Other countries have hate speech laws. Why don't we?

[Cleita]

Here is a rundown. It's too long to post what is in this article so I leave you with a link, but different countries make hate speech a crime if it can lead to hate crimes and genocide. Please read.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hate-speech#Canada

It seems our time has come to expand and refine exactly what the First Amendment does cover and what it shouldn't. btw, This was the reason Ann Coulter had to cancel her speech at the university of Ottowa in Canada after an appearance at the University of Western Ontario, where she made some racial slur.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/americas/25coulter.html

During an appearance Monday at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, a female Muslim student noted that Ms. Coulter had once said that Muslims should be banned from airplanes and should use flying carpets instead.

Ms. Coulter responded by telling the student that she could “take a camel.” Even before that appearance, Ms. Coulter had been warned by François Houle, the University of Ottawa’s provost, that someone who makes intemperate racial remarks can be prosecuted in Canada.

[SoCalNative]

1. Because of that pesky First Amendment

[Cleita]

3. Other countries have freedom of speech laws to but they limit hate speech

and define exactly what it and isn't free speech, but you would know that if you read my links and my post.

[Deep13]

9. Yes, that's called governmental censorship. nt

[Cleita]

16. Government censorship doesn't let you run around naked, so why can your

harmful speech go naked?

[wtmusic]

19. Define "harmful".

As hard as it is, defining "naked" is far easier.

[Cleita]

33. If someone is hurt because others were incited to throw a bomb or shoot

a gun harming them, I would say that is harmful. If you gang up on a gay kid and beat him to death because the group was incensed with anti-gay words and accusations, that is harmful. The Canadians were right to warn Ann Coulter not to spew hate speech. Their country doesn't have to be the bigoted nation ours is.

[bananas]

51. Is "Vagina" harmful? Apparently there are now 8 dirty words you can't say on TV

See, we do have limits on free speech in this country!

http://gawker.com/5494397/banned-from-tv-tampon-vagina

Banned From TV: 'Tampon Vagina'

The death of euphemism in advertising continues apace. "Tampon is not a dirty word, and neither is vagina," claims a tampon advertising guru. Oh? Television networks disagree.

Now: while we have taken a bold stand against graphic toilet paper and pubic hair-trimming ads, we would never attempt to deny a woman the right to say "vagina," or even "vagina vagina vagina." This is a woman's right, in America. That said, "tampon" is clearly a dirty word, to men, because, come on, yuck. And the men who run the networks and who know best what women need are solidly in agreement: Andrew Adam Newman reports that Kotex's frank new ad campaign for...feminine products for when you feel not-so-fresh has been banned from the airwaves.

Merrie Harris, global business director at JWT, said that after being informed that it could not use the word vagina in advertising by three broadcast networks, it shot the ad cited above with the actress instead saying "down there," which was rejected by two of the three networks. (Both Ms. Harris and representatives from the brand declined to specify the networks.)

What with all the dancing on the beach ladies do during...that time of the month, they won't even notice the lack of information about...products for...down there, to help them be...fresh, and whatnot. Let's pretend none of this ever happened.

[Deep13]

181. Running around naked isn't "speech."

Anyway, I disagree with laws that prohibit the harmless activity of running around naked.

[Spike89]

193. Actually, nude dancing is considered protected speech...

at least it is the basis for allowing strip clubs in Oregon.

[Hugabear]

114. The First Amendment does not allow me to yell "BOMB" on an airplane

In fact, I believe that's a federal offense. Nor can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater. So yes, there are limits on "free speech".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. Who did that?

[michreject]

186. Yes you can

You just have to pay the piper afterwards.

[cali]

2. because of the first amendment. n/t

[Cleita]

5. We are one of the few civilized countries of the free world who interpret

freedom of speech as "anything goes". There is something wrong with our interpretation, now please read about what other nations have to say about it and their reasoning on my link before you make this reply.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. Uh, we don't interpret it as "anything goes."

There are plenty of limitations on free speech in the US. The problem with "hate speech" laws is that hate speech is pretty subjective, whereas most of our restrictions on free speech have a fairly objective criteria.

[Xenotime]

24. Bullshit. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded room.

[cali]

32. whoever, said you could, dear?

I'm simply pointing out that the 1st is the reason why we don't have so-called hate speech laws in this country.

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. Specifically where is that law written? What if I DID yell fire in a "crowded room"?

I've heard it a thousand times, but have never been able to find a specific law prohibiting it.

Help a fella out?

[depakid]

119. Comes from Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion in Schenck

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

Schenck's clear & present danger doctrine was refined in Brandenburg (the KKK case) where the court held that states and the federal governments cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or violation of the law.

[northzax]

121. ahh, but if you read it carefully

Justice Holmes doesn't say you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, unless that action causes a panic. so the banned action is not actually the word 'FIRE' but anything that you should reasonably have known would cause an immediate panic and therefore endanger others.

[depakid]

130. That's essentially the doctrine that developed

And it may well apply to speech and expression at one of these teabagger rallies- though unless and until something violent happens and there's a rather obvious nexus, I doubt authorities will bother going there.

Opens up too many cans of worms.

[coti]

4. Well, sure, why don't we gut the First Amendment, while we're requiring

everyone to purchase a product from a third party, private corporation.


Are you trying to give the Tea Baggers and Freepers legitimate reasons to argue that we take away Americans' freedoms?

[Cleita]

8. No, it's a discussion that is past its time. What is it going to take to

define what is in fact freedom of speech and what is license to endanger and slur underclasses within this nation?

[TK421]

21. endanger?

:shrug: how?

[wtmusic]

6. The "it can lead to" part gets sticky.

I love our First Amendment.

BTW, so-called "hate crimes" are not constitutional and one day will be struck down. The "hate" component of any crime, as odious as it often seems, is 100% free speech.

[Deep13]

7. A campaign of harassment is one thing...

...but no one should have a legal right to be free from being offended. Laws against hate speech or blaspheme or whatever can be used to prevent legitmate, but unpopular criticism too. That's goes for people talking. There is no corresponding right to utilize the public airways to spread ones hate. There is no right to incite violence or crime generally regardless of the medium.

[Cleita]

12. Being offended is one thing. Being put in danger of genocide at worst, and

having family and yourself threatened by angry profanity laced telephone calls is another. It has to be addressed.

[wtmusic]

17. Anne was inciting people to violence?

That's a can of worms. In any politically charged environment, a good argument could be made for either side doing the same.

Any judgement would have to be extremely subjective.

[Cleita]

42. Did you not read her anti-muslim remarks that I posted?

Do you not believe that they could incite violence against Muslims by stirring the pot so to speak? Evidently the Canadians thought so and warned her.

[terrell9584]

64. Hmm, so what songs should we ban?

Fuck Wit Dre Day- Dr. Dre feat Snoop (contains nasty gay baiting lyrics)
No Vasoline- Ice Cube (anti-semitic and homophobic records)
Fear of a Black Planet- Public Enemy (don't even need to say it)
One in A Million- Guns N' Roses (homophobic, racist and anti-immigrant lyrics)
White Cave Bitch- Ice Cube (song that is anti-white female)
Fuck Rodney King- Willie D (racist content)
Criminal- Eminem (homophobic lyrics)
Marshall Mathers- Eminem (homophobic lyrics)


And I could go on and on and on. Once you start banning things for being hate speech you start crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.

[terrell9584]

20. Is this song hate speech?

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/No-Vaseline-lyrics-Ice-Cube/C5D2B8B859E8CC50482568D9000E4C2D

This song is a classic of hip-hop, btw.

