The statement 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'

[Orrex]

[woo me with science]

1. Thank you. nt

[krispos42]

2. The first...

...but I reserve the right to roll my eyes so hard I put a knot in my optic nerve. And to call somebody a dumbfuck.

[Orrex]

4. And I will defend your right to do so until my last breath.

Hell, I'll even call him a dumbfuck right along with you, even as I'm defending his right to be a dumbfuck.

[AnArmyVeteran]

66. Sometimes letting others speak can be the best thing we can do to expose them...

When we allow people use their 1st Amendment rights to spew out ridiculous or fanatical ramblings it is the best thing we can do to expose them for their intolerant and insane statements.

(Note: By using the word 'allow' above I don't mean that we should be the ones choosing what should or should not be said.)

[krispos42]

98. "'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool..."

"... than to speak and remove all doubt".

[Ken Burch]

3. How many "he had a RIGHT to burn the Koran" threads are you gonna start here, dude?

Obsessed much?

[Orrex]

5. I marvel at how many here actually hate the notion of freedom of expression.

To answer your petulant question, I will defend the right to political statements even when those statements disgust me. Anyone who is not willing to live by that standard actually doesn't believe in freedom of expression at all; they simply believe in it when they judge the expression to be acceptable.


If that makes me obsessed, then so be it; there are far less worthy objects of obsession.

[Ken Burch]

11. All this kid is guilty of is preventing an act of hatred

The kid was defending a group from persecution. By contrast, nobody is persecuted by flag burning(which is still stupid, but not a hate crime).

[davidinalameda]

30. Korans are now a persecuted group?

wow

[Swamp Rat]

12. Show me where DUers "actually hate the notion of freedom of expression."

In all my years here I have never seen a DUer 'actually hate the notion of freedom of expression.'

:shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. Very few hate the notion; a great many hate the practice.

As demonstrated by the number supporting the skateboarding Koran-stealer.

[Swamp Rat]

17. Though it was wrong, I liked what the skateboarder dude did.

I am conflicted on this one.

Nevertheless, it does not mean I 'hate the practice' of freedom of expression.

[LanternWaste]

75. Or possibly we may like a specific thing thing...

Or possibly we may like a specific thing thing although it may not be legal, and also dislike a thing though it may indeed be legal.

I imagine that were there an actual and premeditated legal/political movement with the agenda of removing many aspects of free speech, the concern would be appropriately high.

As it stands, we witness little more that random actions indicative only of individuals rather than entire demographics.

However, I do understand that many people will apply the perspective of an isolated incident into one's support or denial for a thing. Myself...?

What the kid did was wrong, yet I chuckle out of bemusement. I suppose to the dogmatic, that presents me as anti-free speech.

[Orrex]

15. Really? Then you haven't been looking.

Every thread about Terry Jones contained a number of posts either declaring that he should be prevented from burning the Quran or else some tepid statement along the lines of "he has the right, but he still shouldn't do it."

Those are the statements of people have no true respect for the freedom of expression.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Terry Jones was not expressing freedom of speech.

He was practicing terrorism and hate speech, the same as KKK burning a cross on someone's lawn or in a public space, and his actions resulted in the deaths of human beings.

I suppose we will disagree on this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Poisonous nonsense.

Of course burning a Koran - not on anyone's lawn; his own Koran, on his own property, not accompanied by any threats of anything beyond that directed at anyone, from someone with no history of violence - is not terrorism; it's nothing like terrorism; it doesn't even remotely resemble terrorism.

And nor is it akin to an organisation with a history of burning crosses on people's lawns and shortly afterwards murdering those people burning a cross on someone's lawn, which could reasonably be interpreted as a threat. At no point did Jones ever suggest or encourage going beyond the bounds of the law.

Whether or not it was "hate speech" is irrelevant because "hate speech" is an entirely meaningless term.

It's as clear-cut an example of the kind of thing freedom of speech was designed to protect as it gets. If you dont' support Jones's right to burn the Koran, you don't support freedom of speech, it's as simple as that.

[Swamp Rat]

35. I disagree

It is a clear case of hate speech by a megalomaniac who attempted to cause physical and emotional harm to others.

Fact: He did not go through with it was because he was told of the consequences of his potential act of hate, so he therefore stopped.

It's as simple as that, and there's not much more for us to discuss.

[Orrex]

57. He attempted to cause physical harm to others? How so?

He's a megalomaniac? How so?

Fact: He did not go through with it was because he was told of the consequences of his potential act of hate, so he therefore stopped.

Well, that pretty much refutes your claim that he's a megalomaniac.

Additionally, even if he's a megalomaniac, he's still entitled to the freedom of expression.

It's as simple as that, and there's not much more for us to discuss.

In fact, it's even simpler than that; it's a question of whether or not everyone is entitled the freedom of expression, or just the people who make statements that you like.

[dkf]

63. Would you like to see him arrested as a terrorist?

[Swamp Rat]

86. I'd like to see him go to Mecca and burn a Qu'an

:)

[TheKentuckian]

73. There is a giant gulf of difference between burning a cross in someone's yard and in a public

display. I don't think you can merge the two actions and see the issue with any clarity.

[Swamp Rat]

87. As long as others can see it, it is 'public'.

The two are the same to me.

[TheKentuckian]

102. Burning one at your house brings on a very specific

brand of intimidation and a particularly direct and personal threat that is different than the public square.

