Is it time America adopt hate speech and/or hate propaganda laws?

[Fred Sanders]

The Criminal Code of Canada

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[4] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

____________________________

Seeing Pam Gellar and all of Fox News talking heads and executives in prison for 2 to 5 years, real prison, a penitentiary, not suspended, would be so worth it.

____________________________

"Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom of speech is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.

Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

_______________________________

Edit: So, it appears the majority of folks at DU at this time of day are good with this, protected by the First Amendment?

"Wilhelmsen reported in his post that his group has raised $116,872.00 thus far to pay as a reward to anyone to completes the task of capturing and permanently removing President Obama from office. Of course, we can assume that by “permanently” he means kill him. The reward is to aid the perpetrator of the crime. Wilhelmsen removed the report of the amount of money raised from the post yesterday evening."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025620401

[NutmegYankee]

1. The First Amendment makes that impossible.

[Fred Sanders]

2. How so?

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom of speech is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.

[NutmegYankee]

12. It is limited on content only where it constituties an immediate and direct threat to health/life.

[Fred Sanders]

13. It is limited to much more than that, including incitement to riot, false alarms, lots of things,

please see links.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. Why are you seemingly eager to limit free speech? n/t

[Fred Sanders]

16. Why are you constructing strawmen?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. Not a strawman at all

You started a thread asking if it is time for the U.S. to institute hate speech laws, and then when people tell you why the First Amendment prohibits it, seem to keep pushing the idea that the First Amendment would allow such laws.

There is no question that enacting hate speech laws would limit free speech. And I stated that you are "seemingly" in favoring such laws.

What exactly do you consider "strawman"?

[treestar]

114. Arguing the First Amendment allows it is an issue

You can counter-argue the first And does not. Still, the poster is not arguing repeal of the First Amd. I don't think the Canadian law would survive the First Amd., but it could be argued. Likely not clear and imminent danger. Advocating genocide without being able to pull it off. Falls in the category of "I'd rather know they think this way as soon as possible" rather than suppress it and let them fester until they are powerful enough to cause damage.

[NutmegYankee]

18. Those fall under direct threat to health/life.

[jwirr]

34. And many of the things being said in hate today do not? They are asking that someone kill our

president, they approve of the killing of certain races in their hate speech, the say a woman who has had an abortion should be hanged, they incite the killing of abortion doctors, etc. And it is all freedom of speech?

[NutmegYankee]

50. To be restricted speech must have the intent and the likelihood of causing imminent violence

None of those examples met that standard.

And for the record - WHY THE FUCK DO I HAVE TO DEFEND FREE SPEECH ON A LIBERAL WEBSITE? The first thing the right would do is turn the hate laws against us.

[jwirr]

70. So it is interpreted in a very narrow sense. And it is almost impossible to prove that the increased

violence in our country is connected to any specific speech etc. So even when we have a law we cannot enforce it.

As to why you have to defend free speech here - I was not advocating it. I was talking about how I see certain hate speeches being a threat to life and the incitement of violence. I am not sure as I said above that any law could change that.

I honestly do not think that anything we do can change the hate that raygun unloosed in this country. Starting with people on welfare. The thing that I think will finally end it is the day that the minorities that are subjected to all this hate finally are a true majority of the voters and the haters finally are outnumbered.

However, with voter obstruction and the takeover of the government by corporations that day may never come - we will just go from being hated to being non-citizens who have no power. IMO that day is not far off. Hate is winning.

[NutmegYankee]

94. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it is constitutional...

Law and rights are two different often opposing principles. Every totalitarian state obeyed the law. The laws just legalized the totalitarian methods. When we start to discuss the abridgement or infringement of civil rights, we are stepping ever closer to such a society.

[jwirr]

103. I know but I am also very afraid of the haters. They are already killing some of the ones they hate.

I guess the two go together: the hate and the totalitarian rule. At least they did in Nazi Germany. My family consists of a lot of people who would have been in the concentration because they were disabled. I usually react from that vantage point. I guess this is the one place I need to control my fear.

[NutmegYankee]

107. Part of my extended family are decendents of Holocaust survivors.

Rather than smash speech we dislike, we should use our speech to directly counter the haters and make them pariahs of society.

