General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet's settle this: Hate speech is protected in the U.S.
It's protected by the 1st Amendment and the Supreme Court interpretation of it. Here are the cases that make it clear that hate speech is protected- even when the results are violence. You may disagree vehemently but that's the way it stands, and it's very unlikely to change.
Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)
Fr. Arthur Terminiello did for the Archdiocese of Chicago what mononucleosis did for kissing booths. A raging antisemite and right-wing lunatic, he gave a speech in Chicago that prompted protestors outdoors to riot. The city of Chicago arrested him under a law banning riotous speech, but the Supreme Court overturned his conviction.
[F]reedom of speech...," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the 5-4 majority, is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
No organization has been more aggressively or justifiably pursued on grounds of hate speech than the Ku Klux Klan. But the arrest of an Ohio Klansman named Clarence Brandenburg on criminal syndicalism charges, based on a KKK speech that recommended overthrowing the government, was overturned in a ruling that has protected radicals of all political persuasions ever since. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice William Brennan argued that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)
When the National Socialist Party of America was declined a permit to speak in Chicago, the organizers turned to the small, ethnically Jewish town of Skokie—where 1/6th of the Jewish population was made up of families that had survived the Holocaust. County authorities attempted to block the Nazi march, but their efforts were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a terse ruling. After the ruling, the city of Chicago granted the Nazis three permits to march; the Nazis, in turn, decided to cancel their plans to march in Skokie.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
After a teenager burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple, the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance—which prohibited symbols that "[arouse] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"—came into effect. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad.
Virginia v. Black (2003)
11 years after the St. Paul case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue of cross-burning after three people were arrested separately for violating a Virginia ban. In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that while cross-burning may constitute illegal intimidation in some cases, a ban on the public burning of crosses would violate the First Amendment. "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."
Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
Westboro Baptist Church has made a career out of being reprehensible. The organization, which came to national prominence by gleefully picketing the funeral of Matthew Shepard, later moved on to celebrating the 9/11 attacks and picketing military funerals. The family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, killed in Iraq in 2006, sued Westboro—and its leader, Fred Phelps—for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Westboro's right to picket. While acknowledging that Westboro's "contribution to public discourse may be negligible," Chief Justice John Roberts's ruling rested in existing U.S. hate speech precedent: "Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were."
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
it isn't. If you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater to cause mayhem, then you can't yell "I hate you because you are _________" and expect to get away with it.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It is inciting immediate panic.
And yes, I can yell "I hate you because you are ___________," and not get legal repercussions from that statement. It happens all the time. Granted, the person you yelled at my retaliate on their own in some way, but if they retaliate in an illegal way, with violence, etc., they will go to jail.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Yelling fire in a crowded theater referred to protesting against war while we were at war. The argument went that protesting against war during peacetime was ok because it couldn't do any damage. But protesting against war during a war causes enough harm that it's no longer protected by the first amendment.
Good luck getting liberals to agree that that's a valid argument, especially since we've been at war more or less continuously for the last twenty years and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.
onenote
(42,692 posts)You are right that the famous line about falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater not being protected speech was made in a case that involved protests against the draft during WWI. The case was later followed and expanded on in Whitney v. California. But in Brandenburg, the Supreme Court expressly overruled Whitney and the underlying principle of the law at issue in that case and in Schenck: that "advocating" violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it.
So, in short, it is not true that protesting against a war during a war is no longer protected by the First Amendment.
And the standard expressed by the "fire in a crowded theater" example has been refined to encompass only speech that is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
cali
(114,904 posts)
DeadEyeDyck
(1,504 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You know, if your dream of passing laws against hate crimes ever happens, groups like the DU will be the first to get taken down in court. Probably right after Free Republic, of course.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)epitome of cognitive dissonance. "It isn't because I say it isn't".
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As Justice Brennan said in the Skokie case, "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (emphasis added)
His point about "inciting" is that the government may silence a speaker who's urging a crowd to commit violence, and who seems on the verge of succeeding, but that the government may not silence a speaker who's so unpopular that the crowd may commit violence to shut him up. The latter speaker is not inciting the violence.
See also my post #78 in this thread.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)You're comparing apples to automobiles.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Yelling "fire" in a theater misleads people into thinking they are in danger, which can lead to people getting hurt.