[anigbrowl]

26. It has been addressed. Extensively.

Perhaps you would make a persuasive case by presenting your ideas in the context of existing legal history and pointing out where you feel things are substantively different from when various Supreme Court decisions on the subject were taken.

[Cleita]

37. I'm not a lawyer. I'm a concerned citizen that is seeing something very

wrong going on while the perpetrators wear the fig leaf of the First Amendment.

[anigbrowl]

58. Neither am I. That doesn't prevent me studying it, nor you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution will give you plenty of context and does not take too long to read. your concern is quite understandable but needs to be set against considerations of other people's freedoms too, or your own under a different administration. For example, make up a few rules, and then imagine how they might be applied if by an authoritarian Republican president.

You might point out that George Bush and his administration didn't care a fig for constitution and did whatever they like in defiance of it. And I would agree with your basic point, in spirit if not in the exact technical letter of the law. But in a case like that, what good do you think would be achieved by adding new limitations on free speech? They might just use them against liberals and ignore them for their own supporters.

[Cleita]

60. I would love to but right now I have other things I have to study to

earn a living.

[anigbrowl]

75. Does that include posting on DU?

I have no opinion on what is the best use of your time, but if you have time to conduct an argument here on DU I feel sure you can use some of it to improve your understanding of what it is you are arguing about. It seems to me that the more you can develop your ideas by basing them on fact, the more support you will get for your viewpoint.

Now if you just want to say how worried you feel by recent events, that's fine too. But since you're saying the best response is to rewrite very basic part of the country's laws, I think it's up to you to look into the history of those laws if you hope to be taken seriously.

[Cleita]

92. Posting on DU is no different than talking on the telephone with

a friend or relative. Studying is different and you know it.

[anigbrowl]

109. OK, well we differ there

When I'm talking with people on DU it's the same to me as if I'm speaking in public, plus it's written down forever (or at least as long as skinner maintains archives). So I feel it's important to know what I'm talking about. If yousee DU as having a purely social purpose and the time spent reading here is not as intense as the time to read stuff on Wikipedia or a book, that's fine too...I just don't think you'll arrive at any satisfying answers about an important constitutional issue in such a conversation.

[Deep13]

179. Threats are a crime. Harassment is a crime.

So no disagreement there.

[bananas]

10. Because if you banned hate speech, you'd be gagging half the country.

[RKP5637]

11. It's unfortunate that some use free speech with no responsibility, we could

have great dialog on HCR, for example, but it's so sad that many take that to mean hate speech. The problem is IMO when you start to restrict it you probably lose it depending on the powers in office.

[Cleita]

15. So I guess we wait until somebody gets tarred and feathered or worse

killed because of a mob mentality stirred by hate speech?

[RKP5637]

18. I'm going now and read the details of your posting... n/t

[RKP5637]

43. I read the material you posted. As another poster said, they are conflicted with

this as am I. I would not want the RW to define and enforce what hate speech means. That said, in reading the material it seemed to me a number of countries have dealt with the problem of hate speech.

With the Internet and mass media of today, it well might be time to define what hate speech means in the US. Today, I see horrific hatred and it is thrust upon us every day, it is self feeding and perpetuating. I think it's shaping the tone of the country in a very negative direction.

[OHdem10]

13. I am conflicted on this. It has always been Free Speech here and

I do appreciate the freedom.

I guess I come down on the side: I would rather know what
people are thinking even if it is hateful than have them
conniving underground. I see speech as the relief of steam
even when it burns.

Usually, leaders make condemning speeches and distance
themselves from such behavior. For whatever reason the GOP
always seem slow and try to avoid the issue when it involves
their side. This leaves people to interpret it as they will.

[Cleita]

23. I actually lived in a free speech nation where you could meet in a coffee

shop and have a spirited discussion with a communist, a Nazi, a British imperialist, an American and any variety of other political views and no one called the other names or threatened them because when the threatening speech arose that could lead to violence then the gendarmes arrived. I never felt that free in my speech in this country in spite of the First Amendment. Just saying you are a liberal can get you punched in the nose in various parts of this country. That is not freedom of speech IMHO. So exactly whose freedom of speech are we protecting?

[terrell9584]

35. Have you ever considered that America?

Is still a frontier society, for all of our technological advances and supposed civilization and modernity?


We simply are a country that isn't afraid to fight and doesn't shy away from violence. It's cultural and it is more-so in some areas of the country than the others. But we consume it all the time. Its in the music we listen to, the shows we watch. Hell, the fact that this is the one country that really and truly prefers football over soccer and sports that have less physical contact has something to do with our predisposition towards violence.


Add to that the fact that America has always been a country where we have broken off into tribes and where every ethnic group has had its own street gangs to "protect the neighborhoods" and it breeds that sort of mindset of "defend your own" that you might not have in more homogenous societies.

[Cleita]

41. Bad excuse. The country I referred to was Chile before Henry Kissinger

crushed it with a coup that brought it under almost forty years of dictatorship. The Chileans are also a frontier society as all the Americas are, so I think civility is attainable even here.

[Art_from_Ark]

89. So Americans don't like golf? Tennis? Baseball?

I think the main reason why Americans don't like soccer is because it's too damn boring. Running up and down the field, basically just kicking the ball around, maybe ending in a score of 1-0, or even a 0-0 draw. And the players can't even use their hands. Boring.

[bananas]

45. That's why we needed the second amendment. nt

[Nye Bevan]

48. If people have to worry about the gendarmes coming to arrest them

if someone accuses them of name-calling, then that is *not* a "free speech nation".

[Cleita]

106. If someone smacks you in a bar fight because you disagreed over something

the police will most likely be called and you will be separated if not arrested. This is no different. The fact is though that this is not happening in this country except in bars. Police protection is for everyone, not just the rich and elite.

[terrell9584]

14. I'm sorry, no.

Just because speech offends someone doesn't mean we need to ban it.

And just a note. If we actually banned "hate speech" in this country, then the following musical artists would have to have at least some or most of their catalogs banned for "hate speech":


Ice Cube (biggest offender by far)
Tupac Shakur
NWA
Public Enemy
Gun's N' Roses
David Allan Coe
Eminem
Dr. Dre


Actually in truth, a good portion of rap from between 1987-2003 would be banned if you had a hate speech law. I can think of a G'N'R song that definitely gets banned. Tupac Shakur is considered an American musical legend, but several of his songs wouldn't pass the muster under a hate speech law.



I'm sorry, but once you start restricting any freedom you set yourself down the road to become the kind of police state that Britain has turned into and I'd rather not have that.

[apocalypsehow]

22. The First amendment needs neither expansion nor refinement - it has worked just fine for over two

hundred years.

No, thanks.

[Cleita]

30. No it hasn't. When it works for one group and not another then it's

being abused. Go to a red part of the country and start talking about environmentalism, peace and other liberal causes and see how free you feel when the anger come barreling your way and when you really feel threatened for your well being. If you have to shut up your views because you are afraid, then you are not enjoying free speech.

The past six months have had the tea partyers spewing venomous speech across the nation and yet it's the doctors for health care who want to air their views and the anti-war protesters led by Cindy Sheehan, and the reporters at the Republican Convention who are getting arrested for expressing their freedom of speech. Apparently, they don't have freedom of speech, but the tea partyers do.

[terrell9584]

38. If you talk politics with educated people

No matter the stripe they aren't going to come out at you like attack dogs. They've been raised better.


