The New Hampshire Supreme Court just handed down a victory for free speech in Attorney General v. Hood. As is often the case, defending free speech means supporting viewpoints that most of us find grotesque and hateful. However, the justices rejected the position of the Portsmouth Police Department that it could force the removal of a racist banner from an overpass. Such signs and flags are commonly allowed, but the police and prosecutors insisted that racist messages “interfered with the rights” of other citizens.The controversy began on July 30, 2022, when a group of roughly ten people with NSC-131, a “pro-white, street-oriented fraternity dedicated to raising authentic resistance to the enemies of [its] people in the New England area,” hung banners from the overpass, including one reading “KEEP NEW ENGLAND WHITE.”
The police informed the leader, Christopher Hood, that they were violating a Portsmouth municipal ordinance that prohibited hanging banners from the overpass without a permit. While the group removed the banners, it later posted statements on the incident. The state responded by filing complaints against the defendants seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief for their alleged violation of RSA 354-B:1.
Notably, the state did not deny that groups routinely hang flags and signs from overpasses. However, it claimed that hanging banners reading “Keep New England White” was “motivated by race and interfered with the lawful activities of 2 others.”
N.H. Stats. 354-B:1 provides,
All persons have the right to engage in lawful activities and to exercise and enjoy the rights secured by the [constitutions and laws] without being subject to actual or threatened physical force or violence against them or any other person or by actual or threatened damage to or trespass on property when such actual or threatened conduct is motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability….
It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere or attempt to interfere with the rights secured by this chapter.
The justices held that the enforcement in this case violated the the New Hampshire Constitution’s free speech provision:
[T]he State alleged that the defendants “trespassed upon the property of the State of New Hampshire and the City of Portsmouth when [they and other individuals] displayed banners reading ‘Keep New England White’ from the overpass without a permit.” In objecting to Hood’s motion to dismiss, the State argued that “[t]he defendant displayed a banner upon the fencing—causing a thing to enter upon land in possession of another, without any prior authorization from city or state authorities.” Because the State alleged that the defendants intentionally invaded the property of another, and because “[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated,” we conclude that the State’s complaints sufficiently alleged a civil trespass.
Nonetheless, we must next determine whether the State’s proposed construction of the Act, applying the aforementioned definition of trespass, violates the defendants’ constitutional rights to free speech…
Government property generally falls into three categories — traditional public forums, designated public forums, and limited public forums. Here, the trial court correctly reasoned that because “application of the Civil Rights Act requires no consideration of the relevant forum or the nature of the underlying regulations as to that forum,” it applies “with equal force in traditional public fora as it does in limited or nonpublic fora.” We agree with the trial court’s assessment and proceed to the regulation at issue.
Government regulation of speech is content-based if a law applies to a particular type of speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed. The State argues that the Act “does not become a content or viewpoint-based action because the State relies upon a defendant’s speech.” Rather, it maintains that “[c]onsidering an actor’s motivation to assess whether that remedy may be warranted has no impact on the person’s right to freedom of speech, even when proof of motivation relies upon evidence of the person’s speech, because a person’s motivation has always been a proper consideration.” We disagree.
The Act prohibits threatened and actual conduct only when “motivated by race, color, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability.” Thus, we agree with the trial court’s assessment that “[b]ecause the Civil Rights Act’s additional sanctions apply only where a speaker is ‘motivated by race’ or another protected characteristic, it is ‘content-based’ in that it ‘applies to … particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.'”
Content-based restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The State asserts that the requirement that a trespass be unprivileged or otherwise unlawful functions as a limitation sufficient to prevent its construction of the Act from being unconstitutionally overbroad. We are not persuaded. The trial court determined, and we agree, that although “prohibiting or discouraging interference with the lawful rights of others by way of bias-motivated conduct (including actual trespass) is a compelling government interest,” the State’s construction of the Act “is overly broad and not narrowly tailored to that end because, so construed, the Civil Rights Act applies in numerous circumstances which have no relation to this interest.”
