General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

93. I do not believe that the government should censor hate speech unless it is associated with a crime.

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 02:07 PM

Dec 2013

That is because determining what is or is not "hate" or "hate speech" is subjective.

We used to have the saying, "Sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but words can never hurt me." That is an important lesson to learn. Words do not really cause your hurt. It's the feelings behind the words, the hate itself that causes your hurt. And the best way to deal with that is to remind yourself that you are too good to be hurt and also to engage in the act of challenging the veracity of the hate speech. Hate speech is generally false. So, the person who objects to it has to meet the challenge of demonstrating that the hate speech is fales.

Also, the hate speech merely reflects the hate in the heart of those who use it. You can only change that hate in the heart if you let it show itself and then counter it in a loving way. Our courts are already full of people being charged with petty crimes. We don't need to also punish speech. We have enough people in prison.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

244 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I "get" that you don't "get" the idea underlying the First Amendment [View all] cthulu2016 Dec 2013 OP

Exactly so tkmorris Dec 2013 #1

Nice. K&R. EOTE Dec 2013 #2

what about Citizens United? nt geek tragedy Dec 2013 #3

Citizens United was narrowly decided by a far right wing supreme court majority. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #121

What about libel? Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater? randome Dec 2013 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Dec 2013 #5

Where did the OP say it was absolute? X_Digger Dec 2013 #7

"Unfettered, even dangerously unfettered speech and expression..." randome Dec 2013 #8

I don't read it that way, and the OP's endorsement of our historical level of freedom of expression- X_Digger Dec 2013 #9

This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Dec 2013 #10

You'll have to ask the OP, but I see quite a few who endorse.. X_Digger Dec 2013 #17

and some people hfojvt Dec 2013 #26

Money is not speech. Corporations are not people. nt stevenleser Dec 2013 #65

No, but money can BUY speech Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #217

Fortunately, that is not the current (or future) state of the law. onenote Dec 2013 #234

How about whistleblowers? lark Dec 2013 #53

I am for whistle blowers, no matter who they embarrass. X_Digger Dec 2013 #55

Me too. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #79

I'm with you on that! lark Dec 2013 #108

Me too..........nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #122

I think the disagreement is what constitutes a whistleblower. randome Dec 2013 #61

Agreed, AND the disagreement is about whether a country can specify a method for whistleblowing. stevenleser Dec 2013 #73

You're right, Snowden had his 'safe haven' with the whistleblowing laws already on the books. randome Dec 2013 #107

"He may be disappointed that nothing much has come of his 'revelations'." greiner3 Dec 2013 #200

you're talking to a cog, there nt grasswire Dec 2013 #204

It's very simple, randome. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #81

The only thing Snowden 'warned' us about was the metadata collection. randome Dec 2013 #103

As the OP points out, Tea Baggers are hopeless. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #156

+1 a whole bunch.......nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #123

Why? lark Dec 2013 #104

If you have no definition of what constitutes a whistleblower... randome Dec 2013 #110

Interesting that you never asked for a definition of whistleblower. lark Dec 2013 #220

Free speech is great. Who is there to argue that? randome Dec 2013 #16

If you haven't seen those wishing to put their thumb on the scales of the 'balance'.. X_Digger Dec 2013 #19

our historical level of freedom of expression hfojvt Dec 2013 #28

Yet cooler heads prevailed. Fancy that. X_Digger Dec 2013 #34

actually it does hfojvt Dec 2013 #40

And who (other than Justice Black, apparently) has endorsed that position? X_Digger Dec 2013 #42

Historically, we permitted slavery and racial discrimination. We aren't stuck in history. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #86

I might find myself where? hfojvt Dec 2013 #105

R.A.V. a Scalia decision JDPriestly Dec 2013 #162

Because "even dangerously unfettered" is ambiguous wording to you? WinkyDink Dec 2013 #52

Lots of dangerously unfettered speech is protected by the first amendment. Vattel Dec 2013 #106

I think the OP used the term carelessly. Orsino Dec 2013 #11

It's always a balancing act, sure. randome Dec 2013 #18

I strongly disagree: JDPriestly Dec 2013 #87

Content of speech is regulated, too. n/t Orsino Dec 2013 #88

Not of political or religious speech. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #101

Even those. Orsino Dec 2013 #222

Yes and no. Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #218

Yes. n/t Orsino Dec 2013 #221

You can also be liable for libel or slander. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #77

Outlawing hate speech, zero tolerance laws, minimum sentencing 'guidelines'. randome Dec 2013 #95

