Spotify to pull hateful songs and artists

[pkane2001]

You assume I’m on the left based on what, exactly? Because I don’t think like you?

 

Because I don’t blame liberals for all the ills in the world? You see the world as us against them, and that is exactly what I see as the the attitude that will hasten the end of freedom and democracy.  Enough about politics, this is an audiophile forum, after all.

[Ralf11]

where did you get racism, muffy-priap?

 

much less the other garbage

[Teresa]

Question to those defending hate, do you really believe hate speech should be protected under the first amendment?

 

In the article linked Spotify defined hateful as “content that expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics, including, race, religion, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, veteran status, or disability.”

 

Personally, I believe that hate speech and hate groups exist to deprive the freedom and even life of the groups that they hate, IMHO this is criminal behavior and I firmly believe it should be banned. 

 

IMHO freedom from is just as important as freedom to.

[diecaster]

Of course hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Here is what is not:

 

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

[Teresa]

25 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Of course hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Here is what is not:

 

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

 

Isn't hate speech defamation, libelous and slanderous against entire groups of people? I believe it is and as such your link says that is not protected by the First Amendment.

 

In addition much hate speech and hate groups advocate violent actions and other crimes against entire groups of people. Solicitations to commit crimes is also listed as not protected by the First Amendment. IMHO hate speech and hate groups are criminals and should be treated as such!

[Priaptor]

22 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Of course hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Here is what is not:

 

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

Sorry the cut and paste debates so prevalent in today’s “all knowing” world doesn’t work and your cut and paste has no legitimacy no matter how distasteful the examples 

[Priaptor]

15 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Isn't hate speech defamation, libelous and slanderous against entire groups of people? I believe it is and as such your link says that not protected by the First Amendment.

WRONG. No matter how distasteful what you “believe” doesn’t make it so.  

[AudioDoctor]

5 hours ago, Priaptor said:

It’s not “my party” but your pathetic bias and absolute despicable preconceived notion of what a Conservative represents. You should b ashamed of yourself for making these generalizations. 

 

 

 

 

I'll remember that at the next Tiki Torch Rally.

[diecaster]

2 hours ago, Priaptor said:

Sorry the cut and paste debates so prevalent in today’s “all knowing” world doesn’t work and your cut and paste has no legitimacy no matter how distasteful the examples 

 

It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about here. All speech is not protected and the link I provided does a good job of listing the exceptions.

[Teresa]

3 hours ago, Priaptor said:

WRONG. No matter how distasteful what you “believe” doesn’t make it so.  

 

So you actually believe that hate speech, such as advocating violence, rape and murder is protected by the First Amendment? Those who spew hate speech are advocating others commit crimes and that makes them accomplices to said crimes. 

 

ac·com·plice

a person who helps another commit a crime.

 

First 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.

 

The First Amendment does not protect advocating criminal activity which is what much of Rap and Hip-Hop music does.

 

To respond to your comment, advocating criminal activity is illegal with current laws on the books, it is in no way free speech. The fact that said laws are not being enforced is wrong, just as wrong as your comment IMHO.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

So you actually believe that hate speech, such as advocating violence, rape and murder is protected by the First Amendment?

It damn well should be. Expressing an opinion, no matter how vile, should be permitted. Inciting or soliciting violence or other crimes can be made illegal without messing with the basic right to free speech. Banning words and phrases deemed "hateful" simply doesn't work. It's all about context and intent, which has to be assessed case by case. Gangsta rap performers do not, as a rule, actually want to see people carrying out the acts they describe.

 

That said, Spotify is not the government, or even American. What content they choose to carry has nothing to do with the first amendment. You won't find any porn on Netflix because they have chosen not to provide that type of content, not because porn is or should be illegal. This Spotify decision is no different.

[Priaptor]

6 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about here. All speech is not protected and the link I provided does a good job of listing the exceptions.

If I were you (thank God I'm not) I would do some research before doing copy and paste arguments.  I can give you examples by one of your heroes that violates YOUR definition:

Bill Maher: "Palin is dumb c-nt"

Bill Maher : "Sarah Palin is a dumb Twat"

Bill Maher to Milo: "impish British fag." 

 

Not only did he NOT violate the 1st Amendment, which according to your sophomoric cut and paste "factoid" claims he did BUT you guys think this is entertainment. 

 

[Priaptor]

6 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

So you actually believe that hate speech, such as advocating violence, rape and murder is protected by the First Amendment? Those who spew hate speech are advocating others commit crimes and that makes them accomplices to said crimes. 

 

ac·com·plice

a person who helps another commit a crime.