The ruling is notable in part because of the position of various Democratic leaders that hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment. I have spent years contesting that false claim, including in my recent book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz repeatedly claimed that “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
Ironically, this false claim, repeated by many Democrats, constitutes one of the most dangerous forms of disinformation. It is being used to convince a free people to give up some of their freedom with a “nothing to see here” pitch.
In prior testimony before Congress on the censorship system under the Biden administration, I was taken aback when the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), declared, “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.
That false claim has been echoed by others such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer. “If you espouse hate,” he said, “…you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”
The Supreme Court has consistently rejected Gov. Walz’s claim. For example, in the 2016 Matal v. Tam decision, the court stressed that this precise position “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
OT. Fires in LA
The environs have changed it seems. It’s reported 85%of children in LA school district live at or below poverty level and can pick up food while schools are closed. Parents will also be impacted because of the after school day care is closed, too.
Just leave if you can. Ellen and other celebrities must have had an inside contact it seems.
“IT’S OK TO BE WHITE.”
– Rasmussen Poll
_____________________
Only 53% of blacks agree.
47% of blacks disagree.
___________________________
“Blacks are a hate group.”
“As you know, I’ve been identifying as Black for a while – years now – because I like – you know, I like to be on the winning team.”
“The best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people.”
“Just get the f*** away.”
“Wherever you have to go, just get away because there’s no fixing this.”
“You just have to escape, so that’s what I did.”
– Scott Adams, “Dilbert”
The LA fires and the shameful rush out of Afghanistan share some characteristics.
Hatred and envy of competence.
Love of DEI mismanagement.
Indifference to the human suffering they cause.
Democrats.
Evil.
DEI, diversity, equity, incompetence .
DEI, affirmative action, quotas, etc. are unconstitutional.
Merit is constitutional.
Where’s the judicial branch?
* good will is necessary if one has merit. What of the talentless, unintelligent, lack gifts of any kind? Should they suffer endless want and need?
Think about how children in Gaza have been raised to hate Jews for generations. This type of extreme “us vs. them” mind-control is a precursor to irrational, self-defeating violent outrages, such as the one we saw on Oct 7th 2023. Any society that tolerates this kind of default “programmed hatred” deserves the consequences of turning a blind eye to zealotry and fanaticism. My attitude toward Gazans is “live with the consequences of your hatreds”.
Do you think it a good idea to encourage that form of closed-minded, thought and expression in the U.S.?
Our legal system went off the deep end with Westborogh Baptist, stripping society of the power to enforce norms of respect for funeral ceremonies, and empowering misanthropic hyper-individualism. The balance of power between the group and the individual is way off kilter — that’s one of the ways Americans sense we’re headed on the “wrong direction”. All functioning organizations must maintain adherence to its norms, while remaining open-minded to well-meaning reformers who dissent with civility and authenticity.
And yet in the 236 years the First Amendment has been in force, that has not happened in America. I would rather take my chances with a system that has a proven record of success than water down free speech protections out of fear that liberty will somehow lead to an outcome like that of Gaza.
” would rather take my chances with a system that has a proven record of success than water down free speech protections out of fear that liberty will somehow lead to an outcome like that of Gaza.”
Abso-freaking-lutely
Jonathan: So what else should we pay attention in the news this week? For starters, Joe Biden is going to leave a legacy for DJT to try to match. The government is reporting the US added 256,000 jobs in December, surpassing expectations and bringing the total for 2024 to 2.2 million jobs. The unemployment rate dropped to 4.1 % and wages grew 3.9% over the past year. Despite inheriting an economic crisis left by the DJT. Biden was able to, in his words, “build back the economy from the middle out and the bottom up”. Biden went his entire term without a negative jobs market. The last time the economy lost jobs was in Dec. 2020–the last month of DJT’s first term. And when DJT left office he added $8 trillion to the national debt!
Then we have Jeff Bezos who is proving to be a loyal DJT sycophant. It started with Bezos cancelling the WP editorial endorsement for Kamala Harris. After that Bezos cancelled an editorial carton depicting Bezos sucking up to DJT with bags full of money. Bezos is now trying to curry favor with DJT. He wants to become DJT’s favorite son!