Now, talk politics with someone who is trash who was raised in a barn and yes, they will attack you. But it has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with the actual people involved in it.

[Cleita]

44. And if there aren't many educated people, like it seems most of America,

then what? Why did Amy Goodman and her reporters get arrested at the Republican Convention while they were doing their job, which is to report the news? That doesn't seem like free speech to me. This is what the First Amendment is about, freedom of the press. If only half the press is free to report, it isn't working is it?

[RKP5637]

77. My thoughts too anymore, and I've lived here a very long time, as you said,

"And if there aren't many educated people, like it seems most of America then what?"

I don't want to sound elitist or arrogant, but each day this seems more true to me. Today, rather than intelligent discourse arriving at a solution, it seems vogue now to shout the rudest most hateful thing one can... And that I find very concerning. I think our country is becoming quite uncivil. Rudeness seems to prevail as the first choice, anymore.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. You want to make it illegal for people to get angry at liberals?

Good luck with that.

and yet it's the doctors for health care who want to air their views and the anti-war protesters led by Cindy Sheehan, and the reporters at the Republican Convention who are getting arrested for expressing their freedom of speech.

Uh no, they're usually getting arrested for trespassing.

[Cleita]

46. We should have the protection of the law, if we want to air our political

views, and trespassing on public property is really not trespassing. Something that people don't know is that they can't keep you off public land because you the citizen own it. The authorities don't want you to know that, but its a little secret I learned when I worked for the Forest Service.

[apocalypsehow]

67. You have that now. You are "moving the goalposts" to another topic altogether.

"Something that people don't know is that they can't keep you off public land because you the citizen own it"

This is simply untrue. Cite the statue that backs up this "little secret" you learned working for the "Forest Service."

Try breaking into a Post Office after business hours and using the "I'm not trespassing because I own this!!!" excuse when the cops show up...ditto for trespassing on protected wetlands, etc., etc. It doesn't fly.

There are all kinds of restrictions concerning when a citizen may utilize, walk through, be on it, and so on. Have you ever heard of a parade permit? Jeeze.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

129. Uh, yes, they can keep you off public land.

Especially if your use of said public land disrupts others.

That's why you can't sit your ass in the middle of a major intersection and expect not to be removed.

[apocalypsehow]

49. Yes, it has. I live in a "red part" (Sic) of the country and talk about my views constantly without

the slightest fear of intimidation or my "well being." You are generalizing, then using a few dubious anecdotes to make your "point" - such as it is.

[bananas]

71. That's why we should bring back the Fairness Doctrine

We should protect free speech, not inhibit it.

[metalbot]

183. Free speech doesn't mean people won't hate you for exercising it

If I were to go talk to a group of Jews and suggest that the holocaust didn't happen or that somehow those that died deserved it, I'd be exercising free speech (something that I couldn't legally do in Germany, for example). However, I'd expect a lot of (completely justified) anger coming my way. The fact that what you say makes people angry (and may make you feel threatened), doesn't mean that you aren't free to say it. The fact that you fear to exercise a right doesn't mean that you don't have it.

[Xenotime]

34. It and all the other aspects of the Constitution are all wrong.

[terrell9584]

47. Such as?

The right of freedom of and from religion?

The right to keep and bear arms?

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?

Freedom from self-incrimination?

Due Process?

Freedom to vote without restriction?

Seperation of powers?

Federal system of government?

Right to trial by jury?

Prevention of double jeapordy?

Freedom of assembly?

Limits on congressional pay raises?

[Xenotime]

196. Yes. All of those limit what government can do.

[apocalypsehow]

53. Heh.

:thumbsup:

But I bet it goes "whoooooosh!" right over some heads.

[depakid]

39. Yep- it sure has brought you the world's most responsible corporate media!

and a population that can no longer even agree on what the most basic and objective facts are.

How the nation will ever begin to solve its problems without agreeing on or understanding of the underlying facts will be one of the more interesting things to watch in the 2010's.

[apocalypsehow]

61. Well, if you want to give up *your* right to free speech/expression, by all means do so.

No one is stopping you from renouncing the First amendment and, well, just keeping silent. But a lot of us like it, despite the fact that if often means other folks get to say things we don't like - Left, Right, & Center.

BTW, I get a real kick out of someone advocating repealing the First amendment and abrogating free speech/expression by....engaging in free speech to advocate it. That's rich.

[depakid]

84. Most people who raise the hue and cry and make unwarranted assumptions

haven't the first idea about the purpose(s) of 1st Amendment law(s) -how and why they exist (or in the case of media regulation why they existed in the first place).

But the facts above remain- in your present situation, the unbridled "free for all" and private censorship in your media had led to a nation in decline.

[apocalypsehow]

98. Yes, yes - no one understands constitutional law like "depakid" does, yada, yada.

These Argumentum ad Verecundiam's are staple fare here on DU, and most anonymous discussion boards.

Your next reply will boast of your academic credentials; your years of scholarship/expertise in the field; how if they were around today the Philadelphia Convention would summon you personally tell them how to get it right, and keep those pesky corporate overlords from hijacking the process in the years to come. And on and on and on.

Rinse, wash, repeat. A version of it is going on right now in a hundred different threads around DU: "you haven't the first idea about___________"

We shall not quibble here, because it's an endless game of "me smart; you stupid" with folks who employ it.

I prefer to focus again on the delicious irony of a person who insists "free for all" speech (which translates to: "speech depakid disagrees with on any given day") should be curbed, restricted, done away with, whatever it is you're hinting around should be done about it, by....employing your right to free speech.

Fun stuff.

[depakid]

101. Classic- formally allege a fallacy and then respond with one!

Along with more false attributions.

You should be an AM radio host!

Here's a clue- in certain contexts, there are and should be laws against hate speech, and those laws are perfectly reconcilable with the purposes of the 1st Amendment.

They'll never be reconciled by absolutists though, who haven't ready much of anything beyond the simple words- or dysfunctional and bombastic takes they may have read.

[apocalypsehow]

107. Thank you for admitting it. That's rare. That said, I still welcome you to put your disdain for the

1st amendment where your keyboard is, and cease employing the very free speech rights you wish to see abrogated.

You won't, of course, and that's another "classic" tactic I see employed quite a bit on anonymous internet discussion boards: do as I say, not as I do...

[depakid]

113. To the extent that the absolutists are full of shit- you are correct

Not only that, but childlike, lacking any informed clue, and a demonstrable bane to American society.

As I said initially, it will be interesting to watch as the nation attempts to solve its problems without any appreciation for or consensus on basic, objective facts.

[DonCoquixote]

189. How would you prevent abuses

OK, let me give an example we have all seen here on DU.

Joe Blogger reads an article about Israeli soliders killing children, and then says "Zionists kill children."

Zionist A hears that, and says "see, they are accusing Jews of killing children, they are trying to bring up hate against Jews! It's HATE SPEECH, break out the hate speech laws and throw the book at Joe Blogger!"

Zionist A talks to B and C, and makes sure that anyone that talks about Israeli soliders kiling children is lumped in with the Nazis and the KKK, and produce a bunch of "facts" that at the very least undermine Joe Blogger's cred.

Now, the point is not to demonize jews, or to even deny that while some people would criticize Zionism for good reasons, some folks are indeed a little less than honest (like some Muslim Bookstores that publish long discredited crap like "protocols of the elders of Zion.") The point is that if you were to make a "hate Speech" law, you would have to construct it so that a bunch of people with lawyers could not abuse it; in this case, since "Hate" itself can mean ten things to ten different people, the foundation is very weak.