[jwirr]

110. We did do that during the civil rights movement. I don't exactly know how we did it but for years

language that was so called "politically incorrect" was really frowned on. Then in the 80s it seemed to spring back to life and they are so hardened to us now that I don't exactly know how to counter it. I do some lobbying for the developmentally disabled and for those who are mentally ill but that is mostly with government officials. I guess that is what you are talking about.

One somewhat funny situation in my own family kind of backfired on me. In doing genealogy I traced part of my family back to a black family here in NE MN. One of my grandsons was very proud of it and is now a rapper. A rapper with all the words I hate so much. So I tried to tell him why he should not do that. He was furiously mad at me and I assume with cause. I no longer get to hear his music. I have been told that he is good.

It was such a nice world when most of us respected each other and care about the country we live in.

[NutmegYankee]

111. PC speech went really overboard and killed itself.

Once we got to calling poor "economically challenged" it just self destructed. It wasn't a resurgence of hate - the PC just got too ridiculous for society. And that is one thing to keep in mind. Both sides can overreach. We should only try to reform speech that is actively used to degrade and attack other people. In other areas, euphemisms do nothing.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. Yes, it is n/t

[Cayenne]

3. First Amendmend for free speech and press is sacrosanct

Also a slippery slope to totalitarianism as anything can be twisted to mean hate.

[Iggo]

4. Nope.

[superpatriotman]

5. No!

Let me expand.

Fuck no.

[name not needed]

6. No fucking way.

[ZombieHorde]

7. I don't support hate-speech laws.

I respect the motives I perceive from those who do support those laws, but I think our punishment culture adds to the overall culture of violence we experience here in the US.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. No n/t

[temporary311]

9. Really bad idea.

Considering there are folks even on this forum who think [img][/img] is a hate crime, I'd hate to see what gets classed as "hate speech."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. That is so offensive but I defend his right to be a jerk.

With hate speech laws that moron would be in the hoosegow.

[Nye Bevan]

25. As a Christian, I find that behavior very offensive

but also funny as hell!

[Fred Sanders]

11. That is not evidence of a hate speech crime - it is evidence of your bad taste and bad judgment.

[underthematrix]

26. This is not hate speech. It's just someone who is

very immature and didn't have a lot of home training. I mean why would you pee on a symbol that so many people revere? It's stupid.

[temporary311]

40. He's not peeing on it.

He took a picture posed in such a way to look like the statue was giving him a bj. And he's been charged with "desecration."

[Bluenorthwest]

41. He's not peeing. He called the photo 'Jesus Loves Me'....

think about it for a minute. It's hilarious, and it is excellent satire upon the homophobia of the religious set.

[hifiguy]

14. It is a manifestly terrible idea

and, thankfully, the last 100+ years of First Amendment jurisprudence would make it impossible. And FWIW, Miller is deader than Dillinger though it remains on the books. Incitement to imminent lawless action is a tight enough definition to be constitutional and that is as far as it should ever go.

[antiquie]

17. FSM 50th anniversary October 1, 2014

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-Speech-Movement-at-UC-sparked-change-across-5769930.php
http://portside.org/2014-10-02/berkeley-free-speech-movement-50-and-today

[XemaSab]

19. Driving hatred underground

just makes it so it can't be countered.

[Cleita]

21. We should adopt a fairness doctrine of sorts. For every outrageous lie told, there

should be a provision for equal time for a spokesperson of equal expertise to debunk what was claimed by perhaps Rush Limbaugh. I mean Rush's show should be followed by let's say Thom Hartmann. What we need is equal access to all information out there not just selected propaganda. As far as political ads they should be held to a truth standard. I mean all claims made should have a source provided for facts like the drug ads have to give you a list of side effects of taking that drug.

[Nye Bevan]

24. Nope. Not needed in 2014. You are free to start your own website to counter Limbaugh,

or anyone you please. And it is impossible to hold political ads to a "truth standard"; political ads are replete with half-truths and statements that are true but misleading, more so than actual lies.

