I'm starting to think hate speech IS a crime

[Gman]

Free speech does not allow you to "shout fire in a crowded theater" because of the obvious implications of the panic that could happen and people getting hurt. (Schenk v United States)

In Schenk, a case about speech against the draft, (from Wikipedia) "...(Oliver Wendell) Holmes said that expressions, which in the circumstances, were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished."

In Whitney v. California, a case about seditious speech, (again from Wikipedia) the question before the court was whether the 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act of California violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” and “equal protection” clauses. The Court, by a 9-0 vote, held that it did not and upheld Whitney's conviction. Justice Sanford wrote for the seven-justice majority opinion, and invoked the Holmes test of "clear and present danger" but went further. The Court held that the state in exercise of its police power has the power to punish those who abuse their rights to freedom of speech "by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow." In other words, if words have a "bad tendency" they can be punished.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis, in a concurring opinion, once again explained the clear-and-present-danger standard for criminal attempts in these terms, reiterating the argument that political speech was protected because of the value of democratic deliberation.

It's especially interesting if not ironic that in these cases the court ruled against leftists of the day.

Did Geller not create circumstance that were intended to result in a crime and cause a clear and present danger? Is that her right? I don't think so. Is hate speech like Geller's political? I don't think so. Is there value to the democratic process in Heller's speech? Not hardly. Hate speech has nothing to do with politics and is all about hatred of a group of people and probably should be prosecuted.

[Agschmid]

1. Good read...

Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

The latest example comes from New York City councilmen Peter Vallone, who declared yesterday "Everyone knows the example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater," as he called for charges against pseudonymous Twitter @ComfortablySmug for spreading false information during Hurricane Sandy. Other commentators have endorsed Vallone's suggestions, citing the same quote as established precedent.

In the last few years, the quote has reared its head on countless occasions. In September, commentators pointed to it when questioning whether the controversial anti-Muslim video should be censored. Before that, it was invoked when a crazy pastor threatened to burn Qurans. Before that, the analogy was twisted to call for charges against WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. The list goes on.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

[Gman]

2. I'm aware of Brsndenburg and

The key quote is

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).[\blockquote]

I really think Geller's show was directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

So how do you prove intent? I think it could be done.

I don't think saying "Bush and Cheney are war criminals" rises to that level. Insulting someone's deity when it is known to cause violence, I think, is.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. So to be clear, you think "insulting someone's deity" should be illegal.

Well all I can say is thank Jesus Fucking Christ on a Pogo Stick we have the 1st Amendment, to protect us from people like you.

[Yo_Mama]

97. Indeed. When in all history did that work out??

Instead, if only religious ideas are immune from criticism, we are shortly going to have a lot of very wealthy people becoming ardent members of the Church of Low Taxes.

This stuff is blowing my mind. To find it on DU??? What the heck does liberalism mean any more?

[Gman]

103. Obviously everything in the OP sailed clean over your head

And you didn't even think.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. No, it didn't. These were your words, you wrote em:

Insulting someone's deity when it is known to cause violence

So... does the Deity insult cause the violence, directly? Is it like some magic spell? Because, honestly, I coulda fucking sworn there was a middleman, another step in there.

Oh, yeah, now I remember what it was. It's the people who decide that the insult to the Deity is a legitimate cause for them to become violent.

Silly me, that's who I put the onus of responsibility on, for the violence.

But, okay, leaving that bit aside... "when it is known to cause violence". So, if anyone killed anyone - or committed any act of violence -over an insult to that Deity some time in the past, the insult is "known to cause violence" and as such "inciting lawless action", as per Brandenburg?

Is there a time limit? Is there some threshold by which Deity insults can be determined to be so inherently violence-causing that speech containing them is no longer protected, like, number of attacks over said Deity at which point the speech transmogrifies from normal protected speech into a criminal act?

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Insulting the deity doesn't cause the violence.

The person whose belief system is so fucked up they feel the need to get violent over an insult to their deity, causes the violence.

[hifiguy]

112. Point, set and match.

[X_Digger]

87. Free clue: IMMINENT. You don gots it. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

98. That is a complete misinterpretation.

Inciting or producing imminent lawless action doesn't mean what you think it means.