[muriel_volestrangler]

164. That's a nice little fallacy you're using there yourself

Person A: "I believe in completely unfettered speech."

Person B: "Well, I think there are situations where ..."

A: "... Stop! You're using speech! You can't possibly do that and be against free speech!"

B: "I'm trying to explain it's not always ..."

A: "... Again, you're using that free speech that you want to get rid of. Therefore you're argument is invalid."

depakid is not trying to restrict the kind of expression we have here. It's pointless for you to keep saying that he is using a right he wants to get rid off. He's speaking. He's not lying, or spreading hate, or the other possible restrictions that a democratic country might want to put on speech.

You are arguing that the 1st amendment not only gives free speech, it should also prevent any discussion of any amendment to it. Which is ironically a restriction of speech.

[apocalypsehow]

190. False. Does no one even bother to read OP's anymore before they start posting replies?

Methinks not, given the tone, tenor, and content of the replies to date.

Let's take this slow:

1. The OP's principle thesis is "It seems our time has come to expand and refine exactly what the First Amendment does cover and what it shouldn't"

2. I state otherwise, telling the OP the the First amendment needs neither expansion or refinement - it works just fine as it is.

3. "depakid" wanders along and makes some irrelevant comment about the "corporate media," then opines that he knows more about what the First amendment means than all the "absolutists," though he refuses to define it with anything more than vague generalizations. The general gist of this gauzy thread of thought seems to be that he agrees with the OP - the First amendment has to be amended/changed/repealed to make free speech/expression more difficult or, in some cases, a crime.

4. It being impossible to "debate" the proposition "I know more about this topic than you and every other human being on the planet so what you say doesn't count" (he doesn't, of course, hence the air of vagueness joined to the hip with a tone of condescension), I instead point out the irony of someone who wants to do away with free speech using free speech to advocate for it.

There is nary a fallacy to be found anywhere on the premises - at least as far as my replies are concerned - and if you think there is, you simply do not understand what constitutes a logical fallacy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

194. I wasn't talking about the OP

and you seem to show that you don't bother reading the posts you reply to, by bringing the OP into this.

Your points:

1: irrelevant, because I was clearly talking about your description of depakid's posts

2: again, irrelevant

3: at least you're now talking about depakid. You're getting there.

4: You point out this 'irony' 3 times, as if it's a relevant point in the discussion. But it's based on an incorrect definition of 'free speech'. You are claiming that any speech is 'free speech', and that therefore there is a problem with depakid using speech to say free speech should be restricted.

A fallacy is "a failure in reasoning which makes an argument invalid". The argument that you repeated 3 times in invalid. Because your reasoning was invalid. You have tried to reason:

1: depakid used speech
2: free speech is speech
3: therefore depakid used free speech.

You then try to use this to claim that depakid's argument is not worth listening to.

[apocalypsehow]

195. Well then, you're truly lost - because the entire conversation revolved around the OP's thesis.

While you try and find your place again, here's some further help:

1. depakid advocates curbing/restricting/banning free speech/expression using free speech.
2. There is a rich irony to this fact.
3. Pointing out this irony is no more a "logical fallacy" than observing that the sun is bright or the sky is blue is.

The rest of that numbered jazz you posted above is a fallacy of its very own: a huge, grinning strawman, that you're having all kinds of fun batting around.

Please try again.

[RKP5637]

62. I find this very concerning too, America seems quite immature for the

21st century. Agree so much, "population that can no longer even agree on what the most basic and objective facts are."

The problems this country must deal with in the 21st century are quite complex, if HCR is an example of how we work out our problems and differences, then I think American is in for a very rough road of it in the coming century.

[glinda]

143. Technically America is a young Country. Hope we don't implode.

[RKP5637]

163. Good point, because since the 80's IMO we've been ratcheting up devouring ourselves. America is

and almost always has been its own worst enemy. I hope we've not gone over the tipping point. I don't care for the hatred brewing in the country today and the "media for profit" stroking the flames having tapped into stroking hatred for profit.

[pecwae]

182. +1.

[CHIMO]

25. Just To Clarify

Ann canceled her show.

The university did not make a threat. It was information.

Coulter 'welcome' at University of Ottawa
Ann Coulter and other controversial speakers are always welcome at the University of Ottawa, the university said Wednesday after organizers canceled a speech by the conservative pundit
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/24/ottawa-ann-coulter-university.html
Wednesday, March 24, 2010 | 6:36 PM ET

[BlooInBloo]

28. Because of this. Durr.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/canada/index.html

"When Noam Chomsky (yes, I'm quoting him twice in one day) is asked whether he thinks America is irrevocably broken and/or whether its political process has any extremely positive features, he typically says -- as he did in this 2005 interview: "In other dimensions, the U.S. is very free. For example, freedom of speech is protected in the United States to an extent that is unique in the world." That's the critical point: as long as the State is absolutely barred from criminalizing political views, then any change remains possible because citizens are free to communicate with and persuade one another and express their political opinions without being threatened by the Government with criminal sanctions of the kind Provost Houle conveyed here and which are not infrequently issued by numerous other Canadian and European functionaries."

[coti]

36. Outstanding post. The First Amendment is the best thing we have going for

us right now.

[bananas]

66. Good article. Free speech is really the basis for Democracy.

Democracy is based on the idea that people should be able to listen to all sides of an issue and make up their own minds. What we need to do is bring back the Fairness Doctrine and prohibit monopoly ownership of media, to ensure that all sides can be heard.

[RKP5637]

87. Excellent!! A very excellent point, in fact, freedom of speech is really limited

by the monopoly ownership of media we have today. Powerful propaganda is spewed 7x24 by some, and right or wrong, if you repeat it loud enough and long enough, it will become truth.

[Nye Bevan]

29. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

think through the implications before arguing for the repeal of the First Amendment!

Imagine if the Bush Administration could have decided what was and wasn't "hate speech". Someone argues against military tribunals? Well, they are on the side of the terrorists, so that's hate speech, so let's prosecute this troublesome person! Of course the prosecution may or may not succeed, but many people would just not speak up to be on the safe side. Why risk criminal prosecution? It's easier to just never say anything that might upset the Government. Now do you see where this is leading?

The First Amendment is precious. Leave it alone.

[Cleita]

52. Whose arguing for the repeal?

I want it defined better. Who gets free speech? Everyone or just them? Isn't it true the First Amendment was to insure a free press, so why don't we have a free press today? Lots of questions here with no answers.

[Nye Bevan]

57. Oh, the irony

Someone posting whatever they like on an internet discussion board, with no fear of any consequences, and then claiming that we "don't have a free press".

[EFerrari]

94. What do you mean, no fear of consequences? The NSA

can see every word at their discretion. And the Patriot Act gives the President the right to pick anybody up for any reason whatsoever.

[Nye Bevan]

108. Which explains why all of those DUers have been arrested, right? (nt)

[EFerrari]

150. You're mistaking power with exercise of power, I think. :-)

[Cleita]

110. If you think the internet discussion boards are free, anything goes, I'd

like to know where those boards are because I haven't been to any that weren't tightly managed by the administrators.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. Answers:

Who gets free speech? Everyone or just them?

Everyone. You can't seriously be asking for a redefinition of the 1st Amendment that restricts whom it applies to. What you appear to want is consistency in enforcing the amendment.

Isn't it true the First Amendment was to insure a free press?

Only the bit about 'the press'. This is about speech; another bit is about religion. Clearly it's not just about the press.

(W)hy don't we have a free press today?