Hate language just makes people angry. It doesn't mislead them into thinking they are in danger. People who are angry have the power to not riot and not kill. People who are misled into thinking they are in danger are trying to save themselves.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)guaranteed under U.S. law.
There are forms of what some may call "hate speech" that are against the law. And of course, you're responsible civilly for damages resulting from your speech.
My biggest issue with the OP is that is doesn't have a definition of "hate speech." Every reader is left to consider his own version what is hate speech.
Does hate speech include actions? (yes, under the law)
Does it include burning a cross near a black family's home? (yes)
Does it include one-on-one words? (yes)
Is it legal for you to say just anything you want to anyone? (answer...no)
Does it include utterances to children? (yes)
Are all utterances to children by adults legal? (answer...no)
MOST speech is unrestricted. Some is not.
Response to ann--- (Reply #1)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
longship
(40,416 posts)R&K
Logical
(22,457 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)That we shouldn't strive for better because hatred has won?
Wow, what an uplifting thought that is.
onenote
(42,692 posts)not through the government sitting in judgment as to what speech is or is not "hate" speech.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The title says it settles the issue because of court cases.
So, I take it you and Cali agree that money is speech and corporations are people, since the is also settled law.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If you wish to hang a person for their words, you need to stick to THEIR words, not your revisions, not your inferrences. 'I take it' rather than 'I ask' is a piece of shit tactic. It is in essence what Clint Eastwood did at the GOP con. Creating a fictional version of one's rival and then arguing with that fiction.
We have freedom of expression here in the US. This is part of why John Lennon lived here. Imagine no religion-some religious people say that is hate speech, that and 'no religion too'. So do you think that is hate speech from John? Who will decide if Imagine is to be banned under the laws you desire? Cardinal Dolan? You? Mitt? People called Lennon 'satanic'. He said that thing about 'more popular than Jesus' and religious folks burned his records and called him horrible things. Do you agre with them, or with John?
onenote
(42,692 posts)I don't know what version of the OP you are reading, but the one that's at the top of this thread says "Let's settle this: Hate speech is protected in the US." It goes on to say "You may disagree vehemently but that's the way it stands, and it's very unlikely to change."
In other words, I read the OP as making the point that the existing SCOTUS precedent is clear in protecting "hate" speech. The OP allows for the fact that the Court in the future might reinterpret the First Amendment, but suggests that such a change is "unlikely." That seems like a pretty unassailable statement of how things stand today. First Amendment protection for hate speech is "settled" law but settled law can and sometimes does change over time, just not all that often.
As for the question of what I think about money being speech and corporations being "people" -- I do agree with both of those rulings. I'm glad that my ability to spend money on behalf of a candidate or cause or to express myself is protected, just as I also am glad that those protections, like many aspects of speech (including speech that poses an imminent threat as defined in Brandenburg v. Ohio) is subject to regulation. I also am extremely glad that corporations have first amendment rights, so that the NAACP can advocate boycotts of racist businesses, and the NY Times can publish the Pentagon Papers, and my local book store can carry and sell whatever books it wants, and my local movie theater can show what movies it wants, and MoveOn.org can speak as an entity, and DU can run a website. All corporate entities. What I don't agree with in the CU case is that corporate speech in the context of elections cannot be regulated differently than speech by individuals. Distinctions among speakers that are not content based are drawn all the time and the majority in CU distorted the law in ignoring that precedent.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)religious content. It has to be reasonable.
The government is not permitted to endorse religion.
If you require the government to ban specific speech or specific kinds of speech about specific religions, then indirectly you require the government to adopt or endorse religion.
We are a diverse people. That means we all have to put up with (or enjoy) our differences including our differences about what speech we find acceptable or not acceptable.
There is no ban on women wearing veils in the US -- not as long as they can pass security checkpoints necessary for public safety.
In fact, many Americans -- at least in California -- try to make people who are dressed differently and clearly of a particular religious faith than other Americans feel welcome and good about themselves.
That goes for Muslim women, orthodox Jews, the Amish, Catholics on Good Friday, Catholic nuns or anyone.
That is a beautiful thing.
cali
(114,904 posts)governed in a way that doesn't abrogate free speech rights.
Is burning the U.S. flag "hate speech"?
How about Andre Serrano's Piss Christ?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... through our court system?
Wow, "we" really are dense aren't "we?"