 

First 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.

 

The First Amendment does not protect advocating criminal activity which is what much of Rap and Hip-Hop music does.

 

To respond to your comment, advocating criminal activity is illegal with current laws on the books, it is in no way free speech. The fact that said laws are not being enforced is wrong, just as wrong as your comment IMHO.

"So you actually believe"??  NO, I know, it has nothing to do with "believing" it is understand the facts. 

 

It's bad taste just like just about everything coming out of Hollywood BUT it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment.

 

As I said above and if you really understood the 1st Amendment and the court rulings that further defined it, any "violation" of must meet the standard of "imminent lawless action"

 

Advocating murder is a common among pro-choice people, no?  Your argument, no matter how simple, holds no legitimacy.  Nothing would make me happier than to see Madonna, Maher, Behar, Kathy Griffin, BLM, Antifa, skinheads, etc jailed BUT what they are doing is not a violation of the 1st Amendment. 

 

Let me say, I don't support "hate speech" but even more I really don't support those who think it is in their purview to be the arbiter of what "hate speech" is.  This is where we are with the left today. 

[rando]

@Teresa Thank you for your valiant attempts to unearth substance.  This conversation and these people's actions have no place outside of the general/equipment forum.  They have been repeatedly asked to leave turmoil outside the sanctuary of the garden we cultivate here in this section of the forum.  Or respect our wishes not to make their presence known.  

 

 

 

Consider this a direct request to disband.  

[Priaptor]

Just now, rando said:

@Teresa Thank you for your valiant attempts to unearth substance.  This conversation and these people's actions have no place outside of the general forum.  They have been repeatedly asked to leave turmoil outside the sanctuary of the garden we cultivate here in this section of the forum.  Or respect our wishes not to make their presence known.  

 

 

 

Consider this a direct request to disband.  

Yes Teresa, no matter how your "attempts" lack facts.  But in today's world, who cares about facts, when you can just "believe and know".

[Snowmonkey]

I'm not really familiar with R. Kelly's music. Could someone who is, please explain to me if his lyrics contain hate speech. If it's his alleged extra-curricular activities that are the problem, shouldn't the same standard be applied to the music of Jerry Lee Lewis, who actually (as opposed to allegedly) married his 13 year old cousin?

[AudioDoctor]

3 hours ago, Priaptor said:

With every one of your comments you demonstrate just how petulant, pathetic and sick you really are.  

 

I think you forgot where you were and were saying something about Donald Trump...

[Ralf11]

[Teresa]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 5:37 AM, Priaptor said:

Bill Maher: "Palin is dumb c-nt"

Bill Maher : "Sarah Palin is a dumb Twat"

Bill Maher to Milo: "impish British fag." 

 

Not only did he NOT violate the 1st Amendment, which according to your sophomoric cut and paste "factoid" claims he did BUT you guys think this is entertainment. 

 

I find such language offensive no matter who speaks it. Sarah Palin may not be very intelligent, however that is not an excuse to slander her. Unfortunately intelligence is not something required in politics. I can't speak for others but I don't find Bill Maher's comments entertaining but offensive. 

 

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 5:48 AM, Priaptor said:

"So you actually believe"??  NO, I know, it has nothing to do with "believing" it is understand the facts.

 

...Advocating murder is a common among pro-choice people, no?  Your argument, no matter how simple, holds no legitimacy.  Nothing would make me happier than to see Madonna, Maher, Behar, Kathy Griffin, BLM, Antifa, skinheads, etc jailed BUT what they are doing is not a violation of the 1st Amendment. 

 

Let me say, I don't support "hate speech" but even more I really don't support those who think it is in their purview to be the arbiter of what "hate speech" is.  This is where we are with the left today. 

 

Actually, I'm old enough to have seen protections of the First Amendment expand way beyond its original intentions. Future court rulings can invalidate current ones. It is really a bizarre stretch of the imagination to believe that hate speech is free speech. It is not and never will be IMHO.

 

Pro-choice people don't believe that embryos are human beings. so in their eyes they are not advocating murder. OTOH Pro-life people believe that embryos are human beings, so we have a controversy. Personally, I'm in neither camp, but I would never have an abortion. On Planet Earth we have a crisis of overpopulation and I feel that every heterosexual couple on Planet Earth should have only one child, at least until the world's population decreases to 1 billion. After that one child, both the male and female should be sterilized. And we should be encouraging the homosexual lifestyle since gay people cannot reproduce.

 

I'm glad  you don't support hate speech. Still there is no way in hell that advocating that women only exist for men's pleasure and that white women should be raped and then killed is not a crime. These despicable people are hiding behind wrongheaded interpretations of the First Amendment.

