Talkback

When is free speech "hate speech?"

POSTED: Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 7:25am

UPDATED: Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 3:28pm

East Texans talk-back on: supporters and oppenents of "Chic-fil-a's" firestorm

More supporters than prostestors swarmed the fast food chicken chain across the country after the president of the company said he valued marriage between a man and a woman.

His comments anger pro-gay marriage supporters who plan a protest of their own Friday. East Texans talk-back on what was said and reaction to Cathy's words.
 

Comments News Comments

This Chik-Fil-A tourmoil is just another example that "hate speech" isn't about what is said but who it's said about. Pelosi accused a reporter of hate speech when he through her own words back at her in the form of an audio tape. It seems that to tell a lberal they're wrong is denying their free speech, to prove them wrong is hate speech.

The owner of any business can say whatever he wants free of GOVERNMENT reaction. that, and ONLY that, is what is meant by "Free Speech." As a private citizen I can take offense and refuse to patronize his business, call him a fool, and ask my friends to boycott him. That is MY right.

Some mayors have suggested that they will use the power of government to prevent him expanding into their towns. That is clearly a constitutional violation and they should back down on any such threat.

When an elected public official wields the club of government against a Christian business in the name of "tolerance," it's not harmless kid stuff, It's chilling. The mayors of these perverse cities do not have American values they are Marxist. Queers are an abomination and will burn in Hell.

Again, I call on KETK moderators to remove woooster from any posting on any KETK site, to remove his IP information so he cannot post on any subject in the future, and that woooster stuff it concerning his/her rediculous posts...the First Amendment does allow free speech, but anyone who believes the Founding Fathers didn't believe that freedom encompassed civil discourse precluded the use of vile, un-American, hate-filled and disgusting rhetoric is so far over the cliff, it's terribly sad.

So, am I to understand that in the name of free speech, you want deny free speech to wooster because you disagree with what is said?

Post new Comment