Do you agree the corporations are people? Is money speech? Are you alright with someone calling your children filthy, degrading names? Your spouse? Your mother? How about someone telling lies about you that you can't disprove, that get your neghbors so up in arms against you that you are either harmed physically or driven from your home?
Both of the examples you sited have been through the court system. Are you saying that they were "censored by the evil, oppressive gub'miint?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)protections. That's what happens if you allow the majority to vote on what others are allowed to say. 'If they advocate for equality for gay people, that is hate of my religion' and the straight majority nods along...
I'm asking you again about the Beatles 'more popular than Jesus' comment. Lennon said that, people cried blasphemy, burned his records, called him demonic...
What do you think of that shite?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)have resulted in massacres. Think of the Inquisition. It was just one example of what has happened over and over when people are punished for their ideas or expression about religion.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... that "people are (should be) punished for their ideas or expression about religion?"
Why is it every one that disagrees with what I am saying, tries to argue with me about things I didn't say?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I have explained that our courts are not capable of judging whether religious speech might incite to violence or not.
The religious speech that offends one religion may suit another religion very well.
How would you control speech if you didn't have some penalty for speech you didn't think was OK?
You enforce prohibitions through punishments, penalties, fines, etc.
That is why so many people are confused about abortion. They think you can make it illegal but they don't think about what that would mean to women who have abortions anyway. Prison for the crime of not being able to deal with your pregnancy for some physical or emotional reason? Horrors.
Just like what you did, in post #10
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...are truly mind boggling.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)They could be used by dominant groups to protect themselves from criticism.
In religion, 'hate speech' is a euphemism for blasphemy. A powerful religion could outlaw alternate religious views.
In the case of Christianity, Christian churches could condemn non-believes to hell; but an atheist that points out the poor thought processes of religious believers may get charged with 'hate speech.' I saw someone on DU essentially support this version of 'hate speech' laws.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It gets people killed. Most times innocent ones, and that isn't speculation like yours is, it's real.
I guess you are fine with that, eh?
Lightbulb_on
(315 posts)Violent assholes get people killed.
Should we worry about offending their delicate sensibilities and hope and pray that if we are nice to them they won't go out and murder?
Speech to counter speech and nothing else.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Seriously. Don't like free speech? There are plenty of other places that censor and restrict to choose from.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... the good old "agree with me or get out" meme.
Nice.
How's that fit in with your "free speech for all' front?
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Get it? I WILL NOT censor myself because of threats from violent bullies and I believe you will find that the vast majority of US citizens will express a similar sentiment.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)You're fine with "free speech" as long as it's you doing it. When I disagree with you, you tell me "...There are plenty of other places..." . Those are a c&p of YOUR words. If they don't mean like it or get out, just what the fuck do they mean? You can't have it both ways. BTW, I ain't goin' nowhere.
Furthermore where the fuck did I say a word about "censoring" yourself "because of threats from violent bullies" or even imply it?
Make shit up much? Why the fuck should I care "that the vast majority of US citizens will express a similar sentiment" I never even expressed?
I guess if you CAN'Taddress what was actually said, you just pull something out of the blue, eh?
Lame, very lame.
Response to 99Forever (Reply #10)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Where have I EVER said, only way you(I) can imagine to respond to speech that bothers you (ME) is to try to ban it"? You should broaden your reading comprehension skills.
TBF
(32,047 posts)Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation, or other characteristic. In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.
In some countries there is redress, but as you've cited with the case law the court here has clearly sided with freedom of speech. That can be good or bad (see Westboro Church) but the only thing to debate is whether speech should be more restricted here in the US, and I think most people are going to argue that what we have is preferable even if we have to deal with folks like Westboro. It's more important that we are able to keep that freedom.
cali
(114,904 posts)In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[55][56][57][58]
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)in response to irrational superstition based violence was a bit shocking to me.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)There are many on our side who are so "PC" that they are afraid of offending anyone who is not a white male christian.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Many criticisms of Muslims are exaggerated false stereotypes. They are often done to dehumanize people that they may consider different than themselves. Not coincidentally, this is frequently done by the pro-war crowd. Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens are in this category. Clearly, many people have very poor racist radar.
