Having Freedom Of Speech Comes With Responsibility.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

To quote from an earlier post: You can say and do anything you want or see fit due to freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean one always SHOULD.

I have freedom of speech. If I walked into certain neighborhoods in East Orange and shouted disgusting and provocative racial remarks, I would be exercising freedom of speech. But if I found myself beaten to a pulp because of it would I be in the right to declare the neighborhood fanatics? I don't think I would. I would think I was a fool for exercising my freedom of speech so irresponsibly. If I walked into a funeral for a dearly departed and beloved member of a family that was held in highest honors in the community, and started spouting out utter hate or mockeries of said person, should I be surprised when I find myself confronted or even attacked? Would they be fanatics too? No. Again, I would think me the fool for exercising my freedom of speech so irresponsibly.

Could does not always mean Should, to those with enough intellect to know When.

That's all.

[WinkyDink]

1. Common sense and good manners are different from LEGAL.

Stupid and rude are still allowed under the law.

[KittyWampus]

38. Hate speech is regulated in Europe

[Yupster]

40. Very well said Winky

In the original poster's example the jurors might think the guy was really stupid to shout the insults, but they'd still find the guys who beat him up guilty I would hope.

I guess it would be the same way with a woman who got drunk, went home with a guy she never met and got raped. The jurors would shake their heads at how dumb the woman was, as they were convicting the guy of rape. (hopefully).

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Methinks You Missed The Point Of The Thread.

And what if they didn't beat me up? What if they just gathered around me and starting yelling at me and demanding an apology in protest? Would they be fanatic then?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eggman67]

33. No, in that case

"And what if they didn't beat me up? What if they just gathered around me and starting yelling at me and demanding an apology in protest? Would they be fanatic then?"

They would be countering your speech with their speech which is how it's supposed to work.

That's not what's happening. The analogy to what's happening with the ME would be if they burned your house down and the house of anyone connected with you.

[manic expression]

14. And

regardless of the law, the racist person found the expected and quite natural consequence for their disgusting actions. The law may protect the racist and may condemn the group, but that's immaterial, because it will happen regardless (and probably won't go to court). Furthermore, If you want me to feel bad for a racist, that's ridiculous, and if you want me to condemn people who struck against racism, that is equally ridiculous.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[manic expression]

20. Not really

in the real world, a mob is not likely to be hunted down and arrested unless there is quite a bit of evidence against individual members. That evidence is not likely to exist in this case.

Furthermore, what kind of speech is relevant, as the reaction against racist speech is to be expected, and is actually not unreasonable.

[davidinalameda]

21. there is the "fighting words" exception

Fighting words doctrine. The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience. N.A.A.C.P. v. Clairborne Hardware Co., Miss., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. The test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash.2d 49, 701 P.2d 499, 500.

The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031.


if someone goes into a black neighborhood and starts spewing racist garbage, then those who attack him could get off the hook if it was found that going into a black neighborhood and spewing racist garbage would lead to a violent response

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Awesome Response Man, Thanks.

It is refreshing when debates or discussions contain facts and intellect instead of rhetoric. Too often responses are just full of thoughtless opinion rather than well thought out viewpoints. I give you credit for this response and think it was great.

[davidinalameda]

28. you're welcome

:hi:

[Hatalles]

34. You are obviously pro-censorship and supporting the violent fundies...

:sarcasm:

Seriously though, thanks for that tidbit of info.:thumbsup:

[KittyWampus]

39. You know when some professor made some stupid remarks about

Intelligent Design proponents... that professor who was going to be teaching a class about it?

His stupid, inflammatory remark about ID proponents that were sent to students in his "club" got released and went public... and he ended up getting beaten up.

I made the point that if you poke an animal with a stick, you'll get clawed.
Although the professor had every right to sue his attackers legally... he
contributed to the conditions leading up to his beating.

I was attacked for making that observation and in no way was I condoning the beating or implying the attackers shouldn't be held liable.

I was told I was blaming the victim.

[Rocknrule]

3. Of course Republicans say

hate speech is protected, but saying anything against Jesus W. Bush is pushing it too far
:eyes:

[SmokingJacket]

4. You would be a fool, but legally, they shouldn't touch you for it.

One can combat offensive speech with more speech, but not with violence.

You remind me of that old thing: you dress like a hooker and you get shocked when you're raped??

Personally, I think people should respect other people's religions. I have a friend who gets offended when I say, "God damm it!" so I don't say it around him. However, he would be wrong to punch me in the mouth if I did say it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Your Analogy Isn't Comparable. (hooker)

But parts of your post I obviously agree with.

[niyad]

24. since rape is about control, not sex, the "dress like a hooker" bit is

quite in error. doesn't matter how someone is dressed, period.

[SmokingJacket]

37. That's why I used that example. nt

[oblivious]

6. Nothing wrong with a little respect.

[Coventina]

9. Yep, didn't Ari say "We need to watch what we say"?

Hooray!!!

We have the thought police to keep us safe!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Care To Elaborate Your Argument Opposing The View In The OP So That It

actually makes any sense or carries any intellectual weight in a discussion? Just curious.

[cali]

12. Good luck with this

I already gave it a shot, but those in high dudgeon refuse to look at the responsibilities that come with liberty.

[Malikshah]

15. Aint it the case.

I've been accused of having been taught in a madrasa (a la the modern version) -- the freaks are out tonight....