Speech trying to get someone to commit a specific crime imminently might be banned under Brandenburg. But speech that is not criminal and is not attempting to cause a criminal action is not included.

Otherwise, the First Amendment would be completely meaningless - those who controlled what could or could not be said would be the worst and most violent among us, and we would be encouraging people to take violent actions.

Under your understanding, which is flagrantly wrong, if a group of American billionaires got up a group of vigilantes to whack anyone who said the wealthy should pay higher taxes, and Bernie Sanders in his campaign called for higher taxes, and a vigilante tried to shoot him, you are claiming that is speech not protected by the First Amendment.

Do you not grasp how bizarre your take is? Speech that upsets someone so much that they want you dead is not incitement to criminal action. Speech that is incitement to criminal action is speech that urges someone to take a criminal action.

[beam me up scottie]

3. All hate speech should be illegal?

Seriously?

What about the things that are posted here about Republicans and other nut jobs?

You're talking about thought crime.

Without specific evidence how would you prove intent?

[Gman]

4. No

Read the circumstances where it could be in reply #2.

[beam me up scottie]

5. I did.

I really think Geller's show was directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

So how do you prove intent? I think it could be done.

How would you prove intent?

[951-Riverside]

6. Re: Free speech does not allow you to "shout fire in a crowded theater"

I've seen this example used many times but most theaters are private property so the first amendment doesn't apply.

[Skittles]

59. you CAN should fire in a crowed theater

you cannot FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theater

[NutmegYankee]

82. Actually, you can falsely shout fire in a theatre.

Schenck v. United States is as valid in the current legal world as Plessy v. Ferguson. The current standard is speech can only be illegal if it incites imminent lawless action. Causing a panic is not covered.

[Gman]

104. I'm glad someone gets it.

[GGJohn]

7. ...

Free speech does not allow you to "shout fire in a crowded theater" because of the obvious implications of the panic that could happen and people getting hurt. (Schenk v United States)

Why the hell do people leave out this part? Falsely shout fire in a crowded theater.
You can yell fire if you truly believe there is evidence of a fire.
And no, hate speech should not be illegal, it should be countered with more speech.

I fucking hate it when people want to criminalize speech because they don't like what's being said.

[beam me up scottie]

12. "hate speech should not be illegal, it should be countered with more speech."

THIS.

Silencing the bigots will not stop bigotry.

Shine the light on them, don't shut it off and hope they go away.

[GGJohn]

13. Exactly.

And just who gets to define hate speech?

[beam me up scottie]

15. Depends on who makes the laws

That's what's so dangerous about pushing for hate speech to be a crime.

Slippery slope.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. The "who" is fundamental as to "what" constitutes "hate speech."

"Gay people are humans who deserve equal rights!"

HATE SPEECH! It would be to certain groups and I have even seen that argument made before.

[beam me up scottie]

25. If Geller's anti-muslim tirades were to become illegal...

what would they do about all of the christians who preach anti-lgbt hate speech from the pulpit in this country?

Oh right, that's protected because ... religious freedom.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Indiana and Arkansas!

Apparently, I read here those laws were despicable. Perhaps I read wrong?!

[beam me up scottie]

35. Why didn't this thread about hate speech/inciting violence get rec'd?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026644207

[Behind the Aegis]

36. Ha! That was in my reserve to read!

Sometimes, when I haven't been on DU for several hours, I open new tabs of posts I want to read, that was one of them and I hadn't got to it yet! Anti-GLBT rhetoric isn't as 'fashionable' because...well, apparently we are all doing so well, why should anyone even notice. (And yes, that has been said here!)

[beam me up scottie]

38. Well maybe y'all need to shoot at some people to get attention.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. We gays do have the Pink Pistols and more than few Jews pack heat.

It is amazing some do not quite understand calling gay men (sometimes, lesbians) pedophiles is the very definition of "inflammatory" and yet, a republican candidate, Ben Carson, just did that recently! If a gay person took pot shots and ended up getting killed, I guaran-Goddamn-tee he would be declared "unbalanced", "overreacting", and likely a racist because Carson is African-American.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Oh you said it.

And if you post too much about christian homophobia you're some sort of religious bigot.

Been there done that.

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Rick Warren called us pedophiles days before he was the Inaugural Minister and DU supported that.