[Cleita]

29. No. It's needed. I live in an area that has only right wing radio. When

you go to a public place with a TV like the gym or a waiting room somewhere they have Fox News or CNN on because the local cable provider has placed other news services like MSNBC or Al Jazeera as premium channels. Recently at the gym an edict was served by the cable company that those are the only two news channels allowed and they are not to be switched. The rest of the TVs are permanently on various sports channels.

This is the reason I'm constantly served up RW talking points from people I know who don't spend a lot of time on the internet like I do. Say whatever you like and spew all the partisan BS you like, but the other side and the fact based community need equal time and it needs to be a law.

[Fred Sanders]

49. "Constantly served up right wing talking points...", that is the problem with the media in general.

[Nye Bevan]

81. So for example, if President Obama is on TV for 10 minutes talking about how we should attack ISIS,

that TV channel would be required to devote 10 minutes of time immediately after that to someone who was opposed to attacking ISIS?

Just wondering about the practicalities of such a law.

[Cleita]

83. I didn't know President Obama was a journalist.

However, if he were delivering a campaign message for Hillary, sure it would be only fair to put up a spokesperson who opposes her.

[spanone]

117. the fairness doctrine stipulated you had to give both sides of an argument

not a 'truth standard'.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[Cayenne]

47. Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" -- No thanks

[Cleita]

48. Why would it have to be Orwellian?

We used to have the fairness doctrine at one time and actually it worked quite well to counteract propaganda. What we have today is the Ministry of Truth where only one side is on all the MSM and the rest of the news is either ignored or suppressed.

[Throd]

56. How could it not be?

[Cleita]

64. How old are you? I remember when we had real news from real journalists

on broadcast news and newspapers. We need to do that again. People who are busy working and raising children need that hour a day of being educated on current events by real journalists.

[Go Vols]

82. Yep,we need more Walter's

[Throd]

85. Not old enough to look misty-eyed at yesteryear's journalism as some golden age of truth and reason

But old enough to remember news only available on ABC, CBS & NBC.

Oh,,,and Channel 40 where you could see what caught on fire locally.

[GGJohn]

58. We had the Fairness Doctrine when there were a limited number of

radio/TV stations.

In today's world, with almost unlimited sources of info, via the internet, hundreds upon hundreds of TV/radio stations, the Fairness Doctrine is, IMO, an unneeded dinosaur of a bygone era.

[Cleita]

63. Like anything else the mechanics of how things work need to be

updated. However, the principle remains the same of having an informed public that doesn't have to jump through hoops and over obstacles to access information. Propaganda is propaganda when all people get is one POV thrown at them constantly and relentlessly.

[GGJohn]

69. How hard is it to click on a link?

The amount of info out there in cyberspace is unlimited and easy to find these days, no jumping through hoops or over obstacles to access info.
The Fairness Doctrine was needed at one time, but, IMO, not anymore.

[Cleita]

75. Most people don't, but they listen to the radio and watch the evening news.

Since the airwaves and broadcast stations are owned by huge corporations they will not give unbiased news unless forced to by law, what we know as regulations.

Oh as far as the internet, the only person I know who clicks on news links is a fellow DUer. Everyone else is doing Facebook, shopping on line or looking at cat videos or porn. No you are living in poppy land if you think people are being informed on the Internet.

[tritsofme]

65. So who gets to serve as the Government's Official Arbiter of Truth?

Perhaps a Republican president would appoint Rush Limbaugh to the position? Are you comfortable with that?

[Cleita]

66. Why is presenting both points of view considered seditious?

This is what those kids in Colorado are protesting about, getting all the information about our history and making up their own minds from that. I can't believe the average high school kid gets it and DUers don't.

[tritsofme]

68. I am responding to your suggestion that someone in government, perhaps Rush Limbaugh,

set a "truth" standard for regulating political speech.

The problem of course is that perceptions of "truth" are very subjective, and Mr. Limbaugh's definition may vary slightly from your own, but you are arguing to give him or someone like him such power to regulate political speech. No thanks.

[Cleita]

72. Huh? I said nothing of the sort.

Since Rush Limbaugh pollutes my airwaves everyday, I would like Thom Hartmann get the same time on the same airwaves. That's all and that would be fair. Instead I have to get Thom on premium cable or the internet something that the guy driving around in his car listening to the radio can't do unless the radio station plays Thom too. Since our airwaves have been taken over by corporate behemoths they have to be regulated by laws into doing the right thing.

