Surely the Civil Rights Act would come into play here? And your Free Speech rights not trumping their protections under said Civil Rights Act.
For example left handed people used to have all kinds of mean treatment. My grandmother had horrible experiences in school because she’d be hit if she used her left hand and hit for writing the notes too slowly with her right. But I imagine we wouldn’t be too bothered by calling left-handed people evil or something because it’s not protected under the Civil Rights amendment?
Our current foster son is clearly left-handed. It’s fascinating to me, that everything he mimics us doing (right-handed) he just instinctively tries to do with his left. Doesn’t even attempt with his right. And he’s only two. I was always curious how much kids mimicked and how much was instinct.
Also I know a surprising number of mathy/actuarial types who are lefties.
It might be worth noting that the 1st amendment only requires that Congress not create laws restricting expression.
It doesn’t guarantee individual rights in and of itself. People giving interpretation to what’s stated by saying that “I can say what I want, how I want, and where I want” are taking what’s there far too liberally, IMO.
That is, this amendment says nothing explicitly about how one private citizen should (or shouldn’t) treat another.
Nothing in the Constitution–and the subsequent Amendments–deal with how one private individual can/should treat another; so not sure how making an interpretation of the 1st Amendment supports/justifies “hate speech”. If anything, I would point out that the Preamble of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment protects individual rights (and here, I’m viewing personal dignity is a right of all private individuals).
I dunno, the bar is not allowed to refuse service based on ethnicity or other protected groups. But they don’t have to make it pleasant either.
Like if they wanted to hang pictures of Adolf Hitler in his glory days and have swastika decor, or display a confederate flag and KKK symbols I’m pretty sure they’re allowed to do that. As long as they don’t say “we don’t serve blacks/Jews” or whatever other group they might be prejudiced against, and actually serve them if/when they go in and order a drink.
Technically I’m a bit of a mix, although I think that’s quite common. For example in many sports I play akin to a righty (golf, soccer, baseball batting) but writing, throwing a ball, etc. I can only do lefty.
I like to think that it helps build connections across the brain hemispheres and that’s why a disproportionate number of presidents have been left-handed, but I’m hopelessly biased.
Libel and slander, written or verbal defamation of someone, are legal limitations to free speech. Say something that causes an unjust unfavorable opinion of someone and that someone can sue you for slander. We recognize the legal impact of this negative behavior. We grant the power to limit the free speech of someone else.
How does a Jew (or a Christian, or a lesbian, or an Asian, or a…) sue for slander that directly impacts them but does not name them personally?
An aside: We could ask how does a government sue for defamation but I think that gets more into a discussion of governmental power not free speech (IMO the government cannot sue you for lying about it but you can sue it for lying about you). This line of thought and questions formulated for me when watching the Trump/Fox News/Right wing cabal try to use lies and defamation to justify a coup. The ramped up flow of directed purposeful bullshit was only checked and kept from overwhelming us by their foolish inclusion of a corporation as their target. The corporation sued. The bullshit spew dropped significantly. The lawsuits also demonstrated those spewing the lies were unwilling to put their money where their mouth was so to speak.
Back to my point about free speech. Defamation in certain situations is recognized as legally wrong. In principle, defamation, an unjust false statement that causes injury, is wrong. How do we as a society correct for the limited legal reach we currently have without compromising non-defaming free speech?
False statement is the key. We need a mechanism to distinguish false statements from facts. Those with power (the government, etc.) have always lied to those without power to control the zeitgeist. The use of marketing/branding theory and the proliferation of social media has disrupted our, the individual’s and society’s, ability to navigate within the sea of falsehoods and facts.
I haven’t been, but I have been to the Creation Museum started by the same guy. I was pleasantly surprised. They basically laid out “this is what science says; this is what we believe and why”.
And the “this is what science says” portion was accurate as far as my (science-PhD-holding) father and I could tell.
They showed a video of two people at an archeological dig. The first guy was a PhD archeologist who explained that the dinosaur bones they were digging up were between X and Y million years old (I forget what X and Y were). Then some other guy says he disagrees; he believes they are only about 4,000-4,500 years old.
So while some of the “this is what we believe and why” stuff was indeed bonkers, at least they were being honest about it, and what scientists think really happened.
As good as you could possibly hope for from a place like that, IMO.
BTW, the Creation Museum is (or at least was) crazy expensive. My father & stepmother & I went on Christmas Eve because I was in town for Christmas and they decided to make admission free on Christmas Eve as their gift to the community and we didn’t want to financially support them, but we WERE curious. But the rest of the year admission is pretty steep. I’m guessing the Ark Encounter is too.
I can see my parents walking around a hilly zoo with their walkers. Mom may bring her scooter if the museums are accessible. Yes, I think they are going to both the ark and the creation museum.
That’s nice to hear they were transparent. I watched the debates they did and it is self consistent. Merely start with a very strict set of beliefs about the bible and then add in a “therefore the physics worked radically differently to make the numbers tie” sort of deal. Honestly the inflationary period of the expansion of the universe feels a bit similar in terms of explanation…