In fact many of the very same people who say 'fighting words, expect violence' abused LGBT posters for objecting to that hate speech. They layered on more hate speech, 'it's poutrage' they said and 'you just want your pink pony'. They are the most blatant and vile hypocrites I have ever seen.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Didn't Eric Rudolph bomb a lesbian bar for Jesus, or something?

by this logic it was the Lesbian bar owners' fault, for pissing him off.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. I missed that event by a week and a half!

Let me tell you, going to the gay bar after that event really changed for quite awhile, especially in bigger cities. To some, our very existence is an "offense." I think I told you before my husband and I got married, he was very apprehensive about it because it was required to post the announcement in the paper, and he was worried about the possible reaction. The very idea we could marry was "offensive" to certain people.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. "I fucking hate it when people want to criminalize speech because they don't like what's being said"

[Behind the Aegis]

19. I hate it too.

At what point, and whom, would "hate speech" be defined? Would the recent speeches by Ben Carson and the other Republican candidates qualify as "hate speech?" As a gay person, I certainly feel hated. Which art forms would be labeled hate speech? Would/could certain songs be labeled hate speech? It could go on and on. Of course, the biggest issue is who decides. Could gay pride marches be declared hate speech? What about diversity programs?

Like you said below, hate speech can only be countered by free speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. People keep comparing Pam Geller to Fred Phelps. Okay, so then handle her the way Fred Phelps was

handled.

Westboro is a giant joke, because people have responded to their lowest-valence nastiness and bigotry with humor, ridicule, and cleverness- not by issuing fatwas against them.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. Yup...here's how we responded in a number of cases...

I wonder if a few here would consider the first example to be "hate speech" against Phelps and therefore, illegal.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Where's the one you posted the other day...

a guy standing in front of a sign that says "Homo sex is..." and he's holding up a sign that says "Great!"

[Behind the Aegis]

41. This one?

[beam me up scottie]

44. YES!!! LMAO!

The outfit, the smile, proximity to bigots, it's perfect in every way!

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Yeah, that's a classic.

[Bobbie Jo]

88. Love that!

Perfect!

[CBGLuthier]

8. I am starting to think people who think like you are dangerous.

Going to a group of muslims and saying hateful things is a hate crime.

Renting a facility and ragging on their prophet is NOT a hate crime. No one forces them to see it. Is the entire world going to be held hostage to the sensibilities of man who died over a thousand years ago and his more rabid followers?

[840high]

9. ...^ that

[GGJohn]

10. It's people like you who are a greater threat to our

1A than any terrorist.
If you want hate speech laws, then fucking move to a country that has hate speech laws.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side..."

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

After conviction on a VERY subjective notion, what would you consider the proper punishment to be, and after said punishment was meted out would you consider the punished to have been cleansed of his transgressions against civilized society?

Do you believe people actually, honestly, in their "heart of hearts", change? Permanently change? Do they change for the sake of good, or are they merely going along to get along?

[Yorktown]

14. Mocking religion is NOT hate speech.

Fundamentalists dread mockery. Because it puts their intolerance (and violence) under the spotlight.

I regret all US dailies did not publish the danish cartoons on their front page.

A very sharp suggestion of the late regretted Christopher Hitchens.

Whose soul which never existed stays inexistent.

[whathehell]

22. 'Says the religion hater..

"Fundamentaists hate being mocked"

I don't know anyone who actually enjoys being mocked, but the larger point is this:

Most religious people are not fundamentalists. Neither are they prone to the "violence".you mention.

[Yorktown]

29. Again, the confusion between religion and people

Most religious people are not fundamentalists, but religion can make them prone to the violence I mention.

Have you seen the frenzy into which crowds could be driven over the danish cartoons? Embassies burned?

I do not hate religions, I fear them (besides finding them ludicrous incoherent inventions)

[whathehell]

45. Not confused in the least

and religion is not the only belief system lending itself to extremist violence.

I would argue that political extremism has contributed to at least as much mirder as religion, especially in
the 20th century. Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot were responsible for tens of millions of deaths.

[Yorktown]

47. And Hitler and Stalin killed in the name of Nazism and Communism, not Atheism.

Atheism isn't a positive doctrine with a program. It's just the state of not having belief in something unproven.

That in itself holds no command, no incentive to do anything good or bad.

