Question: Do you think racist speech should be an exception to the First Ammendment?

[Taverner]

I apologize if the wording of this offends anyone - but the question is, should we make an excpetion to the First Ammendment to control and ban Hate Speech?

I used to be a Free Speech absolutist.

But then the Rwandan Genocide happened

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck happened

All of them, pigs at the shit troth of media

And I blinked

[damntexdem]

1. No, not unless it is used to directly incite violence or other lawbreaking.

(The 'fire in the crowded theater' exception.)

But it should be punished: e.g., contacting sponsor's to stop advertising on shows that feature racist speech.

[Taverner]

3. But all you need is one Glen Beck to start a bloodbath...

And there has already been a bodycount

Granted, not of Rwandan proportions

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. I am torn on this. Westboro "Church" is my concern.

While I would LOVE to shut those morons up, at what cost?

Sticky wicket.

[Taverner]

5. Yes, exactly

[davidinalameda]

4. you're comparing Glenn Beck and Lush to genocidial killers?

that's a bit of a stretch

[Taverner]

6. It's all there - the Hate Radio of Rwanda that spurned the killings

And the Hate Radio of America, where they are also telling people to take up arms and kill liberals

[davidinalameda]

19. Glenn Beck is telling people to kill liberals?

oh my goodness

[Taverner]

30. Actually there are quite a few Conservative Crakpots urging violence..

[davidinalameda]

41. who

[Taverner]

52. Here:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003230055

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007270045


to name a few

[davidinalameda]

54. I'll give you the blogger

wonder if he's still walking around free

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Not really.

Same character.

[Turbineguy]

8. No

but perhaps the consequences should be there. There should be no evading of responsibility.

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. Of course not!

This is a silly question but one that must continually be addressed because the answer is so important to our freedom.

[Greyhound]

36. Took the words right out of my mouth. +01

:thumbsup:

[Unvanguard]

48. I'm curious: how is it important to our freedom?

What core aspect of freedom is vindicated by permitting, e.g., Fred Phelps to rally as he pleases? It's circular to just say "freedom of expression": I want to know what it does, what it accomplishes, why it is so significant that it is worthy of protection even against the harms it causes.

[hughee99]

10. I don't think leaving the government to make the call on what should

be banned fixes the issues you're hoping to fix. Let people say what they're going to say (short of directly inciting violence) and let people see them for who they are.

[The Straight Story]

11. Nope. (nt)

[Chemical Bill]

12. I think paid speech should be an exception to the first amendment.

Ads, professional talking heads, anybody who sells or pays for media. They should have to prove their facts, and there should be strong controls on hate speech. The only trouble is trusting the arbiters of said controls....

Bill

[EmeraldCityGrl]

13. No. How many people out themselves for being the

racists and bigots they truly are by exercising their free speech rights.
Give them enough rope...

[MrSlayer]

14. No.

You can go right ahead and show the world what an asshole you are all you want. It's better that way.

[east texas lib]

15. No. An exception would amount to regulation of thought...

As well as drive the racists underground, thus making detection much more difficult. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.

[Caliman73]

16. There are already exceptions for that to the First Amendment

As damntexdem astutely pointed out, incitement to violence is where racist or any other bigoted speech loses its protection. Perhaps I am naive, but the Rwandan genocide did not happen because of free speech issues, it happened because the US and other nations were hesitant to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign nation, especially one without specific financial or military interests for them. I have to believe that something like the Rwandan situation would not happen here at least currently. The Rwandan government was destabilized by a coup, and the military junta had commandeered the radio to directly incite violence.

Though I would love to see idiots like Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin thrown off the air, I would prefer that it be done through public protest and their sponsors running away than have the government be involved with banning them.

As vile as racism is, unless speech leads directly to action, I think it should be protected. I don't think that it is an absolutist view either. It leans strongly towards liberty, but their are still safeguards.

[howaboutme]

17. Absolutely not.

Speech is not racism. Speech is used to hype racism when the bottom line is that it has nothing to do with actual racist actions. The media loves to hype it because it sells newspapers or eyeballs. But it doesn't harm others per se.

Actions are the true basis of racism because they do harm others. By "actions" I mean refusing to hire or promote or do deals with people because they aren't a member of your religious sect or ethnic tribe. It is also about actions that result in others being under-represented or forced to ride in the back of the bus.

True racism is about self serving and helping "only your own people" at the expense of others.

[Old Troop]

18. Nope. nt

[DirkGently]

20. Nope. Still haven't blinked. That way lies disaster.

Edit: +1 -- worthy of discussion.

[proteus_lives]

21. Then you should open your eyes again.

No we shouldn't. That cracks a door no one should open.

[Tesha]

22. No, racist speech is and should be just as protected as, say, political speech. (NT)

[TheKentuckian]

23. No, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be responded to. Company discipline is often effective

When you're getting boycotted or protested you can reevaluate your positions or stick to it if it your conviction.

Freedom of speech isn't from opposition but rather government oppression though I would argue society should emulate the acceptance of fundamental rights. Remember though that even the government isn't restricted from calling you out as false or even as a crank.

All rights have downsides.

Freedom of speech means hearing and reading very offensive stuff pretty much every day if your doing it right. Tell them all about if you like, it is your right. Watch out though....they may reply yet again.

[dkf]

24. Some here think enforcing immigration laws is racist.

That would make most immigration proceedings illegal.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. No.

