Anonymous ID: 0656c2 Feb. 9, 2025, 2:27 p.m. No.22547755   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7762 >>7776 >>7786 >>7794 >>7921 >>7946 >>7950 >>7960 >>7971 >>7997 >>8036

This has got to be the stupidest video ever. This guy won’t utter any words of a real tweet. Censoring himself. Retarded..

Kanye is pushing the bounds of free speech and I think that is great. Perez Hilton won’t even say yhe words someone else said.

Retarded. Kanye has his wife, by her own choice naked ot Grammy’s to show freedom. Kanye says he loves Hitler to show free speech. His wife last name has censor in it.

Bianca Censori.

To not read the actual words of Kanye tweets on X is so moronic. People who cannot see what Kanye is throwing in everyones face are lame and blind.

We all should be allowed to have our own opinions and say whatever we want. We are Americans and have these rights. But to be banned or censored or de-banked because of said out loud opinions about Israel, Jews or Hitler is truly in-American. Kanye is going over the drawn lines and I like it. Who draws the lines?

 

https://youtu.be/dxvwfxMD2EU

 

Kanye West: “I’m a Nazi! and “I love Hitler!”

 

All pb

>>22543983

>>22543984

>>22543985

>>22543987

>>22543991

>>22543997

>>22543998

>>22544010

 

Kanye calling himself YAYDOLF YITLER is kind of funny and fresh.

Anonymous ID: 0656c2 Feb. 9, 2025, 3:02 p.m. No.22547946   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7960 >>7971

Free speech for real in USA should be on every Americans lips.

All white people should be racist.

All people are racist in their own people groups.

White people are the only group who cannot be a proud group publicly.

Kanye is telling real truth.

 

>>22547755

>>22547755

>>22547762

>>22547776

>>22547786

 

The Slants

SCOTUS CASE

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

 

The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name In Trademark Dispute

JUNE 19, 2017

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/19/533514196/the-slants-win-supreme-court-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute

 

https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/supreme-court-disparaging-speech-protected-by-first-amendment-lanham-act-slants-skins.html

 

USA Today

https://www.usatoday.com

 

A resounding victory for free speech

 

Supreme Court delivers a victory for free speech on The Slants trademark case

Jun 19, 2017 — … disgusting, violent videos or distasteful protests at military funerals. … But Monday's decision in The Slants case is what freedom sounds like.

 

The beauty of the government our Founders created is that people who find The Slants — or any other name — offensive have plenty of options to express their disgust. They could go to a Slants concert and protest. Or launch a boycott. The antidote to speech you find offensive is more speech, not getting the government to ban it.

 

 

 

 

Akerman LLP

https://www.akerman.com

Supreme Court: Disparaging Speech Protected By First Amendment; Lanham Act Section 2(a) Unconstitutional: A Win for the Slants and the Skins

Jun 20, 2017 — The Court held that the Lanham Act's prohibition on registering federal trademarks that “disparage” any person violates the First Amendment.

 

In the United States, there is no legal definition for "hate speech". This is because the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, which includes the right to express hateful views.

Explanation

The First Amendment protects the right to say hateful things without censorship.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the government cannot punish or prohibit hate speech.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of thought, even if it's hateful.

The government can't discriminate against speech based on the speaker's viewpoint.

Hate speech is protected because it's part of the democratic dialogue.

However, hate speech can be considered a violation of other laws if it's a true threat, incitement to violence, or discriminatory harassment.

 

The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment

Jun 19, 2017 — Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest …

 

Supreme Court Affirms Hate Speech Protected

Published: June 21, 2017.

 

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment

Jun 19, 2017 — Speech that demeans

 

First Amendment expert, Eugene Volokh writes that in Matal v. Tam, also known as the “Slants” case, the “justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions.” For example, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that silencing offensive speech is wrong and that “our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’.”

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matal_v._Tam

 

 

 

 

The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment

Jun 19, 2017 — Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest …

Anonymous ID: 0656c2 Feb. 9, 2025, 3:03 p.m. No.22547960   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>22547755

>>22547946

 

>The beauty of the government our Founders created is that people who find The Slants — or any other name — offensive have plenty of options to express their disgust. They could go to a Slants concert and protest. Or launch a boycott. The antidote to speech you find offensive is more speech, not getting the government to ban it.

Anonymous ID: 0656c2 Feb. 9, 2025, 3:05 p.m. No.22547971   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>22547946

>>22547755

 

> In the United States, there is no legal definition for "hate speech". This is because the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, which includes the right to express hateful views. The First Amendment protects the right to say hateful things without censorship. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the government cannot punish or prohibit hate speech.The First Amendment protects the freedom of thought, even if it's hateful. The government can't discriminate against speech based on the speaker's viewpoint. Hate speech is protected because it's part of the democratic dialogue.

Anonymous ID: 0656c2 Feb. 9, 2025, 3:10 p.m. No.22548016   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8030 >>8056

Poasting your shit a hundred times does not make anyone read or watch.

We just skip, ,over you.

Or they filter you and we don't even see you anymore. You really don’t understand how this board works do you.

>>22547947