Regardless, hate speech laws are wrong and dangerous.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Maher is an equal opportunity religion-basher, and as an Atheist I have no problem with his religion-bashing.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)nt.
cali
(114,904 posts)Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)this conversation will lead to those calling for control of free speech and those asking to curtail free speech. In the end free speech will be suppressed, it will impact as always ethnic minorities and poor people the most, this will play right into the hands of the 1% that have been wanting control of the internet. You may disagree, but this conversation will lead toward that path.
eallen
(2,953 posts)Contrary to myth otherwise.
joycejnr
(326 posts)...and they won't be the last. Douglas's statement that freedom of speech should be "...protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to reduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest..." is still a subjective matter.
How much have people been put into danger because of Conservative rhetoric? How much of a "substantive evil" do we need to see when murder and theft result from Conservative political speechifying? I've been haranguing against Conservative rhetoric for months now, and it's time to take another look at the 1st Amendment. Enough is enough.
Throd
(7,208 posts)It wouldn't be hard to find someone to declare your opinions hateful. Careful what you wish for.
joycejnr
(326 posts)...to find someone whose declarations trump the facts. We have two main party factions, the party of the rich that indulges in hate speech and lies to cover their true agenda - and the second party representing the rest of us. It's time to regulate the first party.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I don't think you understand just how much of a double edged sword what you're proposing is....
joycejnr
(326 posts)...I want the sharper edge to fall on the necks of the criminal conspiracy called "Conservatism."
cali
(114,904 posts)you give a great example of why it's so dangerous to codify what is "hate" speech. In the end it's all subjective and that means that it's dependent on who's in power. You think the only danger is from the right. Your mirror image on the right thinks the only danger is from the left. It illustrates quite perfectly that governing speech via partisanship, is a dangerous route to take.
joycejnr
(326 posts)...because one is real, and the other reversed. I don't think the "only danger" is from the right, I think that they are members of a vast criminal conspiracy masquerading under the banner of the "Republican Party," I see them as a tool of the greediest of the wealthy who want to plunge us back into the days of feudalism, and I see that they must be stopped before they succeed in their pernicious quest.
Obviously "dangers" can come from anywhere. But it's not "all subjective" "in the end," and to acknowledge your argument, it *does* depend upon who is in power and how the electorate can monitor those who desire more power at the expense of the rest of us.
But thanks for the intensity of your Reply title, it woke me up without the need for a second cup of coffee.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)It is for this reason I said it's a dangerous path.
A double edge sword.
joycejnr
(326 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)I'll make sure to put in a good reference for you when we need a good leader for the next Inquisition.
joycejnr
(326 posts)...when it's *action* of the most dangerous thoughts - like the Inquisition - that is the danger. And I must at this time decline your nomination for "leader for the next Iquisition," Mitt Romney has already won the nomination.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Are there any other basic rights you'd like to do away with?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Some people have posted things on DU that border on hate speech with regard to, for example, the LDS Church. It's not inconceivable that speech of that sort could result in murder or theft, if enough people read that the church is a cult and that Mormons will "lie for the Lord" and will try to take over the government. Nevertheless, it's protected, because even though these things might happen, the connection is more tenuous.
On the other hand, if Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, is being held in a lightly guarded jail, and there's an angry anti-Mormon mob outside, and you get up on a soapbox and say some of these same things, then it's not protected by the First Amendment, because there's a clear and present danger that your speech will incite the mob to storm the jail and murder Smith (which is what actually happened, because the speech was not suppressed).
You say that it's subjective. Well, yes, quite a few legal principles have some component of subjectivity. If you drive your car negligently and thereby injure someone, you're liable to pay money damages that will adequately compensate the victim for the injury. What kinds of driving constitute negligence? How much money will compensate someone for the loss of a leg? These are subjective questions, but we don't just throw up our hands and let negligent drivers off the hook.
I believe that the clear and present danger test, in its various formulations, provides the best balance between allowing free speech and preventing violence. As many other people have pointed out in this thread, abandoning the clear and present danger test would make it open season on unpopular speech. There are plenty of American communities where the "hate speech" suppressed would be advocacy of gay rights, atheism, socialism, or the like.
joycejnr
(326 posts)...including the kind of hate speech that sends thousands to their deaths in Iraq, robs people of their health, endangers the health of women because of their sex, steals votes because voters race, or steals money from the workers because of their class. I believe that the reckless driver in your example be held as responsible for his actions as Conservative propagandists should be held accountable for their actions that result in violence against the People.
Douglas's "clear and present danger" describes Conservative rhetoric to a T.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
I disagree -- and I think Douglas would have disagreed, too. He was drawing a distinction between any old "danger" and one that is "clear and present".