And now Bezos’ Amazon just handed Melania Trump $40 million to license a documentary on the next to be First Lady–again. Come on. You could do a documentary on the entire universe and not spend $40 million! Of course, we really know where all that money is going. It’s going to DJT. Bezos is also making a $1 million donation to DJT’s inauguration. Talking about sucking up!
All this is not unexpected. Bezos is close to the DJT family. He parties with Jared and Ivanka Trump on his super yacht–the largest sailing yacht in the world–costing over $500 million. Bezos has a huge mansion on Indian Creek island near Miami [a place I discussed in a previous comment]. It’s next door to the mansion of Jared and Ivanka. They spend a lot of time together.
Why is Bezos spending all this money on DJT and his family? Simple. Bezos has hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts. He doesn’t want to jeopardize those contracts by getting into fights with DJT–like happened in the first term. Bezos is only interested in one thing. Not by standing up for a “free press” but protecting his businesses. Economic self-interest is what drives the decisions of Jeff Bezos. So don’t look for any serious criticism of DJT in WP during the next four years. You will find that only in the independent media.
* you do know DJT is working for Obama? Barack couldn’t get his hands dirty.
The black community didn’t like all their money going to illegals.
What news? What about the incredible ineptitude, arrogance and aloof “leaders” in the State of California. They are hell bent to destroy the most beautiful and most productive states in the United States.
Poor policy, no policy, incompetence and negligence all for what? No grazing, no logging, blowing up dams and acting it is 1830 when they have a population of 40,000,000.
They failed to prepare, train and protect tax paying citizens. So they could host homeless? Gavin said that what happens in California first will happen in the rest of the country.
Oh, don’t forget that the suspect, holding a blowtorch is an illegal alien. Thankfully, he was detained by citizens. Will California turn him over to Immigration?
“Joe Biden is going to leave a legacy for DJT to try to match.”
ROFL
“The government is reporting the US added 256,000 jobs in December, surpassing expectations and bringing the total for 2024 to 2.2 million jobs.”
And you beleive them ? I know of LOTS of people who are LOSING their jobs, or who can not get a job.
I do not know a single person who has actually gotten a new job in the past 2 years.
“wages grew 3.9% over the past year”
And inflation rose by 2.7% – so real wage growth was only 1.2% – I would note that through Biden’s 4 years REAL WAGES have declined by 4500/family/year due to inflation.
Total inflation since Jan 2021 is about 23%, Do you know ANYONE who is making 23% more than they did in Jan 2021 ?
“Despite inheriting an economic crisis left by the DJT.”
That would be 1.4% inflation and 6% growth – that was the economy Biden inherited.
If he had done absolutely nothing – even as demented as he is – he would have been re-=elected in a landslide.
Biden is right now the leas popular president since Nixon.
“Biden was able to, in his words, “build back the economy from the middle out and the bottom up”.”
Biden absolutely was able to say those words. Unfortunately he was not able to DO any of that.
“The last time the economy lost jobs was in Dec. 2020”
Not according to FRED, According to FRED the last time the economy lost jobs was april 2020 – right in the middle of lockdowns – mostly done by BLUE STATE governors.
“when DJT left office he added $8 trillion to the national debt!”
Not according to Statistia – Debt under Trump went from 22T to 27T, under Biden it went from 27T to 33T+
But nearly All Trump’s debt increase was covid spending – While that was a stupid mistake. Biden unnecescarily contiued that spending and then added idiotic non-stimulus stimulus.
DJT’s net worth is 6.1B according to Forbes. It increased by 3.6T more than double, in the year that YOU said he was going bankrupt.
If you do not like Bezos’s documentary – don’t watch it. It you do not like Bezos, do not buy on Amazon.
You do know that prior to 2016 The Clinton’s partied with Trump. That Chelsea Clinton and IvankaTrump were close friends ?