Someone who has spent the last 15 yrs of their life studying, teaching and researching a field makes one suspect it seems....

Knowledge is power!-- The intellect reference in the opening post says it all.

[Coventina]

13. Mob violence in response to cartoons is FOOLISH

And to say that somehow the mob is justified because they were "offended" is equally foolish.

There is no justification for violence in response to art or words, period.
And the idea that we should censor artists or writers because it might spark violence is cowardly.

[Blutodog]

18. I agree

The ones objecting are crazed religious fanatics and book burners. Let's face facts here neither the Muslim or Christian fanatics are our friends and I for one don't want to die in a war fomented by these irrational morons.

[cali]

19. Let's get this straight.

Nobody is suggesting censorship. What some are suggesting is self-restraint. A reputable media outlet has a responsibility. Tonight on NPR they the cartoon editor of the WP on and he explained this rather well. And no one is justifying mob action. But Jyllands-Posten is a right wing paper with an unsavory history. Publishing those cartoons was a deliberate act of provocation, not an act of courage. And the foolish re-printing of the cartoons under the banner of freedom of the press was a pretext. It was about lashing out at the sizeable Muslim minorities who now make Europe their home.

[Igel]

11. Yes.

Having a large group of blacks march through a white neighborhood charging racism and hurling abuse wold be a provocation, if it came out of the blue.

But if you're informed that the previous week a black man was kicked and beaten and called "n****r" by a group of whites in that very neighborhood, and the response of the police was to say that "if that boy knew his place, he'd have been where he belonged", such a march would be a mild response.

Context is everything to understanding the cartoonists' drawings. However--and I'm apparently giving away an unwillingly kept secret--one of the cartoons provides the context.

[Blutodog]

17. The Cartoon

The cartoons are obnoxious as they might be but they were published in a European country with press freedoms etc. What right do Muslims in another country have to tell the Danes what they can read or see or write? The real test of freedom is to defend the right of those whose views you hate to be allowed to express them as long as they don't want to kill u. Let's not be hypocrites here. We talk about Bu$hco trying to rob all of us of our Civil Rights but then some of us find it ok to say that the cartoon as nasty and disrespectful as they were should be banned. Poor taste and even bigotry are not fun to read or view but they still should be protected forms of expression or speech.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. You Totally Overlooked The Point Of The Thread.

Nowhere will you see a mention of censorship or robbing anybody of civil rights. You chose to use a tired general argument in response to a thread that took the subject on a different angle. Therefore your reply really doesn't apply here imho.

[Hatalles]

26. You're absolutely right.

Some of these DUers are using strawman arguments to defend these cartoons. No one here is advocating censorship or supporting any calls for violence.

[Acebass]

22. Well said!..that should be enough...

But it won't be...

[sandnsea]

27. Hate Speech is Hate Speech

It has been a little peculiar watching the condemnation of Fred Phelps and support for these cartoons, all at the same time. It isn't like they made any astute political point or anything.

[recoveringrepublican]

29. This board is starting to become more and more like freepland

Look, yes those cartoons were despicable, hateful and vile, by all means boycott the publishers. But to burn embassies and call for violence is even worse. I haven't seen the cartoons, but from the descriptions it doesn't sound like they were a call to arms against muslims.

One either believes in free speech or they don't. It's quite that simple to me. Repukes say the same thing you just did in response to peace activists, calling for us to be locked up and charged with aiding the enemy. They have told me numerous times that my free speech against the war is irresponsible.

and yes I'm Christian, and I rolled my eyes at those who were pissed about the movie Dogma. Someone else's take on my religion means nothing to me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. I see you use your freedom of speech without thinking things through too.

As can be seen by your ridiculous freepland comment. :eyes:


I haven't seen anyone call for violence here on DU. I also do not recall asking for anyone to be locked up and charged with aiding anybody either, so once again your point was completely and utterly invalid. You may also want to look upthread at post #21 by dwickham, to get a little bit more educated on your simplistic "you either believe in it or you don't" meme.

:hi:

[recoveringrepublican]

31. Where did I say anyone on DU was calling for violence? I am talking about

what is happening in Syria.

Look at all the threads on this topic, so many people defending violence.

As for the "fighting words" crap, that should go, and now that I'm aware will work toward abolishing that hideous attack on free speech.

You may not directly be calling for people to be locked up for their views, but your "they are getting what they asked for" attitude leads us that way.

and btw, sometimes things ARE simple. The freedom to say what you want without fear of death is a big one for me, not sure about you.

[oblivious]

32. So just for fun, could you list all those people defending violence?

I've been following a few related threads and I've seen a fair bit of criticism of the cartoons, and people pointing out that a serious reaction could have been expected, but I don't recall anyone let alone "so many people" defending the violence as you say.

Can you help me by pointing me to the right thread?

[Hatalles]

36. or advocating censorship for that matter?

[Lexingtonian]

35. I had a longish argument about this one

with my parents. No one condones violence, but there is a question of righteous anger. This problem is one of moral behavior.

There are two things that invoking freedom of speech as an absolute defense ignores. First of all, offensive speech has to contain broad and adequate truth about the situation to be morally justifiable.

Secondly, when offensive speech has low or inadequate truth content, the difference in power between the offense-giving party and the offended party is critical. The materially stronger party of the two has a greater moral duty to truth and mercy.

Right wingers are immoralists, so they break or invert this arrangement constantly. Often they will pretend to victimhood and political weakness or minority in order to evade the higher moral duty requirement.