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

[saintsfanbrian]

A "ban" on anything is wrong. I see the futility on the "war on drugs" as much as I see it on the "war on terror". We are picking the wrong "battles" to fight. We should be striving for and demanding better education on every level. Once that happens, and our children are actually taught to THINK for THEMSELVES and not to spew from their mouths the ideology of their teachers/professors will we be able to put things like "hate speech" behind us. The problem is, it runs from all sides of the coin.

A word is just that. It has no body, no physical representation until it is manifest in to action. The action is already punishable therefor what is the point in banning the word?

[Guest slothful1]

OK, you raise a good point. You would limit it where it "explicitly incites a crime." Why do you draw that distinction?

Actually, I didn't say that I would limit speech at that point -- just that I can see an argument for doing so at that point. I really would be hesitant even at that threshold, since I think people probably ought to be able to legally encourage civil disobedience.

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.

FYI, "views, which if taken to their logical conclusion would destroy this country" is itself a slippery-slope argument. But someone could just as easily say that *your* position on regulating speech is one that would effectively destroy this country, that it is objectively wrong & without merit, and its expression needs to be prohibited.

As Abominable Hillbilly suggested, the state having the power to decide what ideas are allowable is not in the same ball park as enforcing food safety standards. When you come up with a scientific instrument that can accurately assign a quantitative value to the truth and relevance of an idea, maybe you can claim an "objective" standard for such a judgment, but until then I don't want to live in a nation where a legislator or a judge has the authority to make that decision. I'd much rather live in a nation where bad ideas can be rebuked, and good ones offered instead.

[mdlave]

A more practical concern would be: Who would be in charge of identifying the danger in someone's viewpoints?

I agree that with slander,libel, etc. there comes a very high standard for proof. If dealing with factual matters is so difficult for our courts, unimaginable difficulty must come with assessing the potential for harm of a public speech.

I'd rather deal with a potential Farrakhan follower planning to blow up the Green Hills Mall (a very "white" area, for non-Nashvillians), than deal with a government attempting to protect me from one of his speeches.

Edited June 13, 2008 by mdlave
Sloth beat me to the slippery slope comparison.

[The Rabbi]

Actually, I didn't say that I would limit speech at that point -- just that I can see an argument for doing so at that point. I really would be hesitant even at that threshold, since I think people probably ought to be able to legally encourage civil disobedience.

I think you're back pedaling on what you said.

But since you now say that you would allow speech that encourages "civil disobedience" (and I don't disagree), what about inciting to "uncivil disobedience"? There was a demonstration in front of a clothing store in Harlem not too many years ago. The owner had done something, I dont remember what, to incur the wrath of Al Sharpton. They had a protest and he whipped up people until finally someone firebombed the place.

So should Sharpton's words have been protected under free speech, or were they incitement, and therefore criminal?

FYI, "views, which if taken to their logical conclusion would destroy this country" is itself a slippery-slope argument. But someone could just as easily say that *your* position on regulating speech is one that would effectively destroy this country, that it is objectively wrong & without merit, and its expression needs to be prohibited.

It isn't the same thing at all. We have regulated speech in this country since before the founding. So further or different regulation would hardly destroy it. So there is nothing objectively wrong about it. People can disagree and there is room for legitimate debate (like now). So it would pass muster for free speech.

[Guest CleanSeries80]

if you took the right to speak away from those who just want to preach hate, you are just giving them a new tool. now THEY are the victim who's rights have been infringed, and that tends to gain them sympathy and supporters.

[Guest canynracer]

So should Sharpton's words have been protected under free speech, or were they incitement, and therefore criminal?

Al was practicing his first amendment. Unless he payed that person to firebomb, he did nothing wrong.

Its funny how some folks will berrade you about giving up your rights, even a little, or by choice..for saying they would hand over a HCP without being asked, or consenting to a search...but they seem to think that the 1a should be "limited" or "controlled"

You may end up confusing my young niave mind you know....

Edited June 13, 2008 by canynracer

[Guest slothful1]

I think you're back pedaling on what you said.

*shrug* You're mistaken.

But since you now say that you would allow speech that encourages "civil disobedience" (and I don't disagree), what about inciting to "uncivil disobedience"? There was a demonstration in front of a clothing store in Harlem not too many years ago. The owner had done something, I dont remember what, to incur the wrath of Al Sharpton. They had a protest and he whipped up people until finally someone firebombed the place. So should Sharpton's words have been protected under free speech, or were they incitement, and therefore criminal?

I don't have transcript of what Sharpton said, so I don't know if they constituted incitement. Suffice to say, I'm extremely queasy at the idea of regulating the mere expression of ideas, even ones that most of us would consider dangerous or reprehensible. An encouragement to DO something contrary to the rights of others, however, is different from simply stating a belief, or making a persuasive argument. In other words, I would defend someone's right to say "I think so-and-so is a bad person and deserves to have terrible things happen to them" but probably not "You need to go do terrible things to so-and-so".