You do, but the most popular press (and other media) is highly commercial, and so restricts itself for financial reasons. But the US press has more legal freedom than in most developed countries.

[Nye Bevan]

80. I'm British like you

and I often see fellow Brits appreciating the First Amendment more than some Americans. I think in my case a lot of this is to do with my memories of how Mrs Thatcher abused the *lack* of a First Amendment when I was growing up in the UK.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. I'm in 2 minds about it

Sometimes the American freedom seems the right thing; at other times, I think that the law against inciting racial hatred here is worth having. I tend to think an exception for inciting hatred of race, gender or sexuality (being the 'what you are, not what you think') categories can be made to free speech laws.

[stray cat]

31. Because progressives promote it as free speech!

[MrSlayer]

50. I don't like censorship.

You should be able to deny the holocaust and have as many Klan rallies as you want. It makes it easier to recognize the assholes. Plus I don't want people telling me I can't listen to Satanic music if I want or anything like that. I'll stick with the first amendment.

[Cleita]

54. Oh I agree. I'm not talking about censorship. I'm talking about hate speech.

We know what it is. It's strictly forbidden on DU. Read the rules.

[Bluerthanblue]

65. I agree with you Cleita- there is a line that is crossed.

where one persons right to say whatever they want infringes on another's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Inciting hatred and violence does just that imo.

It's a fine, tricky line sometimes, but it needs to be there.imo

:hi:

[Nye Bevan]

72. "I hate those stupid fucking right-wing evangelical Christian repukes"

That sentence certainly "incites hatred", so in your ideal world I would be subject to criminal prosecution for posting that. Right? Three months in jail for "crossing the line", perhaps? Or is it only certain types of incited hatred that would be subject to prosecution?

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. There be crickets in here... n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

88. that's your opinion. Does it really "incite hatred" or

illustrate the hatred that is in the speaker?

Now if you said that things should happen to those that you have singled out with your hatred, or said that they should have rights taken from them, THAT would be "inciting" others to join you.

We should be able to marginalize those who choose to use hate speech against others within society, but I believe those who advocate treating others, or doing things to others they choose to hate should be dealt with legally.

I don't have an "ideal world" and I sure as hell don't live in one. I didn't say it was EASY to enforce the "line" between a persons free speech, and another persons right to liberty (which SHOULD include freedom from being harrassed because of anything other the actions of an individual)- but it has to be inforced.

Are we 'civilized' or not? Don't we as a society have boundries that limit our ultimate freedom in order protect us from each other?

[Nye Bevan]

90. "Fuck those stupid evangelicals. I hope they get what they deserve".

Illegal?

[Bluerthanblue]

99. no, still not there-

imo.

The fax that one Dem recieved with a noose and the message that 'all baby-killers will be dealt with one way or another, by god or otherwise' (don't know the exact quote). THAT is pretty much inciting violence- it is beyond acceptable speech. Given the climate that we are currently in, a statement like that, the fact that people cannot answer their phone because of the things being said to them 'annonymously'- should be a crime. Should be prosecutable shouldn't it??

Would you allow a child to remain in a home where they were continually subjected to verbal assaults?
Do you place ANY restriction on 'free speech'? if so, when and how?

Where do YOU draw the line?

[Nye Bevan]

105. Ah, now you're backpedalling.

In Post 65 your line was "inciting hatred" (which both of my examples clearly did). Now you've backtracked to "pretty much inciting violence". That tends to happen when people actually start to think through these ideas.

[Bluerthanblue]

115. sorry, I don't agree.

If you read what I wrote in response to Celeta, I said that the line between free speech was FINE and TRICKY.

You replied with a line about hating christians and saying that "incited hatred". I disagreed. Your statement may be offensive, and repugnant, but it is a statement of how "you" perceive a group of people.

When I replied saying that, you changed it a little adding a somewhat vague ..."I hope they get what they deserve". You are still talking about what YOU (the speaker) wants. You aren't saying "they should be burned at the stake". - there's a difference here.

I'm not trying to "back-pedal" I agree its a very difficult line to pin down and enforce, but I believe it MUST be.

Here in NH there was a jerk who brought a handgun to an appearance of Pres. O. along with a sign bearing a quote from Jefferson saying: " it's time to water the tree of Liberty". I personally think he was inciting violence with his statement, and with his openly carrying a weapon to a public place. He was on 'private property' (church grounds :shrug:) with permission.

What was the purpose of the words he chose to "speak" and the very visible weaponry? Was he trying to convince people that we need to work together? Was he advertising his landscaping skills? Was he sending a message a threat? a challenge? a call to arms?

I can't disagree that it is VERY difficult to determine where that line is. But do you agree there IS a line?

[elias49]

128. That sentence doesn't 'incite hatred'

it simply indicates ignorance.

[MrSlayer]

70. I know the rules.

I don't necessarily agree with them but I abide by them because I like it here.

My point is that a lot of art would be censored by these hate speech laws and I don't want that. Let the idiots who want to scream the N-word or whatever do it. As I said it makes it easier to recognize the ignorant. Also there is the point of context. Would it be ok for Ice Cube to use the aforementioned word but not Axl Rose or John Lennon? Or would none of them be able to use it? What about Chris Rock? It's the proverbial slippery slope.

[Cid_B]

124. Really now...

You can define what is hate speech and what isn't? Please expand that thought...

[Fleshdancer]

55. Because the rights of us all are far more precious than the few who abuse them.

The few who abuse them are only as dangerous as the assholes who follow them. The assholes who follow them are then split up between the assholes who do nothing and the assholes who break the law. The assholes who break the law aren't worth losing your rights over.

[Cleita]

59. Yes, but half of us don't have those rights because the other half has

bullied us with hate speech.

[Fleshdancer]

69. I hear us getting louder in opposition to the hate speech we hear today.

What silence? Who is not speaking out because they are bullied by hate speech?

on edit: stupid grammar error. oops!

[DonCoquixote]

56. Because

Being "offended" is a very subjective thing, and therefore, prone to abuse. It is very easy to be "offended" and then use that as an excuse to stifle any discussion on a subject, and by doing so, stifle criticism. What is also very dangerous is that while some speech can clearly lead to violence (like when the GOp activists said in all cap "break their windows', others may never have been intended to cause violence, but were interpreted by people who simply wanted an excuse to do evil. If the sort of laws that Canada espoused were taken to their full effect, any song that is interpeted as an incitement to violence could be considered hate speech. As is, our art has been tamed to a large extent by the market, do we want artists and columnists ducking thinking that because Eddie McDipstick in anywhere, USA interpreted a song to mean kill someone, they wind up getting sued? Ask Judas Priest about that scenario.

Yes, people who encourage CRIMES should be dealt with, but given the fact that it is very easy for people to intrepret things exactly the way they want to, an attempt to restrict freedom of speech can easily become a censor.

[Cleita]

63. How did offended get into this? I was talking about being threatened a

whole different enchilada. Can't you people see the difference?

[DonCoquixote]

76. Because

Offended can bleed right into threatened easily, especially when the lawyers get involved. Let's say I were to say "I think person A is incompotent". Lawyer A sues me for libel, Lawyer B then turns around and says that I said Person A was incompotent because I am a bigot out to do harm to whatever group person a is a member of. Becuase of that, the message is said that you better not say anything about whatever group person A is in, they got the lawyers.