Why is it that you care what Yacht Bezos buys ? Or his homes ? Oprah owns an Island in Hawaii. Obama owns an amazing home in Martha’s vineyard, Oak PArk, DC, and Hawaii – and probably others I have missed. He and Trump apparently were getting along at Carters Funeral. Jill Biden and Trump were getting allong at an earlier public event.
Wapo has been losing money every year since Bezos bought it. You are an idiot if you think that Bezos’ interest in WaPo is money or that he is sucking up to Trump to make more money at WaPo.
If you want a credible claim that Bezos is sucking up to Trump that might be because he wants to buy the USPS.
And Trump SHOULD sell it to him. Or just give it to him. The only thing keeping USPS afloat is Amazon.
All the people whose homes burned up in LA County are gratified to know that the LAFD has a glass-ceiling-breaking DEI officer who gets paid $300,000/year, and whose response to women being less physically able to carry human beings out of a fire than men, is not to deny it, but to blame the victim for being in the fire in the first place.
https://nypost.com/2025/01/12/us-news/lafds-diversity-chief-sparks-fury-for-defending-dei-by-blaming-the-victim/
WHERE’S WALDO?
WHERE’S THE WATER?
WHAT THE —- IS GOING ON AROUND HERE?
“FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING!”
__________________________________________
“New LADWP head to be paid $750K salary, steep increase from predecessor”
– ABC News
_______________
Illegal alien invader and affirmative action beneficiary, Janisse Quiñones.
“Newsom Reassures Fire Victims He’ll Be Prepared Next Time, Now That He Knows Water Is Useful In Fighting Fires”
https://babylonbee.com/news/newsom-reassures-fire-victims-hell-be-prepared-next-time-now-that-he-knows-water-is-useful-in-fighting-fires
The courts should revisit the issue of “hate crime” and enhanced sentencing for what is essentially “wrongthink”. They had to tie themselves into legal knots to justify not acknowledging these as the creation of thought crime regulations. If a person commits a crime, punish him for the crime, not for having thoughts unapproved by the state.
When the government allows its facilities to be used for political messaging, inevitably it will have to tolerate anything or disallow everything. Our roads and bridges are not pipe organs for any political cause. Disallow all of it… starting with NPR.
NPR may not be taxed for, funded, or regulated into existence.
Broadcast media are free enterprises, in free industries, in the free markets of the private sector devoid of governmental interference or participation.
Government may not tax for, fund, or conduct operations to disseminate propaganda and indoctrination.
The fed gub’ment funding of NPR is pretty small, Jethro.
It cannot exist per Article 1, Section 8.
Remember when America and Americans were free by fundamental law and government was severely limited, restricted and infinitesimal?
Your “dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. hired help)” is invalid, illegitimate, illicit, illegal, and unconstitutional in the U.S.
There was no NPR or reasonable facsimile in 1789, by design, Einstein.
So What ?
I strongly suspect NPR will be successful – possible more so without government funds – or atleast I used to beleive that when they were merely on the left, not bat$hit crazy on the left.
Regardless, the governemnt should not fund this.
Nor the arts nor the humanities, nor ….. pretty much everything outside it s legitimate core functions.
Jonathan: No complaints from this side. Despite what some people think “hate speech” is protected under the First Amendment–unless there is an imminent or actual threat of violence. The only exceptions to “free speech” are defamation, fraud and perjury.
That said, what you don’t mention is the existential threat to First Amendment protections posed by DJT’s threats and lawsuits against media organizations because he doesn’t like what they publish about him. During his entire term in office Biden never once threatened or sued a news organization. But before even assuming office DJT has sued CBS, ABC and now the DeMoines Register and its pollster–simply because he doesn’t like their news coverage of him. In the next 4 years we will see more of this as DJT tries to use the levers of government power to try to silence his critics.
The Q is why are you suddenly silent about DJT’s attempts to suppress the First Amendment?
“Hate speech,” the subject, is not “defamation, fraud, and perjury.”
You are duplicitous to the point of incoherence.
Americans enjoy the absolute freedom of speech.