Your position takes the form of "this speech makes it more likely that someone, at some time and place distinctly removed from the allegedly inciting speech, will do something violent." That's the approach that opens the floodgates to suppression of unpopular speech. (I'm sure some deep red cities or states would readily find, as a fact, that a speech deriding religion as superstition would increase the likelihood of violence against religious people or institutions.)
Other judges following Douglas's formulation and its variations have rejected arguments along the lines of what you suggest. As the OP stated, the current governing interpretation of the Constitution is that there is no First Amendment exception for "hate speech" (however that's defined) unless, right then and there, it seems likely to incite someone to commit violence against the target of the speaker's denunciation. If you want to carve out a much broader exception to the First Amendment, you should think about how you would define the new standard. Here's a hint: "The government may suppress Conservative rhetoric" isn't going to cut it. You should also consider how your proposed standard would apply to other cases: agnostics calling religion superstition, Louis Farrakhan denouncing the "white devil", anarchists stating that all organized government is unjust oppression, etc.
joycejnr
(326 posts)...if Conservative that the prohibition of Conservative speech was recognized as being no different from the dealer cajoling a middle-school student to sample his wares. Both the Conservative and dealer have agendas that are antithetical to society's well-being. Both actions and speech of the dealer and Conservative should be recognized as similar goals emanating from the same sort of criminal.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)joycejnr
(326 posts)...unless you're saying that only First Amendment rulings shouldn't carry that term, "misrulings," or *any* rulings shouldn't? In the first case, please help me understand; in the second, I'll accept another synonym - the history of the Court is full of wrong-headed decisions, most recently the Citizens United and Bush v. Gore decisions come to mind.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)and the common sense within it. It's amazing to me how many people are willing to risk their own rights to free speech just to shut up someone with whom they disagree.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Which is an even more "anything goes" approach to free speech than what most other democracies have. The first amendment also gives us money = speech.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)the current SCOTUS says so. It is not a logical derivative of the language of the First Amendment.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Citizens United is just an extension of that ruling.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)the mock trial of Hitler that took place in Madison Square Garden.
The First Amendment is a beautiful thing.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)porphyrian
(18,530 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)how dangerous hate speech can be. Americans have rarely in recent years had to face real outbreaks of ethnic and religious strife. Many places in the world have. It is not impossible that hate campaign could inspire genuine outbreaks of dangerous ethnic and religious violence even in America. I have a great fear that this could happen at some point in America. I'm not suggesting that hate speech should be banned - if for no other reason I would fear that the charge of hate speech could be used against minorities and minority opinion. But, nonetheless, society's stability hangs by a thread and the wrong events at the wrong time could create a situation where dangerous demagogues inspire hatred, violence and repression.
cali
(114,904 posts)I quite agree that society's stability hangs by a thread, though I don't think that speech is the deciding factor in that.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)learn this lesson. Thanx!! 
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)It doesn't apply!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." People forget this. There is an entire group on DU devoted to stifling free speech. That is shameful.
coldwaterintheface
(137 posts)'Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'au bout pour que vous puissiez le dire!'
Voltaire
I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the end so that you can say it!
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)It is in our Constitution and a part of our culture. The piece important piece of the conditions is do we have a right to demand other countries to fall in line and adopt every element of our culture when we disagree with them?
It's one thing to investigate and demand action when violence and terrorism occurs. To argue about whether they aren't more like us and if it is legitimate for them not to be is a waste of time.
cali
(114,904 posts)my op has zilch, zip and nada to do with that.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)since others don't care for it. Some are even petitioning the UN for a universal ban on blasphemy.
If they want to live as barbarians fine. But when someone suggests we copy them so they won't be mad at us . . . nah. I have no interest in that.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)delicately and diplomatically and respectfully? There is no real threat to our constitutional protections here. Yet we have a pointless national argument that does come across as demanding the rest of the world adopt our policies.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Abdicating our rights, the fundamental tenets of our nation, in order to appease violent thugs is not reasonable, nor is it likely to gain support from any but a tiny handful of misguided people. If they are so sensitive that they cannot bear to see or hear certain things without becoming violent then the onus is on them to censor or filter what they see and hear.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)They just need to be more like us and everything will be all right? There is no excuse for violence, but the conversation toward solution that follows should be within the context of how to proceed within the structure they already have rather than to bend it in a direction we demand.