[tritsofme]

76. Well you did specifically say that you want the government to regulate "truth" in political ads.

And speech. That is what I am responding to.

In an era of unlimited media through cable and internet, I think Fairness Doctrine is old and outdated, and not worth arguing about.

[GGJohn]

80. +100.

[Cleita]

84. Please quote where I said government should regulate truth.

I said both sides should be presented, not just one biased side and then we can decide what the truth is. I said if the corporate media is unwilling to be unbiased then yeah, we need to make them present all sides of a issue equally. I never said government should regulate the truth. tsk, tsk you should be ashamed of yourself for such an allegation.

[tritsofme]

87. Please reread the last two sentences of your #21

What else can it be called but advocating for government to define political truth?

[Cleita]

89. Nice strawman. Neither sentence advocates regulating truth.

Asking politicians to defend their statements to make sure they aren't lying isn't regulating the truth but exposing lies.

[tritsofme]

91. And again, I ask who shall serve as the Government's Official Arbiter of Truth?

And define what is a "lie" within political speech?

A Republican president may choose Rush Limbaugh for the position. He may have a different idea from you over what constitutes a "lie".

[Cleita]

95. Strawman again. There is no position of Official Arbiter of Truth.

We do have the FCC an agency that is supposed to be enforcing regulations in all areas of communication. I assume if Congress upholds the Fairness Doctrine again, they would be the enforcers.

Since Rush says nothing but lies and half truths, I would be happy if his show was followed by Thom Hartmann or Bill Press on the same station. No one is saying he can't do what he does but that those who have opposing views like in dealing with factual information should have equal access to the airwaves which technically belong to the people. They don't.

I met the manager of the station that runs Rush's show locally and asked him why not put Thom or Bill on the air after Rush in the interest of "fair and balanced" and he told me it would never happen. So apparently it will take a law to make these stations do the right thing.

[Fred Sanders]

104. "Official Arbiter of Truth", nice slogan, someone who worries about that strawman while not

perhaps realizing the major media are the real thing.

[tritsofme]

113. While you fantasize about jailing political opponents...

[backwoodsbob]

100. so you also believe

anytime a progressive gets any airtime it must be followed by a repuke getting equal airtime?

We don't need laws like this

[Cleita]

101. Actually it should.

That's what real freedom of speech is about and used to be about because when both sides get equal say, the liars will be exposed and will have to correct themselves. That's how it was in the past when we had the fairness doctrine. Nowadays only the liars are heard and there is no one to hold their feet to the fire and challenge them to tell the truth.

[backwoodsbob]

102. good answer

you made me rethink my position.If done fairly you are right
Thank you.

[Fred Sanders]

105. Equal time for flat Earthers and sane people would have to be exempt, stuff like that though.

And Michelle Bachmann, no matter what, no air time, period.

[Cleita]

106. The problem is that Michelle, Sarah and many others get more than equal time

and no one challenges them. I'm sure the flat earthers will in time. The climate deniers and creationists are already getting more than their due in the media. I think they should be able to say what they want. It's their right, but it's also a right for the scientists and opposing views to be able to challenge the directly and most of the time this isn't happening.

I don't now if we need the same laws as Canada's but we need something.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Evangelical Christian District Attorneys in the South would postively salivate over such laws.

The competition to be the first to imprison somebody for "hate speech against Christianity" would be quite unseemly.

[Cleita]

33. That cuts both ways. They would have to ratchet back their hate speech too,

although I agree that speech should not be censored. This is why I think both sides have to have equal access to the media. As it is today only one side is getting their message out and the other side is being muted through corporate media censorship.

[Chan790]

23. No.

Let's be honest about this...the GOP would still say hateful things, then liberals would get smacked with the fines and jail-time for rebutting the hateful things that Palin and Rush say under those hate speech laws.

Because our leaders and elected officials are quisling wankers who would bend over to placate America's enemies in the name of fairness and compromise...and theirs are not.

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. Does this mean that you think only RWers say hateful things?

It's pretty evenly split, I'd say.