As is the case in any and all endeavors, they would be wise not to abuse that freedom lest they be sued or prosecuted for provable damages or crimes.
Dennis – you are disagreeing with your self.
First defamation is protected under the first amendment. You can defame government all you want and government can not do a thing about it.
Further government can not censor defamatory speech.
This is one of the errors of the Guiliani verdict. The people Guiliani allegedly defended were government workers, purportedly engaged in government tasks.
They can not claim to be defamed.
You can not thwart criticism of government or government actors using defamation law.
BTW that is also part of why Fox never should have settled. DVS was a government actor and has limited if any protection from defamation.
You can not contract out election services to a private party to protect them from scrutiny or change the legal standards for criticism.
If you can say “The government rigged the election”, then you MUST also be able to say “A govenrment employee rigged the election” or a goverment contractor rigged the election.
Otherwise you sheild government from public oversite and criticism by transfering govenrment bad acts to proxies.
Defamation is a TORT, that means one private party can sue another private party for the harm they have caused.
There is no private protection for free speech.
As YOU have noted before X and FB can censor you as they please.
They just can not do so because the government requested it.
Fraud is also not an exception to free speech – nor is perjury – Why – because they are both ACTS, not merely speech.
Fraud is the act of stealing something from people using deception.
This is little different from the fact that a Mafia don can not claim free speech protection for ordering someones murder.
It is still the crime of murder if all he did was give the order.
The only times lying is a crime, is when
You have a duty to tell the truth – such as you are under oath,
Others are relying on you to tell the truth.
There will be actual harm if you do not tell the truth.
If I am testifying in a murder trial and I lie about where I ate lunch just before testifying – that is almost certainly not perjury.
I have no duty to tell the court where I ate.
No one is relying on my testimony about where I ate
and no one is harmed by providing false information.
“That said, what you don’t mention is the existential threat to First Amendment protections posed by DJT’s threats and lawsuits against media organizations because he doesn’t like what they publish about him.”
You have stated – incorrectly exceptions to free speech, and now you are claiming that Trump’s threats – which unless they are credible threats of violence are protected speech, or his acts – lawsuits are new exceptions.
Any private person can legitimately allege harm from the speech of others in court.
The court can find for them.
It can find against them.
and in some cases it can sanction them for frivolous lawsuits.
But going to court alleging harm from the speech of others is an actual right.
Winning is not.
“During his entire term in office Biden never once threatened or sued a news organization.”
To my knowledge Joe Biden while president has not threatened to sue anyone.
That said the Executive branch of the US government eitehr at the direction of the President or on its own engaged in a MASSIVE campaign of threats to social media provides in order to get them to censor others.
Aparently you are unfamiliar with the twitter files, the reporting of Barri Weiss, Matt Taibbi and Mathew Shellenberger.
As Turley has noted – Biden is the worst president on Free speech since John Adams and the sedition act.
I would note that some of this did occur under Trump – UNKNOWN to Trump the “deep state” was actively using public power to threaten social media to censor people – including Trump while Trump was president.
And all of this anti speech nonsense was started by Obama.
“But before even assuming office DJT has sued CBS, ABC and now the DeMoines Register and its pollster–simply because he doesn’t like their news coverage of him.”
So who is “suing” – are Trump’s lawyers suing ? or are DOJ’s lawyers suing ?
The former is perfectly legal the latter is likely unconstitutional.
“In the next 4 years we will see more of this as DJT tries to use the levers of government power to try to silence his critics.”
But you have just confirmed that is NOT what he is doing. He is NOT using DOJ – a lever of public power,
He is in court as Donald J. Trump private party alleging harm like any other private individual.
He is using personal funds and private lawyers – NOT the levers of public power.
“The Q is why are you suddenly silent about DJT’s attempts to suppress the First Amendment?”
Because Trump is not trying to supress the first amendment.
Wouldn’t Trump sue CBS and others for attempted election interference via defamation? Federal crime? Everyone knows they’re lying is the defense? DJT the private citizen or is he the candidate? Idk
Good job John say
So another left wing nut doing impersonations making up faux mental disorders is unable to recognize the Factual point by point disection of the garbage that Dennis spews each day,
You can avoid my interminably long posts by avoiding making obviously false claims.
