Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.

[fury2neon]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php

The lib that wrote this article seems to think that free speech is not something the people should be allowed to have. IN Europe if you state the facts about Islam or Islamic immigrants you get jail time or a big fine (see Bridget Bardo).

As many have said before, once they take the guns they start taking other rights one after another...

[Mark@Sea]

'Hate Speech' doesn't exist, legally speaking, in this country. Once the socialists control the language, freedom is gone.

Now, if we could only get rid of 'hate crimes'. Crime is crime, it doesn't need to be dressed up as extra-evil. The motivation of the criminal doesn't matter a tinkers' damn to me.

[The Rabbi]

It's actually a "tinker's dam" but whatever.

Hate speech exists on college campuses all over. And from there it wont be long until it makes its odious way into the general public.

I really am conflicted on this issue. On the one hand who could be opposed to muzzling the really nasty stuff? The only argument in favor of it rests on the slippery slope fallacy.

On the other hand I see what similar laws have done in, e.g. Canada where someone writing about Muslims ends up hauled before a magistrate. There is a good video/blog somewhere about a Canadian writer (Jewish as it happens) who had that happen.

So maybe slippery slope is a good enough argument here.

[Punisher84]

I really am conflicted on this issue.

As am I. It kinda goes to the argument of "While I don't agree with it, what might be restricted if someone disagrees with me?" I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

[The Rabbi]

As am I. It kinda goes to the argument of "While I don't agree with it, what might be restricted if someone disagrees with me?" I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

It goes beyond that.

Ask, what good is going to come from allowing neo-Nazis or Nation of Islam to publicize their stuff? There is no virtue in it. It isn't helpful to anyone. It doesn't do society any good. Their Holocaust denial only gives confirmation to people to doubt it. I can't see any good at all to come from it. So why tolerate it?

This is different from, say, anti-war activists. People can legitimately disagree about the Iraq War and the course to take. That is part of national debate and although I might disagree strongly I recognize that there are legitimate points to be made on the other side.

[saintsfanbrian]

So because "you" see no good that can come out of some ones speech it is okay to restrict it? I have to respectfully disagree. While it may not appeal and may even enrage you (inciting a riot is a crime already) I remember an old adage that I am teaching my children -

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.

There are legitimate points to be made about gun control too, but that doesn't mean I support it in the least. A word is nothing more than a contraction of the diaphragm passing air through the vocal cords to make sound finally shaped by the mouth and tongue. Nothing more. I may not like what people have to say, but fortunately the framers of the constitution and the bill or rights knew enough to know that simply saying a word should not be a crime. Actions are what are crimes. (I know I can say some things and be tried for treason and I disagree with that too.)

Hate crimes have no place either other than to add a charge to a crime and increase the sentence. Not that it does ANY good.

[The Rabbi]

So because "you" see no good that can come out of some ones speech it is okay to restrict it? I have to respectfully disagree. While it may not appeal and may even enrage you (inciting a riot is a crime already) I remember an old adage that I am teaching my children -

There are legitimate points to be made about gun control too, but that doesn't mean I support it in the least. A word is nothing more than a contraction of the diaphragm passing air through the vocal cords to make sound finally shaped by the mouth and tongue. Nothing more. I may not like what people have to say, but fortunately the framers of the constitution and the bill or rights knew enough to know that simply saying a word should not be a crime. Actions are what are crimes. (I know I can say some things and be tried for treason and I disagree with that too.)

Hate crimes have no place either other than to add a charge to a crime and increase the sentence. Not that it does ANY good.

OK. What good do "you" see coming out of allowing it? Without resorting to slippery slope.

I see legitimate points being made about gun control. I think debate on the issue is healthy. Reasonable people could disagree and debate will spur people to think about it and maybe change their minds.

What is there to debate about the "myth of the 6 million" or whether a white supremacist state in Idaho is a good idea? Reasonable people cannot debate on this issue.

[Guest Len]

I'm surprised at you for saying this. There is an argument for there being social good coming from allowing hate speech, and that is that the public exposure of such ideas to the common ridicule will lead society to further distance itself from such hate therefore putting pressure on the haters to change their ways. The more they speak, the more they are isolated.

Also, while I generally think well of Maclean's, they really screwed up on this:

"In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence."

That's just plain wrong. There are legal consequences to publishing falsehoods. Libel/slander anyone?

Many a European will argue the laws they have are in place due to their unique situation -the balkanization of European culture as it were. I don't agree, but I can see where thousands of years of bloody history could make many Europeans want such laws. Hate has shed much blood on that continent over the years. It's understandable that they would want to squash it down as much as possible. Of course, we would argue that goes against the rights of the individual, which are paramount. A clear philosophical difference between socialism and whatever it is we have.

It goes beyond that.