We have regulated speech in this country since before the founding.

With a fairly broad and clear line, that does not depend on whether or not other people agree with the content. It needs to stay that way.

So there is nothing objectively wrong about it. People can disagree and there is room for legitimate debate (like now). So it would pass muster for free speech.

Until one black-robed tyrant disagrees with you, and labels your ideas as being just as dangerous as those you want to suppress. Or who do you think is going to get to decide whether there is room for "legitimate debate"

on a given issue?

[The Rabbi]

*shrug* You're mistaken.

I don't have transcript of what Sharpton said, so I don't know if they constituted incitement. Suffice to say, I'm extremely queasy at the idea of regulating the mere expression of ideas, even ones that most of us would consider dangerous or reprehensible. An encouragement to DO something contrary to the rights of others, however, is different from simply stating a belief, or making a persuasive argument. In other words, I would defend someone's right to say "I think so-and-so is a bad person and deserves to have terrible things happen to them" but probably not "You need to go do terrible things to so-and-so".

I am not sure I see much of a difference here.

With a fairly broad and clear line, that does not depend on whether or not other people agree with the content. It needs to stay that way.

Absolutely untrue. Try this language for starters: This act made it a crime:

to convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum $USD 10,000 fine (almost $170,000 in today's dollars) and 20 years in prison.

It was also upheld by the Supreme Court.

Until one black-robed tyrant disagrees with you, and labels your ideas as being just as dangerous as those you want to suppress. Or who do you think is going to get to decide whether there is room for "legitimate debate"

on a given issue?

Well there we go down the slippery slope again. If we ban one kind of speech then we end up banning everything.

It hasn't worked that way.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Well there we go down the slippery slope again. If we ban one kind of speech then we end up banning everything.

It hasn't worked that way.

Not yet. But there's still hope if we go your way.

[saintsfanbrian]

or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States.

and it has been proven that as long as the speech/action is agreed by the majority then nothing will happen to the person. Remember the Berkley City Council that gave special consideration to Project Pink to demonstrate in front of the Recruitment Office? Wasn't this in direct opposition to the statement above? The only thing that happened was that their "right" was taken away. They had to move to the other side of the street.

[canadienmike]

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.

But you are basing your opinion that he shouldn't be allowed to express this sentiment on YOUR idea of what is reasonable or right/wrong. I would bet there were a lot of people that truely believed that Martin Luther King didn't have anything to say of value to society. So according to you, he shouldn't have been allowed to give any of his speaches.

[saintsfanbrian]

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.

So which is the right side? Are white people devils? Can you prove that we are not? After all, we destroy just about everything that we touch. I can't express the fact that I think all nibs are nats and all nats are slocks therefor all slocks are nibs? Just because one group of people doesn't like what the other group has to say doesn't mean they don't have a right to say it.

Why is this not an area for legitimate debate? Reasonable people can debate. There could be evidence some where that proves all white people are devils (though I have never seen any.)

When the right to peaceably gather and free speech are removed then the government has totally taken control and this isn't America anymore. You speak of Russia from 40 years ago.

[The Rabbi]

So which is the right side? Are white people devils? Can you prove that we are not? After all, we destroy just about everything that we touch. I can't express the fact that I think all nibs are nats and all nats are slocks therefor all slocks are nibs? Just because one group of people doesn't like what the other group has to say doesn't mean they don't have a right to say it.

Why is this not an area for legitimate debate? Reasonable people can debate. There could be evidence some where that proves all white people are devils (though I have never seen any.)

When the right to peaceably gather and free speech are removed then the government has totally taken control and this isn't America anymore. You speak of Russia from 40 years ago.

Do you honestly think there is a reasonable case to be made that white people are devils?

This is the problem with America today. There is no certainty. There is no right and no wrong. My right is your wrong and vice versa. All of it is just a matter of opinion.

So whether someone believes that white people are devils or whether someone believes that terrorists are merely criminals entitled to the same rights as US citizens or whether someone thinks blowing up the WTC is a legitimate act of protest, it is all the same, all a matter of just one's guy's opinion versus some other guy's opinion.

In that climate there can be no debate. There can only be expressions of feelings.

[The Rabbi]

and it has been proven that as long as the speech/action is agreed by the majority then nothing will happen to the person. Remember the Berkley City Council that gave special consideration to Project Pink to demonstrate in front of the Recruitment Office? Wasn't this in direct opposition to the statement above? The only thing that happened was that their "right" was taken away. They had to move to the other side of the street.

The quotation was from an act of 1916. Even criticism of government officials was punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

So to say that we have always had the same amount of free speech is simply ignorant.