[msanthrope]

26. No. Never. n/t

[baldguy]

27. The answer to hateful, lying racist speech is more speech - not less.

Allow them to exposed themselves - then tell the truth about them.

The only thing Evil needs to succeed is for Good to do - and say - nothing.

[Taverner]

31. But if it is not coupled with a strong educational system

y'know

[immoderate]

28. I go with no.

What will qualify? Is espousing a racial genetic theory racist? Enough to do -- what?

You can't legislate morality.

--imm

[Biker13]

29. Nope.

[dipsydoodle]

32. Only if

you're American - your Consitution has meaning only within the USA. Whenever I've mentioned our UK laws concerning hate speech based on race, religion, sexual preference, whatever, some here whine about freedom of speech. Personally I wouldn't have it any different.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. Speech no, but incitement to violence, yes.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

34. No

We are Americans, we're better than that. I'll leave the thought police for those on the other side of the Atlantic.

[KansasVoter]

35. No, too hard to define!

[geckosfeet]

37. wtf. Only if I get lifetime tax exemption.

[woo me with science]

38. No, and this is one stupid element on DU that infuriates me.

There have been some appalling threads here where MANY people were quite willing to use the law to shut other people up just because of political disagreements or concerns about "sensitivity."

Beware ye fascists on the Left as ye beware fascists on the Right.

[proteus_lives]

39. +10

[mmonk]

40. No. However, I do not think government officials or people in authority

should use it to disparage a group they have a power relationship over.

[X_Digger]

42. No. The solution to bad speech is good speech.

Slander, obscenity, incitement to riot, direct advocating of violence- those should remain the only unprotected speech.

[EstimatedProphet]

43. In and of itself, no

When Fox and the rightwing radio monsters push it 24/7 for months and years on end, paired up with the continual screaming about how the evil lieburuls are going to put you in a concentration camp, it's incitement to riot IMO, and no longer protected.

[bemildred]

44. Never.

Making threats and inciting violence are crimes. Exposing yourself in public as a racist bigot is protected speech.

[TexasObserver]

45. No.

[Unvanguard]

46. Yes, when it attains a certain level of publicity.

When either there is no way for innocent bystanders to avoid it, e.g. KKK rallies in Jewish neighborhoods, or when it has enough of a mass audience to contribute significantly to the character of public discourse, e.g. racist slurs on major radio or television programs. Obscure books of fake historical "scholarship", or blogs, or conversations with friends, should not be censored.

First-amendment absolutism has never been particularly defensible on philosophical or political-theoretic grounds. It turns what is a well-grounded principle seeking to vindicate certain concrete aims into an abstract absolute divorced from reality. Most of the world, including most developed Western countries, do not abide by US norms of free speech, and while in some respects (e.g. libel laws) they are probably the worse for it, when it comes to hate speech they are more sensible.

[Karenina]

56. +1

[Steely_Dan]

47. There is a price to pay...

in a free society. Allowing idiots to express their hate is one of the prices we have to pay. This is why I support the KKK's right to march. I simply loath what they stand for, but in America, this freedom is our obligation to liberty.

Like flag burning. I personally would never burn the American flag. But, I would support the right of another to do just that.

Of course, as mentioned...the only exception would be the old "yelling fire in a movie theatre."

-Paige

[Karenina]

50. Actually, I think that IS what has just happened.

:hide:

[Mudoria]

49. No

Free speech is free speech, sometimes it's dispicable but the freedom to say it is a cornerstone of the rights we have. Once you ban one form who knows what will be banned next.

[old mark]

51. No. I think that is a very bad idea - the first step to total control of speech by the government...

for whatever reason they may choose.
You are in the same group as those who say gays should not have the same rights as everyone else.
Rights are rights even if you don't like them or those who choose to use them.

mark

[Iggo]

53. Nope.

First Amendment is not there to protect speech we like.

[Fuzz]

55. No. But those who use it should be mocked and shunned.

[howaboutme]

57. Can you remember when

free speech, so-called "racist speech" or hate speech as defined by other mortal beings has directly resulted in a black eye, a scar or a bruise? Sticks and stones may physically hurt, but not names. Kids were told that for years.

Every American is entitled to express their free opinion, even if some might consider it to be insensitive or hateful or racist. When we cross the line where we sanction official censors to decide what others may say, we have lost the heart of a democracy and free speech.

When it comes to actions that can harm or hurt others it then becomes a different issue. Those who discriminate because of a belief in tribalism or racism need to face sanctions. I will never succumb to those who believe they have a right to regulate free speech and eliminate the 1st Amendment.

[mdmc]

58. nope

[Luciferous]

59. No. You start making exceptions and soon we won't have freedom of speech.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

60. No.

[arbusto_baboso]

61. Giving racists free speech lets us know who they are.

That makes a bigger difference than you might think.

[WinkyDink]

62. No.

[NMMNG]

63. No

If hateful SOBs like Beck, Limbaugh, et.al. aren't allowed to say openly how they hate non-whites, gays, women, etc. then not only will we not know who to avoid, but we might lose our right to speak against their bigotry. Yes, what they say is reprehensible, but we must defend their right to say it if we are to remain a truly free nation.

P.S. If we make an exception to the First Amendment, you might face penalties for calling Beck and Limbaugh "pigs at the shit troth of media". Think about that for a moment....