What is Digg?8 Comments
- nmc1980, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2surely they should have banned it years ago and not now when its becoming mainstream and used as a term of endearment.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Where is Lenny Bruce when we really need him? I thought he already had cleared all this up for everyone.
- shade73, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Voltaire
I would never use this word in a million years (and I'm from the south), but I don't care what the word is founded on, it should be protected. Hate speech and speech that incites violence should not be squelched, otherwise the revolution would have never occurred (inciting violence against the government wasn't favorable back then either people...)
Oh yeah, @nazuraki
The ACLU seems to think the first amendment protects *any* speech... who would have thought: http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This just in:
...following New York's lead, the federal government is banning the word 'dictator' and the word 'treason' and the phrase 'high-crimes and misdemeanor.'
And 'English' shall now be replaced with the word "Newspeak"
'War' shall be replaced with 'Peace.'
'Torture' shall be called 'National security.' - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They have no interest in ending actual racism....just the appearance of it. F**king government idiots!
It's just another government smokescreen to keep us all from focusing on the real issues...like the imminent climatic collapse of the entire planet, and the incredible amount of slaughter happening in various countries every day....ALL government sponsored!
Bitches! - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry.. I submitted this before I actually read the article. As the first sentence says: "The resolution to ban the so-called "N-word" is largely symbolic as it carries no weight in law and those who use the word would face no punishment", so my title and description is redundant.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2People really need to read the First Amendment and pertinent court cases.
Whenever someone posts an article about a hate-site or something in that vein being censored/fined/removed there's always some erroneously implied violation of freedom of speech. Of course, as anyone who has ever taken a poli-sci course should know, 'freedom of speech' is not carte blanche to say whatever you want. Hate speech, speech which incites violence, libel/slander and speech which violates the 'fire in a crowded theater' standard are NOT protected by the First Amendment. - drgrillspectre, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Furthermore, your title is actually completely inaccurate, given that hate speech is not applicable to 1st Amendment protection. Dugg down.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is