Russia and Ukraine pass anti-gay laws hahaha

[fschmidt]

You can't deny that homosexuality is but another arm of feminism, aimed at population control and contorting the gender roles more than they are already.

I certainly can deny this and I do. Homosexuals are liberals mostly because conservatives reject them, not for any other reason. Homosexuals have no interest in feminism that I am aware of. In Ancient Athens, bisexuality among men was common and these guys had a strict patriarchal culture, much better than modern Christian culture.

[gsjackson]

Before that tragic event, America really was a free country with free speech, no conspiracy laws, and reasonable jail terms. Anyone who admires this old American culture can't possibly support the law being discussed in this thread.

I don't think this is right. Prior to the '60s almost no one in the US would have even thought about promoting homosexuality. If a law were passed prohibiting such expression, either state or federal, I'm certain it would have survived a constitutional challenge. The relevant analysis is and was: Is there a significant government purpose that justifies the restriction on speech? Laughable though it may seem now in the US, preserving public morals was considered a substantial public purpose for most of the country's history. Except for the odd SCt justice, such as Hugo Black, we have never subscribed to First Amendment absolutism in the US.

[fschmidt]

I don't think this is right. Prior to the '60s almost no one in the US would have even thought about promoting homosexuality. If a law were passed prohibiting such expression, either state or federal, I'm certain it would have survived a constitutional challenge. The relevant analysis is and was: Is there a significant government purpose that justifies the restriction on speech? Laughable though it may seem now in the US, preserving public morals was considered a substantial public purpose for most of the country's history. Except for the odd SCt justice, such as Hugo Black, we have never subscribed to First Amendment absolutism in the US.

The only example that I can think of of the federal government restricting free speech before the 60s is the Alien and Sedition Acts. Can you think of any other examples?

[Cornfed]

You can't deny that homosexuality is but another arm of feminism, aimed at population control and contorting the gender roles more than they are already.

I certainly can deny this and I do. Homosexuals are liberals mostly because conservatives reject them, not for any other reason. Homosexuals have no interest in feminism that I am aware of.

Feminism is a religion which holds that elite men are the owners and proprietors of all women and may administer them through the state system. It follows that the elite will promote anything that gets ordinary men away from "their" women. Faggotry, and in particular, dykism serves this purpose. That is the connection.

[gsjackson]

The only example that I can think of of the federal government restricting free speech before the 60s is the Alien and Sedition Acts. Can you think of any other examples?

No, unless Lincoln's suspensions of civil liberties qualifies. And the Alien & sedition Acts were, of course, upheld by the SCt in Schenck v. US. The First Amendment was always considered to apply strictly to political speech, until the '60s. No one ever considered arguing that it applied to the realm of morals, which was the domain of churches. Churches and other cultural forces were quite effective in suppressing discussion about what was then considered sexual deviancy.

The US has never been a bastion of uninhibited speech, unless you argue that it is now. When Tocqueville visited in 1830 he noted that the US had the least free expression of any western country, because majority opinion was so effective in suppressing dissenting views -- Americans then being a bunch of lickspittle courtiers who were always trying to ingratiate themselves with others.

I would just add that homosexuality was criminalized in most, if not all states until recently. Any law passed by the states prohibiting the advocacy of criminal behavior would certainly survive constitutional scrutiny.

[fschmidt]

The only example that I can think of of the federal government restricting free speech before the 60s is the Alien and Sedition Acts. Can you think of any other examples?

No, unless Lincoln's suspensions of civil liberties qualifies. And the Alien & sedition Acts were, of course, upheld by the SCt in Schenck v. US. The First Amendment was always considered to apply strictly to political speech, until the '60s. No one ever considered arguing that it applied to the realm of morals, which was the domain of churches. Churches and other cultural forces were quite effective in suppressing discussion about what was then considered sexual deviancy.

You seem to almost be supporting what I am saying. There were never (or hardly ever) any federal laws restricting speech before the 60s in any realm including politics, morals, or whatever. This indicates that the First Amendment applied to all forms of speech. The law passed in the Ukraine would clearly violate the First Amendment if passed in America.

The US has never been a bastion of uninhibited speech, unless you argue that it is now. When Tocqueville visited in 1830 he noted that the US had the least free expression of any western country, because majority opinion was so effective in suppressing dissenting views -- Americans then being a bunch of lickspittle courtiers who were always trying to ingratiate themselves with others.

Socially inhibiting speech is a lot less of a problem than outlawing it.

I would just add that homosexuality was criminalized in most, if not all states until recently. Any law passed by the states prohibiting the advocacy of criminal behavior would certainly survive constitutional scrutiny.

Local laws are less of a problem because one can move. The 14th amendment was used to stop states from limiting speech and so, after the 14th amendment, states would not have been allowed to outlaw the advocacy of anything. If I say "I support murder and think it should be legalized" then this is simply an expression of an opinion that no state could outlaw.

[gsjackson]

. You seem to almost be supporting what I am saying. There were never (or hardly ever) any federal laws restricting speech before the 60s in any realm including politics, morals, or whatever. This indicates that the First Amendment applied to all forms of speech. The law passed in the Ukraine would clearly violate the First Amendment if passed in America.