Rule of law trumps imposing our culture.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Our nation is our nation. We live in it. We have our own culture, laws and history. They have theirs. THEY are ones insisting that we become more like them - under threat of violence. The KKK murdered Medgar Evers. Are you concerned about showing them sensitivity? Christian extremists like to bomb abortion clinics and assassinate doctors. Do you believe that we should alter our rights because they object so strongly that they resort to violence and murder? The Klan, the chrisitian extremists, the islamists are all birds of the same feather - they use murder and violence to intimidate others into giving up their rights.
hack89
(39,171 posts)do we handle it delicately and diplomatically or do we all stand up for civil rights and give them a hearty "fuck you"?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)we should hear their arguments on why homosexuals are satan spawn and delicately listen to their commands that we kill all of ours.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)why should we treat them respectfully as long as they're rioting and attacking our embassies over a made-up offense?
Yet we have a pointless national argument that does come across as demanding the rest of the world adopt our policies.
Reaffirming our commitment to basic human rights in the face of violence and threats is never pointless.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)It is defining rule of law that will prevent the expression of violence. Saying we have free speech you have no right to be mad, as opposed to the more productive how do we approach the leadership to get them to work on ways to root out the terrorists and get rid of the recruiters.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are not protected.
The get brutally beaten, jailed and charged with crimes. Including journalists.
But look how angry we get when a hateful bigot deliberately incites people.
If only the same passion would be applied to defending peaceful protesters.
Imagine of that happened to Pamela Geller? There would be outrage.
We do not have free speech in this country, we found that out for sure over the past year, so apparently it doesn't matter anymore what rulings there have been by courts.
When journalists are arrested for covering stories, it's simply laughable to keep pretending that this country respects the 1st Amendment.
Exceptions made for bigots and haters are an exception, though.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)people here think she's just groovy, including apparently the threadstarter.
cali
(114,904 posts)for the act of putting words in the mouths of others. And that is just what you did. 
Yes, I just adore Pamela Geller. That's what the OP is really about. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Mendacious and contemptible. Good going there, honeypie.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)claim here in the US that we respect the 1st Amendment, in general. We don't.
The US is currently calling a multi award winning journalist an 'enemy of the state' for publishing material supplied to him by a whistle-blower.
Whistle-blowers are being prosecuted at an alarming rate in this country today.
I won't shed any tears if, since we no longer respect the 1st Amendment that disrespect extends itself to bigots like Geller. When the Constitutional rights of everyone are restored, then I'll worry about the haters and the bigots. And that is my opinion, that is all, nothing personal.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)As am I.
I will say that you certainly have been scarce in the Geller threads, and when present, spend most of your time lecturing those of us who object to her hate speech why the First Amendment short-circuits our right to object to her hate speech.
cali
(114,904 posts)free speech rights by peacefully protesting. No person peacefully protesting should be beaten or abused by the police.
I think your injection of Geller into the discussion is gratuitous. Are you suggesting that she has some magical aura around her that would protect her if she was in a protest?
We do have free speech in this country. YOU exercise it here regularly. Most people who protest are not beaten.
Hysteria is not a good argument.
And no, bigots and haters do not have specially protected 1st amendment rights.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)REALLY? You don't remember the furor that the picture you posted caused?
I somehow thing you're selectively choosing NOT to remember to suit your purposes.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)journalists. I DO remember a request from the UN to this Government to protect the protesters, from false arrests, from being beaten nearly to death in some cases as the images flashed across the world. But there was no response.
Geller got a judge to protect her rights. I look forward to the day when someone in an official capacity demands the same rights for peaceful protesters.
And far too many people, even here on DU, attempted to rationalize the treatment of OWS protesters, some by deliberately blaming them for the actions of provocateurs and other groups who used the protests to forward their own agendas. Lots of rationalization was apparent right here on DU.
Thousands of protesters, along with journalists were jailed and charged, merely for being there. The world noticed the crackdown on OWS here, even if our Elected officials chose to remain silent about it..
The silence of our elected officials even after two Iraq/Afghanistan veterans were nearly killed for simply exercising their 1st Amendment rights {which the same elected officials love to tell us, they are 'fighting for' when it suits them), won't be forgotten for a long time.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Wake up, America.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The first question is, "What is hate speech?" and then give some examples. Otherwise, you're spittin' in the wind, as far as making a point.
eallen
(2,953 posts)Here's the Wikipedia description of them, including some sample prosecutions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
All of that speech is protected in the US.
cali
(114,904 posts)And the law is clear.