Soviet Communism was the forcible enforcement of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism has nothing to do with god or not.

Nazism was a theory about Aryans good/Jews bad. Again, nothing to do with the (in)existence of a god.
(to the caveat that Hitler's soldiers wore the words "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckle)

[whathehell]

77. My only point was that religion is not the ONLY ideology that lends itself to violent extremism

It's continuous denunciation on DU not withstanding.

[Yorktown]

105. Agreed. Religion is ONE of the ideologies that create violence.

Nationalism (of which Fascisms) or Communism are others.

[whathehell]

107. And neither religion OR ideology always creates violence -- Greed, anger and hate come in

with flying colors too, so I think it's probably a mistake to look for "bogeymen" like

political OR religious ideologies as being the 'root of all evil', if you will. It's probably just

an unfortunate aspect of the human condition. Conditions that might discourage it should

be considered, but it will never be eliminated.

[Yorktown]

113. True. But you admitted religion in itself IS a cause of violence

And it's pure logic: the Torah, Old Testament and Quran all call for violence.

Why be surprised when it happens? But I agree, there are other causes/excuses for violence.

[whathehell]

116. No, that would be like saying that ideology "is in itself a cause of violence"

Like political ideology, the practice of a religion depends on the particular

set of beliefs and the way they are currently practiced and by whom.

You mention the "big three" of the West, but those are just a few of the MANY

religions practiced throughout the world -- You haven't even touched on

any of the Eastern religions.

As to those you mentioned, I'm not very familiar with the Quran, but most

Jews and Christians do not interpret either the Torah or the Bible literally. Those

were written thousands of years ago, and the practices of both religions have

changed significantly over the centuries.

[Yorktown]

117. Oh yes, ideologies have proven they can be cause for violence

Take Nazism: While 'Mein Kampf' did not specifically mention gas chambers, the notion of forcible imposition of the will of a master race on inferiors was delineated. So was the notion the 'Aryan' Germans had a right to gain lebensraum at the expense of non Aryan peoples like the Poles (Modern research seems to indicate the very origin of Aryan people might have been somewhere between Poland and Ukraine which makes if even more 'funny')

Take Islam: While the Quran does not specify the earthly penalty for blasphemy, there are hadiths (which are sacred hearsays about the life and times of muhamad collected two centuries after the deeds) which unequivocally state that muhamad condoned the death penalty for blasphemy. As long as these hearsays are considered sacred, the Garland attack has a doctrinal foundation.

[whathehell]

119. They "can be" is not the same as they "are"

which is what you stated in the post before this last.

I feel like we're now talking in circles, given that I've already noted that most religions no longer.

no longer accept the LITERAL translations of their particular book of scripture as "truth" or, in many cases, as basis for justification.

AFAIK, Islam is the same.

[Yorktown]

120. As things stand now, Islam is different regarding literalism.

Christianity, notably the RCC, has rejected the 'sola scriptura' approach.
Ditto for judaism: the old joke, put 2 Jews in a room, you get 3 opinions.

Only Islam claims the Quran id the sacred, LITERAL, eternal word of god.
(to make things worse, its medieval companion book, the Sunnah, is also deemed valid)

[beam me up scottie]

50. Hitler was a catholic.

He never renounced his faith, in fact he mentioned it all throughout his career.

He was inspired by Martin Luther.

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were. [...] I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.

The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie.

[whathehell]

76. LOL

My dear Scottie, virtually everyone of Hitler's generation was born into SOME religion or another.

That madman's "interpretation" of Catholicism is about as relevant as the views of ISIS on Islam

[Humanist_Activist]

56. Mocking religion isn't hate speech, mocking the transgender is.

Look at the winner you posted here!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023521667#post42

[beam me up scottie]

63. I want to know why wasn't this post hidden too?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3524640

There are people who imagine themselves to be all sorts of things they are not.

We call them ""delusional".

Love the faux innocent act too, very genuine.

[Humanist_Activist]

64. Because the jury system is broken and the administration don't care.

Removes them from responsibility. what he he'll should have been ppr'd, but no, that doesn'the happen anymore except to newbies and obvious partisan trolls. Bigots who are democrats get free passes.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Tis true.

And they go on to lecture others about what's acceptable speech for liberals.