Socially inhibiting speech is a lot less of a problem than outlawing it.

Local laws are less of a problem because one can move. The 14th amendment was used to stop states from limiting speech and so, after the 14th amendment, states would not have been allowed to outlaw the advocacy of anything. If I say "I support murder and think it should be legalized" then this is simply an expression of an opinion that no state could outlaw.

You're trying to make the point that US culture was great in days gone by, in part because of the vitality of the First Amendment, and that just isn't historically accurate. The First Amendment was essentially a dead letter until the 20th century, and really didn't take on any vibrancy in terms of restricting government until the '60s, rather precisely correlating with the beginning of the country's descent into hell in a handbasket (to use a term coined by the nation's preeminent FA theorist, O.W. Holmes Jr. The 14th Amendment wasn't even held to apply to the states until the 1920s -- 60+ years after the amendment was passed. And even if it had applied to the states, it and the FA would not have overturned state laws making it criminal to advocate the commission of what at the time was a crime.

Once again: First Amendment protection is not absolute. It is always balanced against the governmental interest advanced by the challenged statute. In the America you're invoking, preserving public morals would have been seen as a substantial governmental interest, and a statute like Ukraine's passed by a state would have almost certainly survived constitutional challenge.

[fschmidt]

You're trying to make the point that US culture was great in days gone by, in part because of the vitality of the First Amendment, and that just isn't historically accurate. The First Amendment was essentially a dead letter until the 20th century, and really didn't take on any vibrancy in terms of restricting government until the '60s, rather precisely correlating with the beginning of the country's descent into hell in a handbasket (to use a term coined by the nation's preeminent FA theorist, O.W. Holmes Jr. The 14th Amendment wasn't even held to apply to the states until the 1920s -- 60+ years after the amendment was passed. And even if it had applied to the states, it and the FA would not have overturned state laws making it criminal to advocate the commission of what at the time was a crime.

Once again: First Amendment protection is not absolute. It is always balanced against the governmental interest advanced by the challenged statute. In the America you're invoking, preserving public morals would have been seen as a substantial governmental interest, and a statute like Ukraine's passed by a state would have almost certainly survived constitutional challenge.

So do you have any evidence to back your position? Can you give any examples of federally enforced restriction of speech to protect public morals?

[Cornfed]

Can you give any examples of federally enforced restriction of speech to protect public morals?

It is common knowledge that the regime used to prohibit anything more sexually explicit that a PG rated movie. That would be an example.

[fuzzy_corleone]

Why would you be gay when you have women who look like this:

[gsjackson]

So do you have any evidence to back your position? Can you give any examples of federally enforced restriction of speech to protect public morals?

It's not the federal government's purview. We have a system of federalism, and it's the prerogative of states. But once again: It was not even necessary, because no one in the US you're invoking would have tried to advocate homosexuality in the mainstream culture. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, but if it's that the First Amendment would have been used to shoot down suppression of speech statutes regarding homosexuality prior to the mid '60s, you're just wrong. It wasn't used to overturn any statute before the '60s. Again: Homosexuality was a crime in most or all of the states until recently.

[Tsar]

Even the 'bad' men were once good. Until their hearts turned cold. If that one woman embraced Adolf hitler, encouraged him in his art. His passion would have surely changed the world is such a different way. That power of men to build or to destroy. Women hold the key to harnessing that power. To love or to hate? A loved Man can do so much more. But a hated Man will show the world his hurt. His tears are his rage. To rain down over the whole of humanity. No woman knows the pain or hurt of a Man. A Man's hurt is so great it could envelope the entire world. That is why it is important for a boy to be loved. Love thy brother, always. Star Wars is the story of this kind of pain. An unloved boy without a mother. All Men cry in their own way.

Those are my thoughts exactly.

[Jester]

You can't deny that homosexuality is but another arm of feminism, aimed at population control and contorting the gender roles more than they are already.

I certainly can deny this and I do. Homosexuals are liberals mostly because conservatives reject them, not for any other reason. Homosexuals have no interest in feminism that I am aware of. In Ancient Athens, bisexuality among men was common and these guys had a strict patriarchal culture, much better than modern Christian culture.

Delirious ravings of a drooling, Christ-hating Zionist.

Orthodox, Biblical old-fashioned living for his family. Gay porn for your kids.

Yeah, that's fair.

[leavingusa]

Good for them, it's enough with the gay bullshit here.

[terminator]

"Only 11 percent opposed any kind of punishment. The situation is similar in Russia. In a poll by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion, 86 percent of respondents supported a ban on “propaganda of homosexualityâ€￾ among minors."

I note these percentages (11% don't want punishment...) roughly are the same as 10% of the population being gay, and 90% not being gay.

Ukranians will be busy not banning the internet (gay.com, etc.), Pro-Gay Churches, TV shows like "Will and Grace"... They will be too busy to do anything constructive.

I personally am surprised they are scapegoating gays when they destroyed the family through women's rights, no fault divorce, communism - giving solo moms flats,... I read most Russians are too pessimistic to have children even though the Govt pays moms to spread their legs & pop out a baby.