Are you serious? Exactly where do you think it says that? You are just making stuff up.
1 Like
Seriously… grow up.
2 Likes
Free speech is exactly that and it should not be a crime to use any words, unless they are a threat of physical harm or a physical act. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”
1 Like
Exactly. We can’t legislate against hate anymore than we can legislate love. Remember “ sticks and stones”? We’ve become too soft.
1 Like
It is not illegal to say Nigger. It’s an ugly word that nobody likes but it is not illegal.
2 Likes
Policing language is unconstitutional. You are free to feel your feelings and hate whichever words you choose, but, you and the government do not and should not ever deem themselves the moral authority on how we speak. Its a step towards facism, and our government and corporations are already overstepping our constitutional freedom of speech. There is no such thing as hate speech, just speech you hate.
2 Likes
to put my 2 cents in. the protection of speech is about speech that others can’t handle it isn’t a protection for accepted speech. so move along. censorship of anyone out side of actual hate is against the constitution. deal with it and suck it up butter cup. i am a 50 year old woman and that word doesn’t make me cry nor does it bother me in fact i wear it with like a badge of honor.
1 Like
Please. For the love of God, read the AMENDMENTS of the constitution. This will help you in life. OH. Get therapy, and you might want to do that quickly. You cannot live in America if you can’t control your emotions. Or what you people call “triggers”.
3 Likes
Also niggerts make it difficult to control my emotions. I just have to remember to use my words.
Example: Will niggerts ever vote overwhelmingly, like Sean Hannity says they will, for an awesome guy like Trump, instead of 93% for democrapts? No, no they will not ever!
It says that it is a hate crime if during a physical assault, hateful language is used against ones identity. That is what is making the crime a hate crime. It is not calling hateful language assault.
1 Like
“Hate crimes” = legal chicanery. Used to further remove/reduce sovereignty from the native white populations from taking responsibility for their communities. It’s only use is to deracinate whites. Blacks murdering each other in Southside Chicago are not charged with hate crimes.
This is in reference to the X platform, isn’t it?
Look Michelle, you need professional help and support. I advise you to do a search; “mental health facilities near me”. I 100% am not being cruel and i wish you only the best.
3 Likes
Black is beautiful and it merely means black in Latin. Which is where “Nigeria” comes from. Saying it is inherently an “ugly” word is a matter of perception and perceived intent, but has nothing to do with the objective definition. There are far uglier words out there that mean objectively ugly things, such as the word “putrid.”
1 Like
How about we get rid of the term “hate speech” altogether! Don’t spend precious time on petty bs.
Total freedom of speech.
3 Likes
LOL! You tell 'em, girl friend! 
2 Likes
I never said they would throw you in jail… I was responding to the OP wanting to outlaw the word Bitch … If words are outlawed, that means there would also be a consequence wouldn’t it? Of course. However, that consequence wouldn’t necessarily mean Jail. I never said that… maybe you were replying to someone else? Banning words is a slippery slope. If we outlaw the word “bitch” as the OP suggests, don’t you think other words like the N word would be outlawed as well? And if something is outlawed, there is a consequence.
Yes… everyone has a different culture and words mean different things to everyone. You cannot outlaw words… Agree.
1 Like
I think growing some “thicker skin” would resolve all of the concerns posted her under this policy suggestion for “hateous crimeous” and other nonsense re-imagined woke garbage, dontcha think? 
2 Likes
Like many others have replied; you’ve misconstrued a couple legal precedents.
- Your reference to Scotland does not apply- This is the US, where speech on its own is protected.
- Daniel Penny wasn’t found guilty of any hate speech, he pled guilty to a crime, which was labeled a hate crime using his contextual speech as evidence.
In the end, it doesn’t make sense to add half the population as a protected class under hate crime laws, particularly when most of the contextual words that we would use to determine that are part of fairly normal vocabulary.
(for informational purposes, women were the victims of 47% of violent crimes in 2023, https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend)
That’s the entire purpose of hate speech laws, to create race and class protections ultimately for those same pushy tiny hats who claim perpetual victim status while refusing to assimilate to the host natural cultural order, while committing moral and ethical violations against host nation, while siphoning off financial resources from host nation, to prevent criticism of their parasitisms, and create a legal liability for those that do criticize their lack of adherence to social norms. And to create upheavals and dissolve social norms altogether. To impose their matriarchal feminist form of state.
It’s a bonus for them, that our women are subconciously and instinctively hijacked/incentivised into doing their dirty work and are easily manipulatable into being disloyalists against their own native cultural norms. Useful pawns and ignorant allies, activists in the usurpation of western civilizations. The only nations where they are trying to force these backward laws.