[LostOne4Ever]

66. Thanks for posting that

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I had him on ignore for a long time and I had forgotten why and took him off.

That was exactly the reason he was there and back he goes...[/font]

[Bluenorthwest]

73. That is hugely bigoted and that poster should not even be on DU.

And of course that person is calling for protection for religions from criticism so that religious people can continue their tirades and denigrations of others.

[whathehell]

75. Sez you..

and that post of mine you've saved IS two years old -- Some of us (not DU religion

haters it seems) do change and grow.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. Every religion I have studied says that 'change' or redemption requires acts of penance and making

right the wrongs you have done. Those who 'repent' must actively make amends and turn away from the wrong behaviors. A person who has repented would never, ever be upset that the truth is spoken, they would happily say 'yes, I was wrong and I have learned that I was wrong' not take some jab at others when their own errors are brought to light.
If a 'believer' does not even practices the basics of a religion, how are they really 'believers' at all? I do not see it.

[Humanist_Activist]

91. So you are claiming that you changed? That you are no longer a transphobe?

Explain this then:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026563623#post43

[whathehell]

96. First of all, do not assume you have the right to define me..

Secondly, please understand that I have no obligation to explain myself to you.

Having said that, I will accommodate you on this one last occasion with an explanation.

You may or may not believe my explanation, but I am not, in either case, open to discussing it further.

The supposedly "transphobic" comment with which you've now twice tried to indict me, was, like

the post to which it replied, an expression of honest bewilderment.

You might find this hard to believe, Humanist, but at this point in time, most people,

including most DUers, do not understand the phenomenon of being transgender and might

like to admit that without people like you demonizing them as "haters" or "transphobes"

Finally, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't double down with insults or faux outrage regarding

"ignorance" on my part either, for it's been wisely observed that, "We are all ignorant,

just about different things".

[goldent]

16. It seems to be that how people view hate speech

(e.g. whether it is criminal or not) is largely based on what was being said, and the politics of what was being said.

[davidn3600]

21. So next time an Atheist says something offensive to a Christian....

...the atheist should be arrested for a hate crime? Is that what you are saying?

[Warren DeMontague]

26. If the Christian decides to get so mad over it, they become violent.. apparently, yes.

Yes, if someone says something about someone's deity that makes the deity believer angry and the deity-believer does something violent, the person who said the blasphemous thing is guilty of some sort of crime.

That is PRECISELY what this dude is arguing.

"Insulting someone's deity when it is known to cause violence"

Unbefuckinglievable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6645312

[Warren DeMontague]

24. ....I'm starting to think DU could really use a 1st Amendment group.

I wouldn't think it would be such a difficult issue with so many self-proclaimed "progressives", but it apparently is.

[Yorktown]

34. Very well written.

[akbacchus_BC]

43. Wow, you and your Muslim phobia! How do you sleep whilst Muslims

are still alive? Who are you?

[Skittles]

60. BS

plenty of DUers are DISGUSTED BY BOTH GELLER AND TERRORISTS - ALL VILE PEOPLE

[akbacchus_BC]

40. Hate speech is always a crime!

[Behind the Aegis]

46. Not in the US.

[akbacchus_BC]

49. Why you say that?

I always though that hate speech is a crime!

[Behind the Aegis]

52. In the US, hate speech is not a crime.

The Klan can legally gather and say just about whatever they want, even some of the most racist shit one could imagine, and yet, it is not a crime. It doesn't change the fact it is hate speech, but it is protected speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. No, it isnt.

[GGJohn]

78. Wait. Wut?

Yeah? Ummm, no.

[X_Digger]

89. Sez who? n/t

[Yo_Mama]

99. No, it isn't, and what Geller did wasn't hate speech.

Not even in France, where there are laws against hate speech, is drawing Muhammed cartoons considered hate speech.

[Initech]

48. Who needs butter? I've got plenty!

[Humanist_Activist]

55. Hey, aren't you the guy who teaches kids in CCD(Catholic Sunday School) that LGBT people are...

objectively disordered, and that homosexual acts are a sin?

How is that NOT hate speech?

[Warren DeMontague]

57. If gay people were to start shooting people in reaction to it, THEN the speech would be criminal.

Which is just one of the many massively fucked up pieces of so-called logic embedded in this argument.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. I just find it fucking funny that we have openly homophobic and transphobic people...

schooling us on what is or is not "hate speech". Talk about being fucking stupid.

