    5
  4. There is no such category. That is a journalistic slogan, not a real law.
    5
  5. ​ @soufwesthoustontx There is no such thing. A penalty for an actual crime can be enhanced depending on motive. Hence, targeting a Jewish person or a Muslim person because of their religion can draw a longer sentence, for example. But there is no special antisemitism law in the US. Germany has those.
    4
  6. @timeames2509  Tolerated? It's constitutionally protected speech. If you want to spend your taxes on relitigating settled law, which can have only one outcome, just to give satisfaction to a bunch of politicians, that's on you. They are fundraising on this. You are paying.
    3
  7. No one is "targetting" Jewish students, what nonsense.
    3
  8. ​​ @gemmster14 Found an Intercept article on it. The case had nothing to do with "hate speech," but alleged voter suppression. It was an obvious gag, and parodies are presumed to be protected speech. Haven't found the actual court docs (supposedly) justifying the charge.
    3
  9. @gemmster14  I did find the ruling. Yes, a ludicrous case. I will read it, though, to see how they justify it.
    3
  10.  @gemmster14  What he did is actually funny.
    3
  11. A lieutenant governor with ZERO knowledge of the First Amendment. Was this possible 50 years ago? I can't picture it.
    3
  12. @Number1Camper  You're all laughable. All we need are broader, more arbitrary definitions of crimes, because our incarceration rate is still too low.
    2
  13. OF COURSE. There is no distinction between citizen and non-citizen once on American soil with respect to the First Amendment.
    2
  14. All of this is constitutionally protected speech, and it's a disgrace to see it attacked from all sides now. If you want to spend your taxes on relitigating firmly settled law, which can have only one outcome, just to give publicity to a bunch of politicians, that's on you. They are fundraising on this. You are paying. I hope the thrill makes it worth it for you.
    2
  15. The state has no legitimate interest in actively suppressing so-called "social justice warriors."
    2
  16. Hate speech is generally legal. There is no such category that removes speech from the protection of the First Amendment. Have you forgotten RAV v. City of St. Paul? That was an opinion by Justice Scalia.
    2
  17. He's in the pocket of a handful of billionaires, too.
    2
  18. @observer8736  Well . . . One could read the Westboro Baptist Church case, for example, as well as RAV v. City of St. Paul and the seminal case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. RAV was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia joined the opinion on the flag-burning case, Texas v. Johnson. One could start with those four cases, or any one of them, and find out.
    2
  19.  @observer8736  What happened to everyone? How could you not know she is wrong?
    2
  20. YIKES
    2
  21.  @uio890138  Replied above
    1
  22.  @uio890138  Where did you see me do that? I never have.
    1
  23.  @uio890138  Who made you think this way? Be mad at them.
    1
  24. False. Everyone in the US has First Amendment protection, for everything enumerated in that Amendment. But if you don't love the Bill of Rights, and love money or anger more . . .
    1
  25. False. See, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church case, or RAV v. City of St Paul, or Texas v. Johnson. RAV was a Scalia opinion. I'd expect you to know it. 😅
    1
  26.  @BoloTheOriginal  Well, that's fine. Pay for the lawsuits.
    1
  27. @BoloTheOriginal  "Manipulated?" Paying for speech has been expressly given full First Amendment protection. There is no distinction between speaking on your own accord for free, or being hired to speak. What do you think public relations agents, advertising agents, newscasters, think tanks, lawyers, political campaign operatives, etc., etc., do? Do you think DeSantis and Stefanik are not responding to donors' concerns?
    1
  28.  @BoloTheOriginal  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) Ring a bell?
    1
  29.  @BoloTheOriginal  Did I say money isn't changing hands? Whatever happens anywhere, money is changing hands. From donors to DeSantis, Abbott, Stefanik is a river at the moment . . . But all swore to uphold the Constitution. See that happening?
    1
  30. It's purely your opinion that those opposing arms to Israel are "for terrorists." That's not the law. Explain the Westboro Baptist Church case, . . . RAV v. City of St. Paul, . . . Brandenburg v. Ohio. . . . RAV was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia joined the opinion on the flag-burning case (Texas v. Johnson, I believe). You're confusing the First Amendment with Miss Manners.
    1
  31. Glenn Greenwald is on tonight, talking about the First Amendment.
    1
  32. @edwinarnold4865  No, there are no "hate crimes." If an actual crime has racial, religious, ethnic hatred, etc., as its motive, the sentence can be enhanced, and usually is.
    1
  33. @JohnSmith-xu7ev  I'm not surprised you don't know. It's not explained well. I hope yt allows it.
    1
  34.  @JoshSmithDeeps  Exceptions for anyone who can force them . . . That's where things stand. :/
    1
  35.  @edwinarnold4865  Give me one example of a "hate crime" that isn't a crime except for the hate.
    1
  36. @edwinarnold4865  There is no such category of speech under the Constitution. None.
    1
  37.  @edwinarnold4865  There is no such category of speech under the First Amendment.
    1
  38.  @edwinarnold4865  There is no crime or tort of "hate speech." None.
    1
  39. @edwinarnold4865  If you actually cared to know, you could read the Westboro Baptist Church case, for example, as well as RAV v. City of St. Paul, and the seminal case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. RAV was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia joined the opinion on the flag-burning case, Texas v. Johnson. You could start with those four cases, or any one of them, and find out what the law is, and go from there. That's a distinct possibility.
    1
  40.  @edwinarnold4865  I wonder if 'tube lets me cite cases. Well, I did, above.
    1
  41. @SmokeNGunsBBQ  I don't like them at all, and that case was hard for me to swallow, BUT I accept it. I support First Amendment rights.
    1
  42. And you believed it? 😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  43. Where? How? At least in New York, a big part of those protesting are Jewish, in some cases, most.
    1
  44. @jonathanfarley2023  Fine, but this goes far beyond the First Amendment argument. These politicians are misleading the people, to rake in contributions.
    1
  45.  @JM-qn3tf  Yes it is. Try reading the Westboro Baptist Church case, for example. Or RAV v. City of St. Paul, or the seminal case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. RAV was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia joined the opinion on the flag-burning case, Texas v. Johnson. You could start with those four cases, or any one of them, and find out what the law is. As an American, don't you feel strange not knowing? Where's your pride?
    1
  46.  @JM-qn3tf  You think people can burn a flag in symbolic protest, or display a swastika, or demonstrate at the funeral of a fallen service member, as long as they create no obstruction to attending the ceremony, but they can't object to American dollars financing a foreign war? How do you figure? Our First Amendment law is strong.
    1
  47. More police like those in Uvalde. 🤪
    1
  48. ​@gemmster14 I don't know that case. If that's what happened, he should be freed immediately and, possibly, file a civil rights suit. I will look it up to see whether there was any plausible reason for government action against him. Apparently, and whatever the details, the First Amendment is fragile and that's not good. I like Nadine Strossen more every day.
    1
  49. All of this is dupery. If you let it influence you, your children will have even less ability to compete with elitists' children for jobs. It's just another version of sour grapes. Don't fall for it. Get your child into the very best school you can.
    1
  50. There is no category of illegal speech known as hate speech.
    1
  51. @observer8736  Replied, hope it's up.
    1
  52. This is a big, fat lie. A big proportion of those protesting in New York are Jewish. This is fundraising for the campaign, lol.
    1
  53. Prove it
    1
  54. Not this one.
    1