BTW John B Say is just the americanization of Jean Batiste Say a very famous 19th century economist responsible for say’s law, also known as the law of Supply and demand.
Dennis please read a text book on first amendment law.
Your remarks are complete nonsense. Even on the few things you get right – you go on to contradict yourself.
You are just embarrassing yourself.
“It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
Imagine if the judicial branch read the 2nd Amendment and compelled the entire nation to adhere to it, understanding that any damages occurring as a consequence may be litigated.
“The only exceptions to “free speech” are defamation, fraud and perjury.”
Dennis McInliar once again proves what a spastic idiot he is by conflating perjury, fraud and defamation as forms of speech.
There are no exceptions the first amendment protections of free speech and the government abridging it.
Fraud, perjury, and defamation are ACTIONS, they are not SPEECH , in the context of the first amendment.
Why is this concept so hard for idiots like Dennis to grasp??
* Hard? Not everyone is as smart as you?
The first amendment was arguably drafted specifically to protect “hate speech”
*There wasn’t any hate speech in the declaration of independence. It was well thought and listed each grievance as intolerable to a free people.
I read nothing about King Charles being a bleach blond bad body butch…
The American Founders and Framers made it simple:
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
Abridge
verb
ə-ˈbrij
abridged; abridging
Synonyms of abridge
transitive verb
1 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense
abridge a novel
an abridged dictionary
2 : to shorten in duration or extent
Tess wished to abridge her visit as much as possible …—
Thomas Hardy
3 (formal) : to reduce in scope : diminish
attempts to abridge the right of free speech
4 (archaic) : deprive
Next question.
Seven and a Wakeup!
You’re short, congratulations. Don’t hit any trip wires.
How so?
By careful scrutiny of the battlespace, of course.
If hate speech isn’t protected, can we prosecute Hillary for her incitement against conservatives with her “deplorable” hate comment, or Biden for his “garbage” statement? Seems like there’s plenty of hate speech within the Democratic party that is just being ignored.
* The red line is mental abuse as in child abuse but then the left is very well versed in child abuse of every kind. Spousal abuse of this kind is also noted. The repeated harangue of these are your faults and you do nothing good is the program.
Until the left begins to burn it down as arson no one is willing to act on it. Palisades, Malibu and Santa Monica were envied and hated. Let’s watch their next envious action while 49 states pay for the incompetence in California.
Watch cnn or msnbc for the harangue. Gigi and George are nags.
The problem is how does one get away from what is hated. Where is the refuge? Hate is as real as love and a myriad of other emotions. Where is the refuge?
The Star Chamber that President Trump was subject to is a fine example of the Courts running away with impositions against our Constitution and the Law there under.
The Roberts Court has demonstrated its reluctance to rule on political activities that have been, and are, detrimental to a free and secure public. The arbiters have swayed backbones and seem to be afraid of their own shadow.
Seems that, with Democrats, we have to constantly be watching our backs because they keep trying to swipe our constitutional rights from under our noses. All in the name of “saving democracy.”
If ‘hate speech ‘ truly wasn’t protected by the First Amendment then Democrats would be prohibited from speaking.
Was it even “hate” speech? “Keep New England White” would definitely be upsetting to people who like to pretend that African-Americans are just peachy, and that there is nothing bad, rotten wrong in the black community. But what are the facts? When the blacks move in, then so does crime, violence and a host of social problems.
What is hilarious, is that the white people who act so offended, are probably ensconced in white neighborhoods, and their kids go to white schools.
It is the conversation about race that no one wants to have.
The good thing about NH is that crime is low compared to CT, MA, RI. There’s a reason for that.
Yes, less than 2% of the state is black.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_race/ethnicity
The country is addicted to the Democrat Narrative, that blacks are oppressed victims, rather than the blatant truth – African-Americans are probably the most toxic, dysfunctional group of people who ever lived, as a group. And white people can not fix them.
from 48 minutes ago:
@Floyd
I’ve noticed by some of your comments of late that you are kind of a racist, Floyd. By all means share your opinions, but understand that just as for the rest of us, that’s all they are.