In my view, yes. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #97

There are laws to cover the damage the exercising go your freedom causes. zeemike Dec 2013 #25

Anyone has the freedom to break any law they want, even murder. randome Dec 2013 #35

How in the world are you defining "freedom"? JDPriestly Dec 2013 #89

I was pointing out the corollary to zeemike's post. randome Dec 2013 #94

Yes. But, notably, he price for breaking many laws is losing your freedom. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #99

No that is not what I said. zeemike Dec 2013 #111

But the 'harm' in a country of 300 million people cannot be reliably determined... randome Dec 2013 #112

That is sure some negative attitude you have there. zeemike Dec 2013 #118

No the purpose of the law is to prevent harm to others. zeemike Dec 2013 #109

Yelling fire in a theatre is usually not merely legal but praiseworthy. Donald Ian Rankin Dec 2013 #74

Well said LittleBlue Dec 2013 #6

Unfettered speech is great MyNameGoesHere Dec 2013 #12

I don't get it Progressive dog Dec 2013 #13

I do not believe that the government should censor hate speech unless it is associated with a crime. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #93

I still don't get why not censored hate speech is only thing the OP Progressive dog Dec 2013 #125

What do you think makes America special? JDPriestly Dec 2013 #155

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #203

You are confused about what Progressive dog Dec 2013 #207

k&r Puzzledtraveller Dec 2013 #14

It's an area where we are "DIFFERENT" than the bulk of the rest of the world jberryhill Dec 2013 #15

But we put up with it because we recognize that deciding what speech is OK and what is not JDPriestly Dec 2013 #96

I fully understand our position on this jberryhill Dec 2013 #113

"just lousy people" hfojvt Dec 2013 #20

I think what many people don't understand is that while we are free to say or write what we wish to LanternWaste Dec 2013 #21

That confusion does pop up surprisingly often. Dr. Strange Dec 2013 #71

There is also the point that while you are free to say essentially anything you want Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #219

I'm all for the 1st Amendment, but... Yavin4 Dec 2013 #22

Mr. Spock is a cherished fictional character? RC Dec 2013 #29

You mean you missed that episode of Star Trek entitled "Spork"? nt Javaman Dec 2013 #38

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #187

I "get" that you don't "get" that shaming consumers of sexualized violence doesn't mean banning redqueen Dec 2013 #23

Slut shaming is never OK. Imputing what you consider a negative sexual practice to someone is ugly stevenleser Dec 2013 #36

So, because you failed to get me PPR'd for saying that people post MRA talking points here, redqueen Dec 2013 #37

You said "Your" meaning the OP's "precious, precious rape porn". OP has never said they consume that stevenleser Dec 2013 #39

Yeah. redqueen Dec 2013 #43

I'm very familiar with the way it works. stevenleser Dec 2013 #48

well the OP IS apparently concerned that hfojvt Dec 2013 #49

No, sorry, not even close. If someone does not indicate they have a particular sexual practice and stevenleser Dec 2013 #50

in this case hfojvt Dec 2013 #62

No, again, that's not the way it works. You clearly havent thought this through. stevenleser Dec 2013 #64

+1000. That's exactly how I see it too, and it's dishonest, insulting and polly7 Dec 2013 #70

"uncomfortably close" hfojvt Dec 2013 #82

Close enough. You are defending an ad-hominem, slut-shaming accusation based on no evidence stevenleser Dec 2013 #90

"I truly feel sorry for you" hfojvt Dec 2013 #100

This is how I see it as well Tumbulu Dec 2013 #189

+1000 Katashi_itto Dec 2013 #84

In a thread about the First Amendment BainsBane Dec 2013 #128

I am ready to leave DU over this outrageous Tumbulu Dec 2013 #191

Link? polly7 Dec 2013 #66

Not only didn't the OP ever say they consumed rape porn, they've not said they consume ANY porn stevenleser Dec 2013 #75

Oh, it's gone much lower, unfortunately. polly7 Dec 2013 #76

precious, precious rape porn, huh? DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #135

She's an angry person? BainsBane Dec 2013 #139

Looks that way, yes. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #160

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #175

Well said Tumbulu Dec 2013 #190

To many our free speech Betsy Ross Dec 2013 #24

Actually, there are many forms of unprotected speech. SEE: JaneyVee Dec 2013 #27

Thanks for the link NewJeffCT Dec 2013 #68

+1 Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2013 #115

The first amendment of today is not the same in most of our history. former9thward Dec 2013 #30