Yes, it would defy common sense, save that it happens ALL the TIME, especially when religion gets involved. My hometown nearly got taken over by a very famous group (one that a lot of celebrities are in) because they won libel lawsuits, making sure that anyone who cirtisized them knew they were going to get sued. It became offical policy, because they knew they did not actually have to win the suits, just make someone broke. Once you put limits on the first amendment, it will be easy for anyone with money to get together and stretch offended into "threatening" Remember, a Law does not have to make common sense; many of them do not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. It's varying what you're talking about

Sometimes you say you have hate speech directed at you. Other times you say you are threatened. They're different things.

[Cleita]

95. Hate speech is threatening speech. There is no inconsistency here.

If someone calls me a wino tramp that's insulting, but if they say I deserve to be beaten or assaulted because I'm a wino tramp, that is hate speech. I was called an elitist liberal once because I tried to stop a bunch of yahoos from shooting squirrels with a bb gun, and I told them what I thought about their cruelty to animals, but it didn't end there. I was told to get out of there (a picnic ground) if I knew what was good for me. That isn't freedom of speech. That's a threat, but my freedom of speech was violated too. If you don't get it then I can't explain it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. Hate speech is "you should hate group X", with or without specified 'reasons'

And no, your freedom of speech wasn't violated in the case you give. You were threatened, by individuals. It's a different thing. Freedom of speech is about whether the state restricts what you can say.

[harkadog]

68. Why do people hate the Constitution when they are in power

but love it when they are out of power? The First amendment is first for a reason.

[apocalypsehow]

74. Exactly, When Bush was still president I can't tell you how many threads I saw here at DU and other

progressive websites bemoaning the abuses of our constitutional rights - including rants (which I agreed with) about the ludicrous "free speech zones" that kept protesters well away from the object of their protest.

Now I'm hearing how those violations of our constitutional rights might not have been such a bad idea after all - as long as "our" side is doing the violating....

[Bluerthanblue]

93. how many threads did you see here that advocated the

death of Bush or anyone else?

How were they received by the Mods?

I don't remember talk of violence and intimidation being allowed. There were occasional posts, but they were quickly removed as I recall.

:shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

102. All the flying straw from that Strawman you just batted down - doesn't that stuff ever get itchy?

:shrug:

The topic of this OP was stated by the OP: "It seems our time has come to expand and refine exactly what the First Amendment does cover and what it shouldn't."

"Violence and intimidation" is already illegal in any context involving speech/expression, and has been pretty much forever.

What this OP is bemoaning is that we don't put people in jail like "other countries" do for speech she doesn't like. She is talking about repealing or severely modifying the First amendment.

It helps if you address actual issues under discussion, instead of things you just kinda project onto other posters, and then proceed to attack.

[Bluerthanblue]

116. no strawman with me, or with my statement.- I'd be interested in

hearing how YOU decide what constitutes "violence and intimidation" and how you would enforce them.

If you knew who sent the fax to the Rep with the noose saying 'baby killers will be dealt with' (rough quote) would THAT be intimidation? I know what I think about it- I'm curious what you consider this.

I think Celeta's point was more about where the line between legitimate 'free speech' and illegal speech really is.
I could be wrong.

(how was my post projection or attacking exactly???)

:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

122. You assigned a position to me I do not hold, then proceeded to attack it. That's called a "Strawman"

"hearing how YOU decide what constitutes "violence and intimidation" and how you would enforce them"

We already have such definitions: they're called "statutes." The latter, enforcement, is also a function of the legal system, and has no relevance to the topic of the OP, which is modifying/abolishing our current American definition of free speech, as embodied in the First amendment.

"I think Celeta's point was more about where the line between legitimate 'free speech' and illegal speech really is"

Then she should have written her OP to reflect that: she did not. Instead, this is the principle thesis: "It seems our time has come to expand and refine exactly what the First Amendment does cover and what it shouldn't

This is the topic I am engaged in discussing - the quaint topic of the OP herself - not all this other jazz about "violence and intimidation" and similar such diversions. The topic of the OP.

But, per usual in such engagements, when my case is strong the OP and those who support her wish to talk about anything other than the actual topic that was advanced as the thesis of the OP itself. We get goal-post moving and logical fallacies galore and so on.

[Bluerthanblue]

127. ok- please forgive me. Can you explain this statement of yours?

"Now I'm hearing how those violations of our constitutional rights might not have been such a bad idea after all - as long as "our" side is doing the violating...."

I'm not hearing those. Where are you hearing that? I don't see the OP saying the same thing as you do. You have highlighted one sentence in her OP and singled it out as the only message being conveyed. I didn't (and still don't) hear it the same way. The response I've repeated over and over deals with where the LINE between 'free' speech is, and how that line is defined.

I don't think it's as cut and dried as you state in your reply. Many people far smarter than me have stated that defining where that line falls is a very difficult thing.

Bush had people arrested for wearing "fuck bush" tee shirts. I'm not advocating that. I wouldn't advocate anyone wearing a similar shirt with the sentiment aimed at Pres. O either.

Your statement that somehow people here on DU had suddenly switched perspective under this administration isn't correct OR fair imo. I tried (and failed) to address that with you in my reply that you labeled a "strawman"-

I'm not your enemy. And you aren't mine. Is it possible to discuss this reasonably? I apologize if my 'tone' is coming across as offensive. It isn't my intention.

[apocalypsehow]

191. Of course you're not my enemy, we're just having a spirited back & forth.

I am, as accused above, a free speech "absolutist." I think we should always err on the side of the First amendment whenever the case is close. Violence and intimidation of people is already a crime, and not covered by free speech/expression. I believe that tinkering with the First amendment - "refining" it as the OP advocates - would be a grave error, fraught with censorious mischief.

I don't want free speech/expression restrictions like "other countries," again, as the OP advocates. I like what we have now - and, again, speech advocating violence against a specific group of persons or person and speech meant to intimidate is already illegal under our current statutes. People are thrown in jail for violating those laws all the time - just like that little jerk in the New Jersey Wal Mart the other day.

To me, it's as cut & dried as that. Others differ in their opinions - and use their free speech rights to let me know about it. The irony is there, if you choose to see it.

[Lucy Goosey]

78. I'm Canadian, and I don't like our hate speech laws.

I think it's preferable to keep freedom of speech free, even if it means that some absolutely disgusting things get said in public forums.

(Oh well, at least we have universal healthcare.)

[Cleita]

91. I'm not talking about disgusting things. I'm talking about threatening

speech. I believe this is what your laws are about.

[Lucy Goosey]

103. But the law doesn't restrict it to threats.

A separate section of our criminal code criminalizes actively promoting genocide, and I don't disagree with that one, but to criminalize merely saying hateful things about an "identifiable group" to me is too broad and potentially too open to interpretation. I don't think Ann Coulter, for example, has said anything that she should be prosecuted for. And believe me, I hate that bitch.

I think part of my problem with the law recently is that we have a shitty, shitty fundie Neocon Prime Minister who I don't really agree with on anything, and I don't want to have to worry that prominent Canadians who agree with me could get prosecuted for, for example, advocating for Palestinians - the PM is very pro-Israel.

[depakid]

111. On the federal level, Chaplinsky still applies, though it's been narrowed somewhat over the years

Basic holding:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

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

What I always find impressive is that Americans have such a fear of tits on TV- or certain curse words on the radio, but yet have no problem and even applaud the basest calls to violence.

The FCC would be well within its jurisdiction to hold station owners and hosts to account for this sort of deal, if they were so inclined, under the public interest standard that's requisite to their broadcast licenses.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. No, I like the first amendment, it's one nice thing we have that other countries don't

[951-Riverside]

83. Other countries execute dissidents. Why don't we?

Wouldn't you love to live in a country where people are executed for not having a popular opinion?