[Chan790]

38. No. It means that I believe enforcement would be one-sided. n/t

[Crabby Appleton]

27. Hell no. nt

[Sunlei]

28. yes, similar to Canada or the EU 'laws' against hate speak. yes. fines & jailtime should stay low.

Known hate groups like kkk, nazi, JBS should have public membership lists.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Any religion that teaches some minorities are not equal people should then be counted as a hate

group. That would include all the anti gay preachers, priests and imams as well as those who follow them. I mean, the Pope that half of DU loves urges his followers that stopping gay rights is 'God's war which we must fight'. That is an incitement to violence. War means killing the enemy. Would you support jail for that? Or would you say that it is not hate speech to say 'God wants you to go to war on that minority group for their sins'?

[Sunlei]

45. Haven't noticed any 'hate talk' arrests in Canada or the EU with their churches?

"Or would you say that it is not hate speech to say 'God wants you to go to war on that minority group for their sins'?"

To me that is not hate speech. It's just some 'political 'religious' speakers' are evil people. Wish all 'overly-religious' political churches would go away already, but they have to many cult members. Anyone who says "God told me" or "God wants you" is nuts. IMO!

Americas churches, (most of them anyway) are still very segregated 'cult like', not segregated just by race either.

[Kurska]

93. Because religions get special permission for hate speech against gays.

Just like every authoritarian law, it would be unequally enforced.

Even bigger reason to say fuck no to hate speech laws.

[GGJohn]

30. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO,

AND JUST IN CASE I DIDN'T MAKE MYSELF CLEAR, HELL FUCKING NO.

[B_Mann]

32. No, too early

But the time may come.

[GGJohn]

37. If and when that time does come, (hopefully never)

then we as a nation are lost, and just who gets to define what hate speech is?

[hifiguy]

67. That someone would have the power to define it

is the second most important reason it should never happen. The First Amendment being the, well, first. I trust no one, including myself to have that kind of power.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Of course not.

Why do you advocate such things?

[Nye Bevan]

42. "I don't like it when people say hateful things". "Therefore there should be a law against it".

Shallow thinking and naivety, in a nutshell.

[Dr. Strange]

44. Why?

There are plenty of authoritarians on the left.

Seeing Pam Gellar and all of Fox News talking heads and executives in prison for 2 to 5 years, real prison, a penitentiary, not suspended, would be so worth it.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. You'd have to do some talking to convince me the OP is 'on the left'.

That's not the impression I get.

[MineralMan]

36. That's not going to happen.

Direct threats against the President are crimes, though. Wilhelmsen is very careful in his wording not to make such threats, it appears. So, he doesn't break that law. If he did, you can expect that he'd be arrested. He is on the Secret Service's list, I'm very sure. In fact, I got an email to that effect the first time I reported one of his nasty posts. They know who he is and where he lives. Should the President travel to that city, he'll get a visit and receive further evaluation. Should he show up at a Presidential event, the Secret Service will be aware of that and will see that he can't carry out any threat.

The same thing applies to the idiots who post veiled threats of their own on his Facebook page or website. The Secret Service knows who they are and where they live, you can be sure.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. I'm thinking...

No.

[hughee99]

46. A Democratic controlled government should be able to restrict the free speech we don't like.

To get around that pesky first amendment, we'll let everyone freely speak their mind, but if we don't like what you have to say, you'll be doing it from the inside of a jail cell. You'll be free to speak, just not walk around in public.

People have been saying some very unkind things about our president, and some of those things aren't true. We have to make it stop, at least until a republican gets elected. Then we can complain about the law and call that republican a fascist.

[NaturalHigh]

73. I'm glad you added that sarcasm smiley.

I guarantee you that some people were reading your post, rubbing their hands together, and saying "right on!"

[Marrah_G]

51. No

[LostInAnomie]

53. Fuck no! Read up on abortion that the Canadian Human Rights Commision became.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy#Criticism

- Near 100% conviction rate.

- Truth and reasonable belief not a defense

- Intent not a requirement

[Fred Sanders]

54. This is the kind of free speech at all costs thinking that resulted in Citizens United.

[LostInAnomie]

60. Bullshit.

Citizen's United has fucking nothing to do with hate speech. You are just throwing shit against the wall and hoping something sticks.