[True Blue Door]

62. Is it a crime when we do it here against Republican thieves and psychos?

Are we equivalent to anarchists throwing molotov cocktails when we hurt the feelings of these people by stating facts and having a moral compass?

This attitude is at best spineless appeasement of the most destructive impulses in humankind, and at its worst a sort of nihilism that finds fault in the very concept of taking a firm moral position.

Moreover, it ignores the fact that hate speech does not occur in a vacuum. That someone is being a coward at addressing real problems if it flourishes, and everyone is being a coward if they fail to identify that failure for fear of being accused of the same sins as the hatemongers.

This is not a liberal position being advocated here. It is the exact opposite: Profoundly authoritarian.

[beam me up scottie]

68. Can I rec this post?

[GGJohn]

85. Welcome to DU.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. Free speech does allow you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. People always get that quote wrong.

What Wendell Holmes actually said is that free speech does not allow you to falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre.

Unless it can be shown not merely that the theatre was not actually on fire, but that you did not honestly believe the theatre to be on fire, even if you were wrong, your right to shout "Fire" should be protected.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Schenk: urging people to resist the draft. Dreadful decision, not applicable.

"Did Geller not create circumstance that were intended to result in a crime" - a complete misreading of Schenck.

[Lee-Lee]

71. Here is where you get it wrong

If any speech wasn't protected under your standard, it wouldn't be Gellers.

It would be all the voices in the Islamic community that spread the word that insults to Islam or drawings of Mohammad must be punished.

Let's turn the tables- if homophobic groups become more violent and start pledging to attack LGBT events- does that mean that people organizing LGBT events no longer have a right to do that? Or would you put the blame only on the voices advocating violence?

It's the same thing- only the chances of you agreeing with the speech changed. You have to hold the people pushing violence accountable, not the people being threatened with it- no matter if you like the speech or not.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. In the US each year the FBI calls an average of about 1,200 crimes against LGBT as bias crimes

So it would be hard for them to get more violent, there are already murders, arson, rapes, beatings. About 3 or 4 a day. Many of these crimes are committed by people who very freely credit their religious beliefs as their motivation for attacking LGBT people. There have been so many murders of trans women of color this year already that I have lost track.

[Humanist_Activist]

92. Given the author of the OP, they would probably blame the organizers of the LGBT events. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

74. You keep refusing to address direct questions and challenges to your vile concept so let's just cut

to the chase. First 'hate speech' that has to stop is the Catechism that teaches hate toward LGBT and the public speeches of Bishops and of Francis that denigrates us. That's not religion, it's just hate. A cult of hate speech is not a real religion, no matter how expensive and gaudy the costumes.

So at least that's settled. Let Francis know there's a warrant out for his criminal ass.

[gollygee]

79. The problem is . . .

that yeah, SHE is obviously full of hate, but as soon as you have a law things can become muddled. Depending on who is in power, anyone can potentially have that law used against them if they're unpopular. Malcom X would have been hit by an anti-hate speech law, for example.

[DeadEyeDyck]

83. is it a crime to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if the theater is on fire?

even if the theater was not crowded, would yelling "Fire" be equally disturbing to those inside?

I see this as an issue of conveying false information.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. The actual decision concurred with criminalization of advocating draft resistance.

Liberals hugging Schenck is an appallingly awful spectacle.

[whathehell]

108. Certainly not. As to whether the theatre

was crowed enough, I doubt anyone would challenge that were there a fire.

[Logical]

86. Wow, you scare me more than the NSA. Jesus, get a clue. nt

[Throd]

93. "Is there value to the democratic process in Geller's speech?" That shouldn't matter.

By asking such a question, someone has to assign value to speech. Apparently it is fine if the person assigning value is you. How about if religious fundamentalists are the ones assigning value?

You attitude worries me.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

94. Once again, a call for limiting free speech on DU

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

[Koch Ebola]

95. Hate speech is free speech unfortunately.

Tolerance is exactly what it means...tolerance. I still have a radio on my night stand next to my bed. It gets analogue.signals. It's called terrestrial radio. On the A.M band is mostly Spanish speaking stations, sports talk and right wing radio. I have to be severely drugged or drunk to listen to right wing talk shows. Sometimes I have a moment of clarity and listen to it in a state of tolerance. Most of the talking points are monolithic other times it just outright lies. When I listen to that crap I fantasize of living in a Maoist police state and these broadcasters are subjected to public executions. However, that is just make believe and I would never deny anybodies free speech.