I'm sure you would.

[Synicus Maximus]

96. please define "hate speech". If I say I don't like people who

eat meat, is that hate speech? It doesn't say I hate anyone, just disagree with others choices. It is hard to differentiate between 'hate speech" and speech that disagrees with someone else's opinion. Who decides?
Actually I think it should be me.

[Cleita]

104. I need to reframe this.

I believe the First Amendment preserves all our rights to express our views and to criticize our leaders. It's intent was to preserve the freedom of the press. But along with the Second Amendment, it has become the most abused of those rights. When the so-called rights of those who choose to abuse this right with threatening language tramples over the rights of those who would disagree with them, where they fear for their safety, then you have hate speech, IMHO. It would seem that we should have protection to express our views regardless of who disagrees with us. However, none of us have a right to use ethnic and racial slurs against any group of people different from themselves because it paints them with a broad brush and it incites hate and often violence. Other countries, especially those who have experience ethnic cleansing are very aware of this and for this reason have laws against hate speech.

[Codeine]

117. Yes I most assuredly and most absolutely have the right

to use ethnic or racial slurs against and group different from myself. I can denigrate any race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or other category. I can express any political viewpoint, advocate any system of thought or governance, or encourage the creation of any sort of economic framework imaginable. The Constitution guarantees that right.

Who are you to tell me what limits my rights have? Who are you to define "hate speech"?

>>"none of us have a right to use ethnic and racial slurs against any group of people different from themselves"

ALL OF Us HAVE THAT RIGHT!

My right to free expression is absolute, sacrosanct, and I will not sell it to protect the feelings of the sensitive or the perpetually outraged.

[Cleita]

151. I guess you are white and privileged.

After that statement I can't believe you are otherwise unless you are living in kookooland.

[Codeine]

153. White? yes. Privileged? Not even a bit.

Welfare kid from the trailer park. Poor white trash as a kid, now just poor and white -- I got over the trash part. ;)

[Cleita]

156. Believe it or not you are still way ahead in the privilege class just by

being white in spite of being a poor white kid who grew up in a trailer. You will get more opportunities and be considered first for a job and other venues just because of your whiteness. I know. I'm Latina but I look like a white person and I don't speak English with an accent and I don't have a Spanish last name. When my friends couldn't get jobs, I was working in Beverly Hills, considered front office. Yet, my skills weren't as good as my friends who didn't get the job although we had all applied for the same job on different days.

[Codeine]

157. Oh, I totally get the white privilege part.

I get pulled over I don't get a ticket -- hell, I mostly don't even get pulled over. I know being white gives me a leg up, I read just your sentence to mean "well-off" or whatever.

[G_j]

120. Rawandan radio

example of extreme hate speech

the Canadian law speaks of promoting genocide or inciting hate against a group of people. I really haven't read much more than that about it, but, that doesn't sound unreasonable.

[Cleita]

159. It's not. Giving people basic rights doesn't mean that those rights should

be used as a ax to divide and conquer an underclass.

[Skip Intro]

97. No government gag in my mouth, thanks. nt

[rufus dog]

112. I watched that clip last night

And was taken aback. What the Canadian lady said really wasn't wrong. So how did we become so f'd up in this Country. IMO it is the media, whack jobs from the left can spout their talk but they can't get book deals and coverage by the media. Right wing hate has become acceptable, and in fact, lucrative.

[RKP5637]

165. "Right wing hate has become acceptable, and in fact, lucrative." Yep, as usual,

in USA, Inc. money comes first, and hate feeds the profit machine. AM radio realized this a long time ago, now the mass media is using the same ploy to feed their P&L center. This is not a recipe IMO for a healthy and successful country, long-term. And CNN would like to become another Fox IMO if more cash were reaped.

[Danger Mouse]

118. Free speech is our most sacred right.

That means accepting that people will say things you don't like...even hurtful, disgusting, bigoted things.
If we begin limiting what people can say, we open Pandora's box, and it is a box we will not be able to close.

As long as speech is not directly inciting violence, it is protected by the first Amendment, and should continue to be.

[Bluerthanblue]

123. why can't people say fuck on tv?

:shrug:

Personally I don't have a problem with the word- It's a pretty effective meaningless set of letters that allows people to let off steam.

What's the big whoop with that word?

What about our 'civil rights'? The right to be able to walk down a street without having people hurl the N word at you? I was raised with the teaching that my personal right to speak freely ends when it meets another persons right to live free of hate filled, unprovoked, verbal attacks. "disturbing the peace"? :shrug:

[RKP5637]

169. I think the answer is, "(Your were) ... raised with the teaching that my personal right

to speak freely ends when it meets another persons right to live free of hate filled, unprovoked, verbal attacks. "disturbing the peace.""

Sadly, many today are not raised the same way, and to me in our society that is degenerative...

[depakid]

126. Gotta be careful about that at universities

Public as well as private universities can and will kick students out for certain types of hate speech (whether constitutional or not- in some case, the student ends up buying himself a lawsuit).

The University of Oregon's code is pretty narrowly tailored and well defined:

Specifically insulting another person in his or her immediate presence with abusive words or gestures when a reasonable person would expect that such act would cause emotional distress or provoke a violent response.

Others are considerably broader, and some have been subject to federal lawsuits:

http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~tgleason/j385/cases/Codes_j385.html

(Note: Oregon's state equivalent of the 1st Amendment, Article I, section 8 Oregon Constitution, as interpreted is the broadest feedon of expression statute in the nation).

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. That pesky first ammendment

allows nazis to spew their hate.

Now it limits their ability to spew fighting words... or fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire, that fine distinction was actually clarified by a SC Justice once, his name was Brandeis)

And this, as much as at times I want to slap that Nazi (which would be assault) is what makes this country different.

Now expand or refine? I think that might come after a few AGs decide that a few of the speech we have recently seen IS NOT actually protected speech.

[Bluerthanblue]

133. hey thanks- I'd forgotten about

the "fighting words"- which came from a case here in NH.

:hi:

Think I'll go read up on them again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. And that is where we will see

these things go.

Unfortunately they ain't until somebody gets hurt or killed.

Which speaks volumes...

[Cleita]

154. The IS NOT protected speech is where it's at.

Thank you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. That is why a few

AGs have looked at some of this and not filed charges.

Legally they have not crossed that line.

[elias49]

132. Heaven forbid we become more civilized than we were 200 years ago!

Let's all say whatever the fuck we want, to whomever, regardless of the consequences, of the hurt, of the injustice...
I mean if THAT doesn't make us feel all cool and powerful, well then there's always the 2nd amendment, and we can just shoot the fuckers we hate.
:sarcasm:

Maybe someday we'll grow up a little. We're all one people, all across the globe.

[Codeine]

134. I do not define "civilized"

as the abrogation of the right to free expression. I do not care one whit for the feelings of hurt my statements may cause, nor will I deny others the right to say hurtful things about me.

I am a free speech absolutist, and it pains me to see so many on a "progressive" board so willing to give up the most basic right we have.

[elias49]

137. I'm sorry you don't care if you hurt people

I do. I have more constructive things to do with my all-too-short-time in this life.

[Codeine]

139. Words do not cause injury.

Adults should be strong enough to cope.

[elias49]

144. Just a thought...maybe if we started teaching hate speech early

like grade school, we'd all grow up to be hardened adults.
Add the sarcasm smiley if you like.

