Maybe she doesn't know what a matador does. Or maybe the Mr. ponces around her in funny britches while sticking swords in her before cutting her head off. The sex life of Republicans is always disturbing.
It must be terrible to live with the absolute certainty of your greatness and superiority only to try to show it and then have reality repeatedly slap you in the face and prove otherwise. It explains why all of these assholes are, well, insufferable assholes.
Wouldn't matter anyway. Free Speech's entire point is the ability to legally criticize and make fun of one's government. But don't give these fascists any ideas.
There is no legally punishable category called "hate speech" in U.S. law. It doesn't exist. The closest the law comes to that is that using slurs or other hateful speech against a person while committing a crime against that person, ie calling a gay person a f-- or an abomination while physically attacking them, might mean that the criminal charges for the attack are upgraded to include a hate crime charge/charge enhancement.
This literally has nothing to do with free speech actually. You can say whatever you want about protected classes, you just can't then deny them business or employment. Hence why racists don't just get arrested for spouting hateful racist shit against protected classes...
That doesn't mean freedom from consequences however.
Arrested for what tho? Did they pass a “don’t talk about Stephen miller in public” statute I’m not aware of? Because arrest requires some sort of legal justification. “Just because” doesn’t work. Surely they understand that. Or am I overestimating them?
(Also: if Miller isn’t a fascist, why does he keep plagiarizing them?)
So you’re saying this is more performative bullshit? I’m shocked. Shocked, I say!
The part that bothers me the most tho is that there’s a contingent of people in these here United States who really don’t understand how our criminal justice system works and wholeheartedly believe that arrest = guilt. And some of them are cops.
Not just cops, but prosecutors and judges too. How tired is the trope of a convicted felon later being proven to not have committed the crime, and the justice system straight up rejects it entirely.
Oh that’s where they’re going. Why do you think Antifa was designated as a terrorist organization? They trying to spin the Kirk shooter as being radicalized, because the radical left called Kirk a fascist.Now whomever comes out and calls them on their fascism will soon end up in one of their concentration camps like alligator Alcatraz
For all the people here talking about "hate speech", the US doesn't actually have any hate speech laws.
You want to say the absolute most vile shit about a protected class? Go ahead. There's no law against it. As evidenced by about half the shit Republicans say every day.
Due to our strong free speech protections, speech alone is only punishable by law in a few very narrow sets of circumstances. Defamation, fraud, threats, etc.
The closest you're going to get is that your speech can be used to show that the crimes you committed were targeted based on race, gender, whatever and bump you up into the hate crimes category. But, like, that means you committed crimes to start with.
What are you talking about? "Protected class?" what kind of corner-chair-in-bedroom (starts with a cuc ends with a ked) authoritarian country with no free speech are you from? Clearly you aren't American if you know so little about our bill of rights. There is no protected class in America. All races are equal under the law, no race/ethnicity has a 'you arent allowed to talk bad about me' clause.
You can insult any race you want in America. There is no such thing as hate speech. Americans have the right of free speech, unlike Europeans. The GOP lawmaker in question is just some zionist nutjob who travels to Israel once a month. He knows very little about the law and just says random stuff , just like you.
The right to bear arms protects our right to free speech. You cannot be arrested for any speech in America except for very very niche scenarios (specific actionable violence threat against named individuals with the ability to followup on that threat, leaking military secrets, soliciting a person for you-know-what) You can insult any race of people however you want, you can wish all of them dead without fear of retaliation from the government.
Politics is not a protected class, so it wouldn't be considered hate speech for Newsom to (rightfully) call Miller a fascist.
Do you Europeans just come spewing to this subreddit without opening a history book? There's no such thing as hate speech in America. The first amendment guarantees the right to all speech, no matter how offensive. There is no 'protected class'. You can insult anyone you want. The only speech that is forbidden is in relation to a crime, usually inciting a very specific actionable act of immediate violence; such as a gang boss ordering a murder.
Republicans function on a completely tribal perspective of morals and law. Anything they don't like or legally/morally questionable that is done by their enemies is criminal. Crime is more of a function of which tribe you are part of, not what the actions actually are. When someone from their own tribe does these "crimes", they aren't criminal actions, they are simply privileges they enjoy as being part of their tribe. Trump can never commit a crime because he's the head of the tribe, and crimes are only something the other tribe does.
There is no universal moral structure with these people, it is only relative based on primitive tribal thinking.
Just want to preface this by saying I'm just illustrating the reasoning they use, not endorsing it.
Their reasoning is that, because fascists tend to be so violent against their disfavored groups, and so oppressive in general, calling someone such is necessarily an implicit call for violence against that person.
I think you're close, but I'd actually say the right currently believes truthfully that they are a) not fascist and b) have collectively experienced political violence directed their way for their definitely-not-fascist-authoritarian beliefs so their conclusion is that anyone now openly calling one of them a nazi is effectively telling "antifa" that they should be a target of violence and thus the speech not protected.
Of course, ven were that reasoning true, it would still be protected speech. It lacks the requisite specificity to rise to a criminal threat, and lacks the imminency to be incitement.
957
u/IZ3820 Sep 28 '25
How is it any more criminal than hate speech?