+1 NewJeffCT Dec 2013 #67

'The Supreme Court has addressed pornography more often than almost any other issue of elleng Dec 2013 #31

It says "Congress shall make no law....." AlbertCat Dec 2013 #32

Let's not forget, between the cries of "Liberty!" that this argument is about rape porn. Squinch Dec 2013 #33

That is some old-school "not getting." Bravo. cthulu2016 Dec 2013 #41

I imagine that for many people, that same principle is simply a mask to hide a specific point. LanternWaste Dec 2013 #44

Yes. I certainly do think this is about some genre of porn. Namely rape porn. Squinch Dec 2013 #144

The OP does point out that the 1st Amendment covers Holocaust denial muriel_volestrangler Dec 2013 #46

Ignorance and/or deliberate lying is protected. WinkyDink Dec 2013 #54

But the crucial difference is that Holocaust denial does not subject more people to the Holocaust. Squinch Dec 2013 #143

There is no evidence of causation for either and people concerned about it for both. stevenleser Dec 2013 #147

The rape porn genre includes depictions of actual rapes that are sold for entertainment. Squinch Dec 2013 #148

Possibly. I'm willing to take your word for it on that. But the discussion was causation. stevenleser Dec 2013 #151

The rape porn genre includes depictions of actual rapes being sold for entertainment. nt. Squinch Dec 2013 #152

I read it the first time and that still has no bearing on our conversation. nt stevenleser Dec 2013 #153

Filming actual rapes doesn't cause harm? Interesting position. Squinch Dec 2013 #157

Nice try at moving the goalposts. No. I accept the underhanded tactic as your surrender in this stevenleser Dec 2013 #163

Have fun with that. Squinch Dec 2013 #170

It is illegal to sell that. Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #209

I can't decide if your post is funny or sad. Squinch Dec 2013 #229

Here we go again with this tedious "argument". MadrasT Dec 2013 #45

+1 jberryhill Dec 2013 #57

Don't agree with the first two paragraphs but the last two are an important reminder stevenleser Dec 2013 #80

well said. Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2013 #116

Very good point! Tumbulu Dec 2013 #192

I don't see a lot of "unfettered speech and expression" FairWinds Dec 2013 #47

"even dangerously unfettered speech and expression".... Not exactly. We outlawed incitement to WinkyDink Dec 2013 #51

This may come as a shock, but the 1A protects speech from government BainsBane Dec 2013 #56

Is this another fucking porn thread? ismnotwasm Dec 2013 #58

I know, right? polly7 Dec 2013 #102

That's right - people should have freedom of speech to say things that I agree with el_bryanto Dec 2013 #59

Well said Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Dec 2013 #60

Except that speech is no where near free in the United States. redgreenandblue Dec 2013 #63

This isn't about free speech BainsBane Dec 2013 #69

K&R D23MIURG23 Dec 2013 #72

Righteous rant - TBF Dec 2013 #78

Only it's not about the First Amendment BainsBane Dec 2013 #140

Ah, more going on - TBF Dec 2013 #141

I see a lot of not getting it in this thread, and that makes me sad. JVS Dec 2013 #83

No one thinks the First Amendment is absolute. DirkGently Dec 2013 #85

This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Dec 2013 #91

Thank you ismnotwasm Dec 2013 #92

Perhaps, but political speech and consensual intimate behavior by adults in private are intrinsic stevenleser Dec 2013 #98

So you are the arbiter of what the "other side" really means? DirkGently Dec 2013 #129

Are any of us on DU the arbiter of anything? What kind of ridiculous argument is that? stevenleser Dec 2013 #130

You understand I was mocking your argument, right? DirkGently Dec 2013 #132

I know you were doing everything except coming up with anything substantive and non-fallacious stevenleser Dec 2013 #133

Substance like correcting your two misstatements of the law? DirkGently Dec 2013 #136

Is that what you think you posted after your non-sequitur subject and straw man opening? stevenleser Dec 2013 #137

Well yes, you got the law wrong both times. What else? DirkGently Dec 2013 #138

LOL, no I didn't and no you didn't. That would require a link to case law, which you don't have. nt stevenleser Dec 2013 #146

Sheesh. You actually need a link to Times v. Sullivan? DirkGently Dec 2013 #164

You've never read that case have you? It completely proves my point. Its nearly impossible for stevenleser Dec 2013 #198

That wasn't your point, and that's not what it says. DirkGently Dec 2013 #199

No, you do not get it. You flatter yourself that you do, but do not cthulu2016 Dec 2013 #114