Mistyped my info. Sorry.
“Kind of racist”? So, there are shades of racism according to James? James is the arbiter of what is and what is not racist.
James is the white equivent of al sharpton.
I would deny it, but frankly, I am not sure what “racist” means anymore. It used to mean that believing that some people were better than others, because of their race. Which, I mostly don’t. But I see African-Americans as basically a tribe. And some tribes are better than others.
African-Americans are about 5% of the “blacks” in the world, and I feel free to hold any opinion of them that I want, without necessarily impugning the other 95% of them. Remember Rwanda? One tribe there was bad, and massacred the other tribe. Would noting that be “racist?”
Would noting that Nazis, about 50 million or so of the white race, were horrible people, be racist?
I think the fear of being called racist is one thing that keeps people from being OPENLY honest about how they feel about African-Americans. Because most white people I know, liberal or conservative, have a very negative view of African-Americans (AA). They do not wish to live among them, nor to send their children to their schools. I submit that those feelings arise from the very real behavior that far too many African-American engage in – the hood culture, if you will.
The fear of being called a racist thus inhibits any criticism of the horrible, toxic dysfunctional behavior so endemic in the AA community.
Tell me what city has had an overall positive experience when large numbers of AAs move there. Chicago, Memphis, Baltimore, Oakland, Millwaukee, Baton Rouge, Jackson, Houston, Newark. There ain’t none. And it’s getting worse.
So, if too many white people want to pretend it all away, have at it! But, I refuse to lie about it.
The anti hero…
Floyd, the music of droning speech and cats yowling does violence to my soul. I hate it. Pardon, I must upchuck now.
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …
Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, “must be effected by colonization” of the country’s blacks to a foreign land. “The enterprise is a difficult one,” he acknowledged,
but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.
– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857.
It would be my fondest hope that the subject of restricted speech via all the hate speech legislation cooked up by the prog/left makes its way to SCOTUS where the entire concept of hate speech restrictions on our 1st amendment is finally declared unconstitutional.
* It’s well known that hate speech repeated endlessly is emotional abuse. Holly wood uses it and it’s evident. Battered syndrome is quite real.
Anyway, the destruction of the USA is the true hate.
Enjoy and sayonara, Auf verdesehn, chow, adios, o theos MAZISOU… gbye
“As is often the case, defending free speech means supporting viewpoints that most of us find grotesque and hateful.”
********************************
Hate is an underrated virtue with a bad reputation. For example, it’s okay — even required — to hate evil like child molestors, rapists, cold-blooded murderers and those who would do us harm for no reason. So hate away and say so. It’s called setting and enforcing standards. Only the fool and the soulless cad, love everyone. Remember, Jesus wielded both a palm frond and a whip, when the need arose.
“The Virtues can only grow by confronting their opposites.”
https://youtube.com/shorts/g9PNiyzoAJc?si=6TyNt0zMECTux38U
Interesting but I’m not sure I agree.
Because the statement is displayed on public land, it suggests that the State sponsors it. I have no doubt that the statement is protected if displayed on one’s own property.
I can think of horrible statements: Kill all ______. I do not see why the state ought not be able to disassociate itself from such statements on State land.
When it comes down to it, are we not all, living on US soil? There should be no restrictions on flying a banner of the bridge (which was built by taxpayer money 100%) rather than your city street, your educational structures or the internet. This is just desperate woke-types trying to prevent the inevitable that hate speech is found unconstitutional.
Because the statement is displayed on public land, it suggests that the State sponsors it.
Not really. If someone holds up a sign while standing on a public sidewalk, that too is public land, but there is no suggestion of state endorsement of the message. What you have to look at is whether the state created a public forum for the expression of ideas. The state can close down public property to any expression, but what it can’t do is open it up to the expression of viewpoints it favors, while closing it to viewpoints it disagrees with.