Free speech is sacred in a Democracy. It is not to be trampled by people that get their feelings hurt.

[Throd]

55. FUCK NO TIMES INFINITY!!!!!

[tritsofme]

57. I would oppose it to my dying breath. Speech should be met with more speech, not the strong hand

of punishment from government.

"Hate" speech should be met with ridicule, it's practitioners should be made social pariahs, but the government has absolutely no role in regulating or banning such speech.

There is a reason the ACLU stood by the rights of neo-Nazis to march through the streets of the heavily Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie, it is that free speech and the First Amendment really means something, it is important and vital to our freedoms and democracy.

On speech Democrats should echo Voltaire, not authoritarians.

If you want your government to play Thought Police, you will have to move somewhere else.

[GGJohn]

59. Well said.

[NutmegYankee]

61. Thank you!

[Jackpine Radical]

62. No, for two reasons.

First, the problems of operational definitions, slippery slopes, etc.

Second, hate speech & vague threats (like what Wilhelmson did) can serve as early warnings of evil intentions on the part of unbalanced people. Why kill the canary?

[NaturalHigh]

71. No. Such laws would be abused by people from every corner of the political spectrum.

Plenty of far-right wingers would love to throw anyone who criticizes religion in prison, and I don't doubt that plenty of far-left wingers would love to do the same for anyone who espouses a religious point of view.

[GGJohn]

74. i'm kinda curious?

Seeing Pam Gellar and all of Fox News talking heads and executives in prison for 2 to 5 years, real prison, a penitentiary, not suspended, would be so worth it

What would prevent the same thing happening to liberal voices?

[tritsofme]

77. Wow, I missed that. Absolutely disgusting.

This sort of express advocacy for authoritarianism is just plain sick.

[GGJohn]

79. That sentence made my ears perk up and say wow,

that's some bullsheet right there.

[MineralMan]

78. Maybe, instead, you could emigrate to Canada and

let the 1st Amendment still apply here in the United States. That would solve your problem neatly.

[Nye Bevan]

86. I'm very, very happy to see the overwhelmingly negative response to this OP.

Seems that DUers like the First Amendment.

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. +10^23! I'm also very, very sad to see authoritarianism advocated at DU

[Kurska]

90. Seeking to limit what a free citizen can say is not progressive.

It is fascist and authoritarian. You can't suppress fascist and authoritarian thinking like racism with fascist and authoritarian actions. That is like trying to put out a fire with benzine.

[GoneOffShore]

96. In a word - No.

Slippery slope that would lead to blasphemy laws.

[moondust]

97. Maybe.

It's a much different world than it was in 1776, and much different than even 1976. In those years there were certainly radicals at large, talking to others, winning some over, doing some nasty stuff: Secessionists, KKK, John Birch Society, SDS, SLA, Baader-Meinhof gang, etc.

The difference now is that all the radical fringe elements have their own mass media outlets--Internet, cable "news", talk radio, etc.--which they can use to propagandize, recruit, reinforce, and organize. There is no way the ISIS barbarians could have recruited fighters from around the world without the Internet to spread their message. Undeveloped, impressionable minds are vulnerable and as it stands there is no way they can be protected from anything without turning everything off and leaving it off.

[woo me with science]

98. I have an idea.

Why don't we put our energies into *restoring* all the Constitutional rights that have been stripped from us before we start joining in on all the dismantling?

[Warren DeMontague]

99. The First Amendment works just fine. And it does not protect threats to the POTUS.

[petronius]

108. No, it's not. And it's certainly not time for laws of the sort of

breadth that would put media executives in jail. Nor will it ever be...

[NutmegYankee]

109. Let's Kick this authoritarian viewpoint back to the top.

This needs more sunshine and bleach.

[sakabatou]

112. No.

[treestar]

115. How do places like Canada have such laws and stay civilized?

It would be dangerous here. People really would begin to abuse the power of deciding what is advocacy of genocide. There's something insane about this country. In others they have no First Amendment. But they seem to remain areas of free speech. Maybe it's common sense.

[bigwillq]

116. No (nt)

[Initech]

118. I'm staying out of this one. Who needs butter?