“Where do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

If free speech is what we want, then is it all right if my speech would hurt a few people’s feelz? If I’m restrained from expressing my opinion, what happened to my freedom of speech?”Determining what is “hate speech” depends entirely on what values the dominant societal ideology approves of. To a “progressive” society, “Homosexuality is sinful” might be hate speech, but to a strongly religious society, “Faith in God is irrational” might be hate speech.
Even if you only defined “hate speech” to include outright slurs, that would only delay the problem, not eliminate it—because polite terms become considered as slurs when their target group gets more sensitive to them (for example, “Negro” used to be a completely neutral term for a black person, but now it’s considered a milder version of “the N-word”, and “cripple” used to be an entirely neutral term for someone without full use of his or her legs, but now it’s considered an “ableist” slur).
The point is that no matter how you phrase it, eventually any “hate speech” restriction will morph into a rule that socially unpopular views cannot be expressed—and what is “socially unpopular” might shift dramatically. A law intended to prohibit racist statements could one day be used to prosecute people for “disparaging” speech against the “obvious truth” that whites are superior. A law intended to prohibit homophobic slurs could one day be used to prosecute a gay person for “offensively and outrageously” disparaging the theology of the Baptists.
Free speech means nothing at all unless it is broad enough to encompass speech that causes offense, because speech which doesn’t cause offense doesn’t need protecting (because no one is trying to restrict it).
There is no free speech without the freedom to be controversial or offensive. If someone didn’t want to shut a speaker up there would be no need to protect the speaker’s speech.

But as Stephen Fry said:
“ It’s now very common to hear people say,
“I’m rather offended by that.” As if that gives them certain rights.
It’s actually nothing more… than a whine.
“I find that offensive.” …
It has no meaning;
it has no purpose;
it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.
“I am offended by that.”
Well, so fucking what? “

“Hate speech” is free speech.

Hate speech is not that “some person is hurt by”. Today it is that is said by white straight man and disliked by somebody else who pretends to be offended. Else, it is not a hate speech. For example, if you are a Muslim and demand to behead those who offend Islam, it is not considered a hate speech in England. The laws against “hate speech” is very selective thing. In Mainstream Media perception it is believed that only people who can commit this thought crime are whites. They can’t define it, but will make you know when they see it.
The line between free speech and hate speech is drawn geographically. Free speech is American concept while hate speech is mostly European and Canadian one.
If you restrained from an expression of an opinion, your freedom of speech is lost like in EU and Canada. The most interesting thing about “hate speech” laws in Canada is that Truth is not a defence. This is most important thing you have to know about hate speech. What does it mean? That is easy. The laws against hate speech defend those who are offended by truth.

There is no practical way to implement “hate speech” laws. Everyone has a different view of what constitutes hate speech. To most, it is any speech that speaks ill of one’s own views.Mocking other people is not right. But neither is trying to make laws against the right for rude people to be rude.
If you Duckduckgo “hate speech” the first definition given is “Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, colour, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” That definition seems to come from the American Bar Association. It’s the perfect definition for this question because it literally means nothing. What does it mean for speech to “offend” some one? How offended do they have to be? What does that offense need to be based on if anything? What exactly is encompassed by “other traits”? Literally any other trait? Political party, profession, neighbourhood, anything? If I mock soccer players for wearing silly shorts am I engaging in hate speech? Should I be afraid to criticise racists, abusive spouses, or corrupt politicians because I might hurt their feelings?

Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech at all if it does not include the right to criticise an idea.

Replace Walmart with The Warehouse and you can see the future here.

Walmart is adding hundreds of robots to its stores to help wash floors and perform low-level jobs that will free up workers to do other important work.

Walmart will add robots to at least 300 of its stores this year, the Wall Street Journal reported. In another 900 of its stores, Walmart will put 16-foot-high towers permitting shoppers to pick up orders they’ve placed online

“With automation, we are able to take away some of the tasks that associates don’t enjoy doing,” Walmart’s senior director of central operations in the U.S., Mark Propes, said, according to the WSJ. “At the same time we continue to open up new jobs in other things in the store,” he added.The robots’ duties are to clean floors, monitor inventory and unload trucks, among others, the WSJ reported. Walmart’s robot launch comes after the company has increasingly spent more money to give workers higher salaries and offer online grocery shopping and delivery services. The robots are meant to help offset those costs, according to the WSJ.

The robots are intended to be “operational partner[s]” to workers, according to Brain Corp. innovation vice president Phil Duffy, the WSJ reported. Brain Corp. developed the software that allows the robots to function. Walmart will also double the number of automated conveyer belts that scan products leaving delivery trucks to 1,200, the WSJ reported. The move is meant to offset costs and free workers to do higher-value tasks, according to Walmart officials.

“It’s very hard for employers to get the workforce they need,” Mr. Duffy said. “None of the customers we’re working with are using our machines to reduce their labor costs; they’re using them to allow their teams, their janitorial teams, to perform higher-value tasks.”

Walmart raised the base salary for its workers to $11 in 2018. Its competitors have also raised wages. Costco increased worker wages to $15 and Amazon did the same.

Other retail corporations have also added automated devices to its stores. Target added money counting machines to its stores over the summer to free up workers to perform other more meaningful duties.

Walmart’s robot launch comes as it continues to fight Amazon in an online shopping battle. Walmart recently hired 40,000 workers to help stock groceries for online orders, the WSJ reported.

The Messiah Who Lied

Obama ran under the empty platitude, “Yes we can!”

Obama is now proven yet again to be another leftie liar. He was only following orders from his puppet masters. He certainly wasn’t going to end wars and government corruption. Instead, he expanded them.

The corporate media has repeatedly said Obama’s administration was ‘scandal free,’ but in reality it was chock-full of scandals including the IRS targeting the Tea Party scandal, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the GSA scandal, the EPA scandal, sending Iran billions of dollars in the middle of the night, his prosecution of whistle blowers, the Solyndra scandal, and many more. His media covered for him by downplaying or ignoring his scandals at every turn.

Where have I heard that complaint before?

Oh I remember now. Our very own Media have been ignoring and covering up the constant lying from our very own COL.