Ask, what good is going to come from allowing neo-Nazis or Nation of Islam to publicize their stuff? There is no virtue in it. It isn't helpful to anyone. It doesn't do society any good. Their Holocaust denial only gives confirmation to people to doubt it. I can't see any good at all to come from it. So why tolerate it?.

[Guest canynracer]

So do we dismiss someones ability to say what they feel because we dont agree with it? Even though I completley and totally disagree with the racisim from ALL groups, those people have their beliefs, they believe they are right, who are we to dismiss that just because to US it is "useless"?

[The Rabbi]

I'm surprised at you for saying this. There is an argument for there being social good coming from allowing hate speech, and that is that the public exposure of such ideas to the common ridicule will lead society to further distance itself from such hate therefore putting pressure on the haters to change their ways. The more they speak, the more they are isolated.

I am aware of the argument. I don't buy it. Repeat something often enough and some people will start to believe it.

I see this myself. About 25 years ago if you said certain things about Jews you were labeled an anti semite and a pariah. Then some people began to say things publicly but weren't made into political and social lepers for it. Think Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Then it becomes a legitimate point of view. Now you have members of Congress expressing this garbage, like Cynthia McKinney.

Also, while I generally think well of Maclean's, they really screwed up on this:

"In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence."

That's just plain wrong. There are legal consequences to publishing falsehoods. Libel/slander anyone?

Not so.

There are fairly high standards to prove libel/slander, especially against a public figure. As for minority groups I don't know how many successful suits there have been on their behalf. I dont even know you could sue for it.

[The Rabbi]

So do we dismiss someones ability to say what they feel because we dont agree with it? Even though I completley and totally disagree with the racisim from ALL groups, those people have their beliefs, they believe they are right, who are we to dismiss that just because to US it is "useless"?

Louis Farrakhan believes white people are devils. I not only disagree with that sentiment, I don't believe a person even has the right to express it. It is not an area for legitimate debate. Reasonable people cannot disagree about the proposition. There is one right side and one wrong side to the issue. It really is not simply a matter of opinion.

[saintsfanbrian]

Without resorting to slipper slope what good do I see coming out of some imbecile standing on a podium shouting out what ever they want? It gives me the opportunity to teach my children about truth and how important it is that you check your facts before you speak. A friend of mine once said we have two eyes, two ears and one mouth. We should look more and listen more before we speak more.

What if speech was outlawed 40 years ago? What would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have done? He would have been arrested and thrown in jail because the "majority" did not like his message. What if speech was outlawed now? We wouldn't be able to have this discussion.

The great thing about living in a free society is just that: It is free. With freedom comes responsibility. If I stand up in a crowded theater and shout that I think all black people should go back to Africa, I must be willing to suffer the consequences of my actions. If those consequences are that I get beat up because some member of the viewing audience had temporary insanity based on what I said then I take the beating and move on.

Do I think that there should be a place in Idaho where white supremacists live and espouse their belief's? Sure, after all, there is a little India, little China, little Italy, little Isreal in every town, city or state. Why shouldn't people be allowed to congregate in the same area that have the same belief's?

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

If Farrakhan can't speak freely, then neither can I.

The government is inept at everything it does. Why would they somehow be successful at regulating speech based on its intellectual plausibility?

[The Rabbi]

You just resorted to the slippery slope in making your argument.

No one is talking about muzzling ML King. I specifically exempted speech like that, or like this discussion, from consideration.

I don't see that your ability to teach your children is a reasonable theory for allowing obviously wrong views without social merit to be aired. Plenty of people don't have children. Plenty of children don't listen to their parents (have I mentioned my teen-aged daughter?). It isn't an argument.

[The Rabbi]

If Farrakhan can't speak freely, then neither can I.

The government is inept at everything it does. Why would they somehow be successful at regulating speech based on its intellectual plausibility?

Do you espouse the same views as Louis Farrakhan? Is it impossible to differentiate them?

Again, you resort to the slippery slope, saying that since gov't can't regulate some things adequately then therefore it cannot regulate anything adequately.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Do you espouse the same views as Louis Farrakhan? Is it impossible to differentiate them?

Again, you resort to the slippery slope, saying that since gov't can't regulate some things adequately then therefore it cannot regulate anything adequately.

So, since I disagree with him, he shouldn't be allowed to speak?

I'd like to know where you think the government has succeeded with regulation.

[The Rabbi]

So, since I disagree with him, he shouldn't be allowed to speak?

I'd like to know where you think the government has succeeded with regulation.

Not because you disagree with him. Because his views are wrong on any objective criterion and lack redeeming value.

I disagree with people who think we should impeach Bush. But I don't think the views are totally without value and they might add to the quality of national debate.