 

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:16 AM, rando said:

@Teresa Thank you for your valiant attempts to unearth substance...

 

You're welcome. 

 

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 3:44 AM, mansr said:

...You won't find any porn on Netflix because they have chosen not to provide that type of content, not because porn is or should be illegal. This Spotify decision is no different.

 

I was against the legalization of porn in the 1970s, at least kiddy-porn and bestiality are still illegal. IMHO all porn should be illegal not just the really gross stuff.

[Priaptor]

2 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I find such language offensive no matter who speaks it. Sarah Palin may not be very intelligent, however that is not an excuse to slander her. Unfortunately intelligence is not something required in politics. I can't speak for others but I don't find Bill Maher's comments entertaining but offensive. 

 

 

Actually, I'm old enough to have seen protections of the First Amendment expand way beyond its original intentions. Future court rulings can invalidate current ones. It is really a bizarre stretch of the imagination to believe that hate speech is free speech. It is not and never will be IMHO.

 

Pro-choice people don't believe that embryos are human beings. so in their eyes they are not advocating murder. OTOH Pro-life people believe that embryos are human beings, so we have a controversy. Personally, I'm in neither camp, but I would never have an abortion. On Planet Earth we have a crisis of overpopulation and I feel that every heterosexual couple on Planet Earth should have only one child, at least until the world's population decreases to 1 billion. After that one child, both the male and female should be sterilized. And we should be encouraging the homosexual lifestyle since gay people cannot reproduce.

 

I'm glad  you don't support hate speech. Still there is no way in hell that advocating that women only exist for men's pleasure and that white women should be raped and then killed is not a crime. These despicable people are hiding behind wrongheaded interpretations of the First Amendment.

 

 

You're welcome. 

 

 

I was against the legalization of porn in the 1970s, at least kiddy-porn and bestiality are still illegal. IMHO all porn should be illegal not just the really gross stuff.

This is going to be my last post on this forum for multiple reasons.  First I am tired of the never ending threads here denigrating those buying systems that most posting here can't afford as well as the constant berating of those with "subjective" opinions, unless of course the subjectivity comes from Chris which all his sycophants would never question.  Second, I am tired of the "moderator" acting as some dictatorial figure, determining some of the most vile comments to be acceptable as long as it meets his political leaning; which is his right to do as this is his site, but I don't have to tolerate it.  Third, the Progressives on these threads prove themselves to be the most intolerant, propagandist brainwashed drones I have ever encountered spewing their hateful polemics, platitudes and generalizations.  Lastly, there really isn't that much regarding audio exchanges occurring here anymore and it has become mainly a forum for criticizing.  

 

And now my response to Terersa which will garner me another "never expiring penalty point" that is so petulant, I didn't even know what to say except to laugh hysterically when I got Chris' warning.  

 

"Sarah Palin may not be very intelligent, however that is not an excuse to slander her".  Well Teresa you just did slander her.  From your comments it seems like Palin is much more intelligent than you. 

 

"to have seen protections of the First Amendment expand way beyond its original intentions"  Really, you have no idea what you are talking about and never have pertaining to the topic and it shows every time you and that other guy try to claim what is or is not covered by the 1st Amendment.  Read the 1st and 14th Amendments and try to understand what you are talking about what the standard is I pointed out that has to be proven to be a violation of the 1st Amendment.  Unless there is a new amendment or Constitution eradicating the 1st Amendment it is the law, except of course by Progressives who want to be the arbiters of what is and is not acceptable and single handedly rewrite the Constitution.

 

"I feel that every heterosexual couple on Planet Earth should have only one child, at least until the world's population decreases to 1 billion. After that one child, both the male and female should be sterilized. And we should be encouraging the homosexual lifestyle since gay people cannot reproduce" I have to say of all the absolute absurd, hateful and depraved propaganda I have heard from Progressives, this may be up there with the most bizarre and deranged I have ever read.  I recommend you get some help.

 

Reading your post is like a trip through Bizarro World.  

 

Keep America Great! Trump Wins 2020

[christopher3393]

 

[AudioDoctor]

Really? You may disagree with him, but dancing on his grave, so to speak, really isn't needed.

[AudioDoctor]

17 hours ago, Teresa said:

And we should be encouraging the homosexual lifestyle since gay people cannot reproduce.

 

Ahh, what?

[Ralf11]

we should be encouraging the high tenor lifestyle since castrati people cannot reproduce.

[mansr]

We should encourage use of recreational drugs known to reduce fertility.