In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[55
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)see a definition.
U S law does not refer to the term "hate speech" in the laws, I believe.
Some speech is restricted in the U.S. This is covered in case law. And of course, you are liable civilly for any damages resulting from speech. The family of the embassy man killed could sue the maker of the video, if there's enough causation evidence.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Clinton emphasized that “there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence.” Islam, she added, like many religions, respects the “fundamental dignity” of human beings, and violence goes against this principle.
“To attack an embassy,” she said, “is to attack the idea that we can build understanding and a better future.”
She also noted that, in conjunction with our commitment to freedom of religion, our country has a commitment to freedom of expression, and, as such, we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, “no matter how distasteful.”
“Violence in response to speech,” she said, “is not acceptable.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/secretary-of-state-clinton-violence-in-response-to-speech-is-not-acceptable/
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)arrested and thrown in jail for their attempt at 'freedom of expression'.
I don't recall her speaking out against the brutal treatment by a virtual army of heavily armed, militarized robo cops who beat and nearly killed several peaceful protesters even after the International Community became alarmed at the brutality and the UN Rappateur asked the US Government to intervene to protect them and their right to free expression.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Or does that not count, for some reason?
Great Caesars Ghost
(532 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You can hate me.
You can call me a faggot.
That speech is no longer protected when you kill me.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)because that hate speech can be introduced against you at trial, so in a way, fightthegoodfightnow is correct.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)your killers words can be used against them at their trial, so at that point, it is no longer protected speech.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)why would it prohibit you from owning firearms?
hack89
(39,171 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)The outrage!
Dr. Strange
(25,919 posts)Crazy, isn't it?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)A couple of things leap out from the responses.
First obviously, the fact that we don't throw people in jail for hateful speech is not an endorsement of it. It's a recognition that we think you get a better society with free and open debate. How do you know you're getting all the good ideas, if you assume we can legislate which ones can't be expressed?
The question is not whether we agree with terrible opinions. It's whether you think you can draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable opinions and put some of them on the "you go to jail for expressing them" side of the line.
And the rationale that you can punish speech because it causes action is a problem. We've put the line at calling for imminent lawless action. Could you put at "designed to incite or inspire violence?" Maybe.
But what happens when someone suggests that calling Republicans disingenuous election stealers bent on upward redistribution and driven by bigotry, greed, and ignorance might inspire someone to violence? Wouldn't it, if fully embraced?
Do we actually get further by shutting people up than we do in answering back? Do we want hateful ideas to be invisible?
Not saying we've got it all right. But I don't think the people who believe we need to start shutting people up because the content of their thoughts is too harmful have considered the implications, or why we have the notion of free speech in the first place.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)In particular, if we charged our government and courts with enforcing laws regarding religious speech, whether for or against it, we would have to agree on what religious ideas or statements are OK.
That would be a problem because we are not allowed to apply a religious test for appointing or electing our government officials.
Think of the fact that a Muslim (maybe more than one? I'm not sure) serves in our Congress alongside Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, people of various religions.
So what might insult Muslims might be precisely what Catholics or Protestants (or some Jews, Mormons, Catholics or some Protestants or Mormons) believe.
Our country is based on tolerance. And there is a good reason for it.
Would you want a devoutly Catholic judge to decide whether a video insults the Muslim religion? How would he or she know? And same for a Muslim judge deciding some issue concerning an alleged insult to the Jewish religion.
We have enough controversy in our society, enough personal conflicts about other people's religious beliefs. We don't need more. Our courts have too much to do already.
Gal Friday
(87 posts)Hate Speech is protected. Incitement to Violence is not.
PD Turk
(1,289 posts)But seriously, I've struggled with myself over the issue and finally came down on the side of allowing repugnant speech for two reasons. Number one, who's to decide what's offensive enough to ban? There are certainly enough right wing extremists that would love to use the power of that gubmint they loathe to shut us up and
number two, unfettered free speech lets us know who the assholes are, shines a light on the cockroaches so to speak. Let em talk all they want so we can make note of who and where they are 
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The OP didn't include a definition, so I looked up one. Here it is.
Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/
Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #100)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to cali (Original post)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