Free speech is most abstract and convoluted concept ever created by members of the Age of Enlightenment. On the left, we have our Authoritarian faction. So called Political correctness. Then we have Anti-Authoritarian lefties like me. I have the belief and always will be...you have the right to be offended.

The problem with free speech in the USA is that if you have tons of money, you can have all the free speech in the world. Right wingers have all the money in the world. Lefties can't afford to pay for air time. We need fair speech or some type of code for equal time. That is all I asked for.

[GGJohn]

100. "Hate speech is free speech unfortunately."

Why is it unfortunate?

The problem with free speech in the USA is that if you have tons of money, you can have all the free speech in the world. Right wingers have all the money in the world. Lefties can't afford to pay for air time. We need fair speech or some type of code for equal time. That is all I asked for.

What do you consider fair speech? What is code for equal time?
If you're talking about the Fairness Doctrine, the time for that is long past, there are so many avenues for different points of views in this day and age, you can find just about anything on the internet, sat. TV, sat. radio, etc.

[Koch Ebola]

109. Getting to a mass audience is a problem.

Example: You can yell fire in a noisy stadium and no one can hear you. If you broadcast it on Public Address system, then most people hear can you. However, you must own the stadium to have access to that P.A system

Writing graffiti on the wall of a toilet stall well give an audience of 3 people. Posting a billboard will get you a hundred or more people reading it. My point is, posting a message on a message board, only a handful people will see it.

You have to ask yourself...is lying free speech? I hear daily on the radio right wingers lying about the so-called left. There should be a code that requires you prove a claim that you make on the public airways. The Radio Act of 1927 proclaims the airways belong to the people. It never said it belongs to corporate liars.

Second: Poor people have the right to express their opinions on the General airwaves. the right to equal time. If B.P has a ad on public airwaves on how the Gulf of Mexico is recovering than you should equal time to the fisherman who said that is not true. It should be done for free.

The American should know, the airwaves is NOT privately owned. It is still a public forum. If we the people do not like a network then we deprive them of a F.C.C license.

In the old days: Equal time meant equal time. If you think that a certain private group has a right to monopolize the public airwaves then you should re-think you self political labeling.
The town square is now the airwaves and it belongs to everybody

[GGJohn]

111. ...

The American should know, the airwaves is NOT privately owned. It is still a public forum. If we the people do not like a network then we deprive them of a F.C.C license.

You are aware of the fact that the FCC doesn't have any authority over cable don't you?
Most news networks are on cable, and are not required to have a license.

I'll re-iterate, there are so many ways to get your word out these days that any Fairness Doctrine is not needed.
And I don't need to re-think my political labeling.

[Koch Ebola]

118. Yeah, however...

Satellite radio, television and cable, which is the same thing charges a fee to view and listen. Most American people can't afford even a basic cable system. I repeat, you need money to get any message out.

[Jamastiene]

101. I thought incitement to violence was a crime, but

I have since learned that apparently, it's A-ok for hate groups to do it then claim a "lone wolf" took it too far. Really, that's the outcome they want. So, I don't know why anyone believes them when they come back and claim the "lone wolf" wasn't doing what they just said they wanted to see done.

[Jamaal510]

102. It was Geller's right, but what she did WASN'T morally right.

All she did was spread hate and (in the process) possibly created more enemies towards the country, and help give legitimacy to the impression that we're intolerant against Muslims.

[Unvanguard]

110. Striking that your cases are all from before the 1960s and modern First Amendment jurisprudence.

Brandenburg v. Ohio would help you more, but very hard to see Geller's conduct falling into that case's narrow definition of proscribable "incitement."

[NaturalHigh]

114. Take it up with the Supreme Court.

Personally I'm a First Amendment absolutist.

[madville]

115. Are theatre fires that much of an issue year days?

With modern fire and electrical codes, sprinkler systems, concrete construction, and smoking restrictions aren't the chances of a modern theatre fire pretty slim these days?