Do you mean regulation in general? If so I'll point out we have the safest food supply in the world. That is especially remarkable given the number of suppliers and the size of the market.

[saintsfanbrian]

So because the speech "doesn't have merit" it should be outlawed? I don't believe in God. You can't prove the existence of God therefor speech about God should be outlawed.

[The Rabbi]

So because the speech "doesn't have merit" it should be outlawed? I don't believe in God. You can't prove the existence of God therefor speech about God should be outlawed.

Huh?

That was an example of an invalid argument. Not being able to prove the existence of something doesn't mean it doesn't have merit.

As for God, Western Culture is based on belief in God. Unless you want to say that Western culture is without merit then you have to allow speech about God, regardless of your own views.

[Guest slothful1]

OK. What good do "you" see coming out of allowing it? Without resorting to slippery slope.

I think ignoring the 'slippery slope' consequences is a mistake... but aside from that, I think the burden of proof is on those who claim the right to disallow such speech. In other words, we don't have to prove that something is 'good' for it to be legal -- e.g., the idiocy of those gun-grabbers who claim that ordinary people don't have a legitimate "need" for guns. Well, even if that were true, so what if we don't need them? That doesn't create a right to prohibit them. Similarly, I can think of nothing that gives me the right to prohibit hate speech, so long as it is not explicitly inciting some crime.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Not because you disagree with him. Because his views are wrong on any objective criterion and lack redeeming value.

I disagree with people who think we should impeach Bush. But I don't think the views are totally without value and they might add to the quality of national debate.

Do you mean regulation in general? If so I'll point out we have the safest food supply in the world. That is especially remarkable given the number of suppliers and the size of the market.

I can't fathom why you would restrict his right to speak freely because you see no redeeming value in his speech. While the meat of what he says is insulting and preposterous, the fact that he's able to even speak freely is the redeeming value in his speech. Take a look at what's going on in Canada and the EU. They've decided that the government will dictate reality and what's acceptable speech. They're quickly tumbling down the slippery slope. You'd have us do the same.

Comparing the regulating of food to the regulating of thought is quite outer limits. One is objective and the other is subjective. The two are incomparable. Think about that while you're washing your tomatoes.

[saintsfanbrian]

Merit - claim to respect and praise; excellence; worth.

Worth - good or important enough to justify (what is specified)

(dictionary.com)

What does this have to do with whether or not a word should be allowed. In essence this is what it boils down to - does the majority like what this word means?

There is the n word that is used in just about every single rap lyric of every gangsta rap song. If I a thirtysomething year old white suburbanite uses it I get labeled a racists and if I am in the "wrong" part of town could get beaten. Does the word have merit?

Outlawing speech just because "you" think it has no merit or "society" thinks it has no merit is WRONG!!!!

Which one of us can actually tell what word has merit and worth? Those are both defined in a belief structure and not by only one person.

If I feel that a word is worthless I will not use it. So far I have gotten plenty of mileage from the words I paid for in school.

[Guest canynracer]

Louis Farrakhan believes white people are devils. I not only disagree with that sentiment, I don't believe a person even has the right to express it. It is not an area for legitimate debate. Reasonable people cannot disagree about the proposition. There is one right side and one wrong side to the issue. It really is not simply a matter of opinion.

It is the first ammendment...certainly you are not going to give up your RIGHT to free speech are ya Rabbs? I mean, you give them just one INCH, and WHAM!, we loose EVERYTHING.....

[The Rabbi]

I think ignoring the 'slippery slope' consequences is a mistake... but aside from that, I think the burden of proof is on those who claim the right to disallow such speech. In other words, we don't have to prove that something is 'good' for it to be legal -- e.g., the idiocy of those gun-grabbers who claim that ordinary people don't have a legitimate "need" for guns. Well, even if that were true, so what if we don't need them? That doesn't create a right to prohibit them. Similarly, I can think of nothing that gives me the right to prohibit hate speech, so long as it is not explicitly inciting some crime.

OK, you raise a good point. You would limit it where it "explicitly incites a crime." Why do you draw that distinction? Presumably it is bad for society to have crime and people whipping up others to commit crimes.

As I saw quoted this AM: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. (This was in regard to the latest Supreme court decision on habeas corpus).

Likewise I would argue that allowing people to express views, which if taken to their logical conclusion would destroy this country, is a danger to the public and therefore worthy of banning.

So there is a negative consequence to allowing some kinds of speech. And it is precisely those kinds that I am inclined to see banned.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

As I saw quoted this AM: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. (This was in regard to the latest Supreme court decision on habeas corpus). Likewise I would argue that allowing people to express views, which if taken to their logical conclusion would destroy this country, is a danger to the public and therefore worthy of banning.

Would you expand this comment further? I'm not sure exactly what you mean or to what commentary you are referring.