Do you have a substantive response? DirkGently Dec 2013 #119

Can we ban "pretend" child porn, where the actor seems to be underaged, but is claimed not be?" redqueen Dec 2013 #127

Maybe that's what's already illegal. DirkGently Dec 2013 #134

You can't seriously mean there are colors beyond black and white - Ms. Toad Dec 2013 #210

Sorry cthulu2016 Dec 2013 #172

I don't love the title of my post. DirkGently Dec 2013 #173

Bravo!! Deserves it's own OP. Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2013 #117

Right on!..........nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #120

Lenny Bruce would approve of this message. Rex Dec 2013 #124

The First Amendment is about more than freedom of speech. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2013 #126

If speech is so "unfettered" and free . . FairWinds Dec 2013 #131

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #142

"Yet some people want to throw a giant entitled tantrum" jberryhill Dec 2013 #145

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #158

I used to describe people who disagreed with my opinions as "throwing entitled tantrums" also. LanternWaste Dec 2013 #149

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #159

I'd guess I would have rationalized and deflected too when called on it. LanternWaste Dec 2013 #176

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #179

And good luck with your irrational hysteria LanternWaste Dec 2013 #182

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #184

"Naked boobie pics" chervilant Dec 2013 #206

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #215

Your defensive and obfuscating chervilant Dec 2013 #216

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #230

"Actually, I don't care..." chervilant Dec 2013 #236

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #240

Poor wee mannie... chervilant Dec 2013 #241

Not gonna answer the question, huh? Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #243

"How wonderful to be able to enjoy graphic depictions of consensual, erotic sex. sibelian Dec 2013 #225

Oh, goodie, chervilant Dec 2013 #235

Where are these "porn yowlers?" DirkGently Dec 2013 #154

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #161

"Apes DO read philosophy, Otto. DirkGently Dec 2013 #166

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #169

You dismissed my comment without substance. DirkGently Dec 2013 #174

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #181

I'll happily debate the law if you want. DirkGently Dec 2013 #201

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #202

I have that reflexive response re: freedom of expression too. DirkGently Dec 2013 #214

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #233

It protects your screeching and hysterical temper tantrums too. LanternWaste Dec 2013 #177

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #180

No need to imagine hysteria when one see it. LanternWaste Dec 2013 #183

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #185

Thank you so much Tumbulu Dec 2013 #195

Most excellent post! chervilant Dec 2013 #205

I think that's what I'm reacting to. DirkGently Dec 2013 #211

This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Dec 2013 #242

Well said. Anyone who says "freedumz" to mock political rights is a spoiled brat LittleBlue Dec 2013 #167

I don't take anyone that calls quotation marks "scare quotes" at all seriously. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #224

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #231

Not a fan of your writing style Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #150

How many people here at DU have said they want to ban porn? gollygee Dec 2013 #165

Right. It's the gun lobby response all over again. DirkGently Dec 2013 #171

Exactly the same- good point Tumbulu Dec 2013 #193

K&R, completely agree! It is the one thing Americans can still take pride in quinnox Dec 2013 #168

We can't take pride in the thirteenth amendment? LanternWaste Dec 2013 #178

It's #1 for a reason. Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #186

Jefferson was a visiconary Harmony Blue Dec 2013 #188

I'm not sure that being *proud* of the the 13th Amendment makes sense cthulu2016 Dec 2013 #212

The first amendment means little without ecoomic/social freedom. Only the powerful get a voice then. freshwest Dec 2013 #194

Well said Tumbulu Dec 2013 #196

And so exercising my so precious right Tumbulu Dec 2013 #197

Your theory that women are incapable of consent is horrible cthulu2016 Dec 2013 #213

? Well what a novel idea, worker safety and human dignity Tumbulu Dec 2013 #238

"repeating idiotic ideas that anyone enjoys being beat up" sibelian Dec 2013 #228

Oh good grief Tumbulu Dec 2013 #237

All true, but with the consequence excluded alcibiades_mystery Dec 2013 #208

It's not a speech issue Prism Dec 2013 #223

Yes, the fear of the full extent of the human erotic imagination's spectrum is frightening. sibelian Dec 2013 #226

You honestly believe that those acting Tumbulu Dec 2013 #239

Honestly, I think some of it has to do with DU's peculiar demographics. Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #232

Hundredth rec, checking in! +1 Poll_Blind Dec 2013 #227

I wish I had 10 dollars for every time someone argued against consenting adult behavior using Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #244