Can speech promoting bigotry, hatred or discrimination be classified as indecent or obscene?

[backscatter712]

Let's play with a thought experiment, and test the limits of the First Amendment, and how far governments can stretch.

I don't agree with cases like FCC v. Pacifica, in that I think the SCOTUS overstepped and clamped down too much on the free speech of Pacifica Radio and George Carlin. But the precedent is in U.S. case law, and has been upheld, and that case law says that the government can step in and limit speech if it is deemed to be "obscene" or "indecent", or that it violates the standards of the community.

So... Moving to Chick-Fil-A, and its advocates, here's my question.

Can speech promoting bigotry, discrimination or hatred against minorities, be they women, black people, Latinos, members of the GLBT community, etc. be interpreted as obscene or indecent?

If so, then one could argue that as indecent speech, case law from cases like FCC v. Pacifica could apply, and the government could conceivably fine or otherwise punish people for uttering expressions of bigotry or hatred against minorities.

Personally, I find bigotry to be deeply offensive. If I had kids, I would not want them hearing such speech. I literally don't care if kids around me hear or say "fuck" or "shit", but if I hear "faggot" or "nigger", I blow a fuse!

But personally, as I find FCC v. Pacifica to be an overreach, I would be against people being made criminals and punished by the government for uttering such speech.

However, if you agreed with current Supreme Court case law, then you could argue that Chicago, Boston and San Francisco could level legal sanctions against Chick-Fil-A for their public indecency - their public endorsement and funding of bigotry against the gay community. After all, if towns could legally ban pornography shops and XXX movie theaters, then they can legally ban racial slurs or promotion of racial or homophobic hatred. After all, a lot of people are like me and find bigotry to be extremely offensive - far more offensive than pornography. Could be that such speech violates local community standards.

Germany does punish hate speech. While today's Germany is considered to be an open, free and democratic state, if you set foot in Germany, and show a swastika, a Heil Hitler salute or an anti-semitic slur, they could throw you in jail.

It's an interesting thought experiment.

So... Should people and businesses uttering expressions of bigotry be criminally punished for public indecency or obscenity?

3 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	People uttering racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted slurs, or promoting hatred and oppression against minorities should be punished for public indecency or obscenity.
	1 (33%)
	I don't think people should be punished for free speech.
	2 (67%)
	I like pie.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Curtland1015]

1. As long as they aren't promoting violence or trying to incite a riot.

If one of my wife's ignorant relatives said "all Mexicans are lazy", I'd shake my head and call them a moron... but I wouldn't want them to get a ticket for it.

[Ron Obvious]

2. I'm on the side of Free Speech

If that means we have to tolerate idiots and objectionable opinions being expressed, so be it. It's a small price to pay.

Just think of the alternative. Who would get to designate specific opinions and viewpoints as objectionable?

[NYC_SKP]

3. "Yes" to the question in your subject line.

"No" to criminal prosecutions for same.

Also, "yes" to allowing businesses and civic entities and public agencies to boycott or divest from individuals or companies espousing or supporting bigoted people, organizations or activities.

Thus, in my world, any city can say fuck off to Chick fil A based on their support of bigoted organizations and causes.

[quinnox]

4. nope

the moment you start having the government deciding what is "acceptable" or punishable speech, then may as well be living in China or soviet Russia. People can say whatever they want, and if it offends you, too bad. "hate speech" for example, is an ominous sounding term made to sound official, but in the USA, it has no meaning or effect in the law. Its basically just a meaningless term that is a bit like saying something is politically incorrect.

[rrneck]

5. Nobody has the right to not be offended. nt

[onenote]

6. To the extent you are advocating muzzling political speech, of course not.

First, the concepts of obscenity and indecency have narrow definitions -- they relate specifically to speech with sexual content. Obscenity was defined in the Miller case as

Indecency is defined in the FCC rules as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

Also keep in mind that while obscenity is not protected speech and can be banned, indecent speech is protected and only under certain circumstances can it be restricted - such as through zoning restrictions or restrictions on what may be disseminated over a broadcast license. But the courts have held, for example, that restricting indecency on cable or satellite (i.e. subscription) TV violates the First Amendment.

Under the circumstances, what you are suggesting could be argued under existing precedent really couldn't be argued under existing precedent. Publicly espousing the view (which sadly is the law in most jurisdictions) that marriage should be between a man and a woman doesn't even remotely fall within those definitions.

To illustrate: its okay for someone to say on the radio that they think that it should be illegal for people of the same gender to have sex; its okay for them to say on cable that they think it should be illegal for people of the same gender to fuck; but they can't say the word "fuck" on radio. (At least until the SCOTUS finally addresses the issue, which it has been avoiding).

Similarly, it may be possible through zoning restrictions to limit locations where adult bookstores, movie theaters etc are located based on the "secondary effects" that such establishments allegedly have on neighborhoods. But Chik Fil A doesn't have any different impact on the neighborhoods where they are located than any other fast food establishment. It may be okay to limit where such establishments are located because of noise, traffic, litter type considerations, but not because of the views of the owner of the company that franchises such stores.