[Codeine]

145. Maybe if we explained the Constitution more effectively in grade school

we wouldn't need to have discussions like this.

[elias49]

148. How do you mean?

That the 1st amendment is sacrosanct? As an absolutist, you shouldn't have a problem with the Ku Klux Klan. Freedom of speech left a whole lot of humanity hanging by their necks from tree branches.

[Codeine]

152. Lynching ain't free speech.

Last I checked that was covered by murder laws. Freedom of speech didn't kill anyone, bigots with murder in their hearts and ropes in their hands did that.

I do believe - just as the ACLU believes - that the KKK (and Nazis, and Teabaggers, and anyone else) has the right to make their idiotic statements and have their goofy marches. That is free expression, protected by our Constitution.

[elias49]

Lynching is a result of free speech in this case

Murder laws are small consolation to those that died or those left behind.
I think you're wrong here. Free speech - your precious 1st amendment - allows this kind of thing to occur. Hate festers.
Let freedom ring? Not always.
I love the ACLU. But, like you and other 'absolutists' I have to believe that the ACLU is sometimes wrong.
Sleep on it. That's what I'm about to do.

[Codeine]

162. No, lynching was not a result of free speech.

That's perhaps the most absurd contention I've read in days.

[DonCoquixote]

188. The same right to speak

The KKK abuses is the same right to speak you use. Were it not for that right, it would be easy for any group to say "what this person says is offensive and lead to harm" and then have you silenced. Polticial speech, especially speech that hopes to make any change, is by it's very nature, going to offend someone, especially those who have a vested interest in whatever evil you are trying to address. Take a look at how "national security" was used to justify all the mayhem of the Bush years, yet they who spoke up were offending people who thought they were under attack from Dose Damned Al Kye-duh.

If you are unwilling to be offensive at times, you will not be able to run a democracy; just look at how much the right gets away with because Obama kept trying to use Boxing Gloves and Marquis de Queensbury rules while the Right wing was using brass knuckles! Sometimes, you need to offend people to make the point!

[Bluerthanblue]

158. are you fine with people saying that the holocaust never happened?

would you be ok with people saying all African American/Hispanic/Muslum/Asian/____ (whatever) infants should be euthanized at birth?

How about verbal abuse? Have you ever seen what that can do to a person? It can be more destructive than physical assault- destroying a persons self worth.

Are you sure words do not cause injury?

I don't agree.

[Codeine]

160. Yes. I am fine with people saying all those things.

People who say those things are idiots, liars, assholes, and bigots, but I defend their right - their absolute, Constitutionally-guaranteed right - to make such detestable statements. I'm not willing to remove from another their right to do what I hold most dear -- express my opinions and thoughts as I see fit.

None of you are capable of making a fair determination of what constitutes hate speech or destructive speech. That you even begin to believe that you have that ability is terrifying and speaks volumes about your dedication to freedom and open exchange of thought.

[hobbit709]

166. +1000

Everyone has the right to open mouth and see how far they can insert foot-that's my interpretation of free speech.
I have the right to choose not to listen.

It's no longer free speech when the line to action is crossed but up to that point
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
is the operative statement.

[Bluerthanblue]

185. Even in a 'free society' it's essential to have limits on our personal freedoms-

While you may hold the freedom to say absolutely anything you choose to be something that should not be limited an any way, I don't. As members of a civil society there will be certain limitations imposed upon us individually which are necessary for the good of the community at large.

I believe your freedom to say, think or act in any way you want to in private shouldn't be unnecessarily limited- but in public, it's a different situation.
I can choose to avoid you in your own home or in other private areas. I CAN'T do the same at the post office, or town hall, or at the park. My right to be free to mail a letter without being verbally assaulted, harassed, or intimidated is no less precious than what you see as your right to utter whatever words you may choose in my presence, with the intent or result unavoidably offending or hurting me. Somehow that has to be reconciled.

I understand your position and I don't deny that there are many who would like to put oppressive limits on our individual rights to 'speak' freely- I don't support that, and realize it's a difficult boundary to determine- but I believe that to refuse ANY limitations on one particular aspect of our "freedom" really harms us all ultimately- in our individual right to live free from the harm to us as a person resulting from UN-provoked, unavoidable unregulated expressions of bigotry and irrational hatred.

:hi:

[The Straight Story]

135. If we had such laws DU would have been in trouble during the bush years (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

138. Our Constitution.

:shrug:

[Codeine]

140. . . . evidently counts for shit with most of DU now.

Too many folks are very easily frightened by words.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

141. That seems to be the case.

[elias49]

142. I don't give 2 shits what you say to me

I just have to wonder... why?
Nothing better to do than be ugly?
WTF?

[The Midway Rebel]

146. Freedom of Speech is a free market of ideas

and the one time, as a Democrat, I will stand and cheer for a free market.

But, with rules of civility. We don't spit on each other, go for the throat etc.

[kestrel91316]

147. Because we're idiots.

[Throd]

149. Speak for yourself

[old mark]

161. Too much money in hate - it's a major industry in the US. Ask

Glen Beck.

mark

[RKP5637]

171. +1000, n/t

[depakid]

174. +2000

Though my bet is that with our discussion, we're making progress here, in this context.

Learning and teaching; teaching and learning.

A nice- and quite innocent aspect of free speech.

[old mark]

187. I agree- I think many "independents" and the few moderate republicans

left are beginning to have bad thoughts about the GOP
as so many of their lies are proven ridiculous.
Better late than never.

mark

[mmonk]

167. Because lies could no longer be called news in America.

[MadHound]

168. Rather than limiting free speech for the people

We should simply reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Thus, Rush Limbaugh could say what he wanted, but the station would how to counterbalance that with a liberal talk show. Truly fair and balanced.

[RKP5637]

172. +1, n/t

[Nye Bevan]

184. YES- and on DU, Democrats could post whatever they wanted to say

but this website would have to counterbalance that by allowing Republicans to post in equal numbers.

Right?

[RonSunn]

170. I do not think more laws on speech are needed BUT

People should remember, because you have the right to say something does not mean it is RIGHT.

[timo]

173. too funny

by todays standards some here would have had our founding fathers rounded up and silenced for hate speech.

[Mudoria]

175. I like the first amendment as it is now

it's not really free speech if you have the government looking over your shoulder as you speak. The Euro's can keep that idea.

[CBGLuthier]

176. You can live wherever you want but don't try to undo our first amendment

Sure it has unpleasant consequences. Tough Shit.

[Bucky]

177. I'm with the pro-free speech chorus here. Ideas must be protected, even bad ones.

Democracy is noisy. Monarchy is good and quiet, till they break out the guillotines.

[DailyGrind51]

178. The problem is that "The Left" no longer "pushes the envelope".

Randi Rhodes used to talk about the fact that Rightwingers can pretty much say anything, but let a Leftwinger respond, and "we" get accused of "hate speech"!

[whyverne]

180. Actually you can't yell anything in a crowded theater if the management

doesn't approve. Associating that "fire in a crowded theater" line with the First Amendment is what keeps confusing everybody.

The First Amendment is about what the government can stop you from saying. Anybody else can tell you to STFU pretty much anytime they want. As long as they don't assault you. Your boss can tell you to STFU. The owner of the property that you are on can tell you to STFU. Even if you are speaking on public property, I can walk up and tell you to STFU. That's my freedom of speech.

So STFU about the "fire in a crowded theater" line. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

[apocalypsehow]

192. Oh, and will you lookee at this - it appears the US *does* have hate speech laws, after all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8023193


Facts can be a real downer to a flawed thesis.