I can understand why both are vile and evil but there is a tremendous difference in focus that belittles the clear, direct, and present threat to life and limb when somebody delievers such a hateful act to your specific doorstep.

The acts are similar but far from the same as I bet most any oldtimer that lived through such a thing would tell you.

[azul]

34. Your perceived imaginary hatred of freedom here is marvelous.

Your choices for your poll are poor and lame. Try this statement if you can edit:

I defend your right to say anything, but will not defend your body from the consequences of saying something so offensive that it incites violence toward your person.

You have the right to say something really offensive, and you then have the responsibility for the violent reactions. Morally, if not always legally, you are responsible.

[Orrex]

42. I have read a lot of statements tonight in favor of curtailing the right to freedom of expression

And precious few in support of that freedom.


A great many people here are passionate about defending the forms of expression that they find acceptable and/or agreeable. However, far fewer are willing to defend the forms of expression that they find objectionable.



Your post makes it very clear which side you stand on.

[Swamp Rat]

88. Yes, because you erected a big Straw Man

Congratulations!

[Orrex]

97. Um, no.

[woo me with science]

7. It's not just about the Koran.

I have been sickened by the number of posts on DU lately in which people support curtailing all sorts of speech because it is politically unpopular or insensitive.

We have a serious education problem here. People obviously don't even understand what the 1st Amendment means or why it is important.

This is supposed to be a board for people who are politically aware and MORE knowledgeable about this country than the average yahoo. Yet over and over again we see calls to censor speech just because it is offensive.

These threads are sorely needed, IMO.

[The Northerner]

9. +100

[TexasObserver]

6. It's the bedrock of our system.

Opinions, we know well, are like assholes. And assholes with opinions always test the first amendment. The proper response to speech we don't like is to offer speech we do like. If someone is being an asshole, like this preacher, we are free to call him on it.

This event would have been a non event except for the kid stealing the book. He could have taken the opportunity to condemn the action, to explain why it was offensive, and to speak kindly of Islam. Instead, he acted like we might expect a delinquent to act - he stole something and took off with it.

[wtmusic]

8. Curious...why aren't you on the midnight plane to Amarillo to retrieve this Qu'ran

or is the schtick about "defend to the death" just lip service? :shrug:

Certainly the plane ticket is worth less than your life.

onedit: there's probably a cop somewhere in Amarillo who entertained pursuing it, but decided it wasn't worth the effort either.

[Speck Tater]

10. If you think I'm going to defend the American Nazi Party think again.

Some philosophies are not worthy of defending.

[Orrex]

13. That's the exact justification behind every curtailing of political speech

It's how they justified the Japanese internment camps, and it's how they justify Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

[emilyg]

16. +1

[The Northerner]

18. +2

[Chulanowa]

36. And incidentally...

Both of those examples are the products of dumb motherfuckers defending hate speech and incitement to violence and deprivation of human rights against the groups in question.

If these fuckheads were gathering up a stack of Torahs to torch, I somehow doubt you'd be on the front lines defending their rights to do so; you would likely recognize it for exactly what it is, a form of incitement and isolation of the targeted group, a demonstration of the tyranny of the majority against the beliefs and often the persons of the minority.

[notesdev]

41. That's unlikely

Have you any idea how expensive a Torah is? Nobody would burn one that was actually their own, it would be a ridiculously expensive endeavor. If they burned one not their own that's called "arson".

[Chulanowa]

100. If I wanted to see someone dance around, I would watch Gregory Hines

[Codeine]

76. +3

Orrex FTW!

[cleanhippie]

22. The philosophy of freedom of speech is not worth defending?

Then what the fuck are you doing here?

[cleanhippie]

25. The philosophy of freedom of speech is not worth defending?

Then what the fuck are you doing here?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. I come from a Jewish family, and I was living near Skokie when the Nazis marched in the 70s.

As foul and fucking noxious as their actual speech was, the fact of the matter is, allowing them to march was the antithesis of everything they stood for. Paradoxically, censoring them would have been giving them a victory.

The answer to offensive speech is more speech, intelligent speech, speech that points out the ridiculousness of the other viewpoint. Not censorship.

[Bonobo]

48. I was living IN Skokie at the time.

The Nazis didn't come because they would have been pelted by bricks and I would have been one throwing them.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. The First Amendment is the antithesis of everything the Nazis stood for.

Doesn't mean they're not assholes.

[Dr. Strange]

69. You don't need to defend their philosophies.

Some philosophies are not worthy of defending.

Are their rights worth defending? That's the key question.
I hate the Nazis. But I'll defend their right to speak. Because I want those same rights.

[beevul]

19. Amendment 1 was never intended...

Amendment 1 was never intended to protect popular speech. Popular speech generally doesnt come under attack, with few exceptions.

It was intended to protect unpopular speech.


People, the ones who seem to have forgotten or missed that point, would do well to (re)learn it.

[Statistical]

26. Exactly. popular speech is ALREADY protected because it is popular.

If the overwhelming majority of people agree with an expression it needs little (or no) protection because it isn't subject to any attack or persecution.

So defacto the 1st protects unpopular speech. People that want the 1st to only protect what they think is right seem to forget that just about anything you think is right or should be protected is despised by someone else. If they ever came into power you would need the first however if the first only protects popular speech then it really is no protection when you need it right?

[Orrex]

29. Great point, except...

I don't think that they've forgotten it; I think that they never believed it in the first place.

[Pithlet]

43. It was also never intended to tell the rest of us that we had to shut up and listen to it.

Really. I'm just about to barf at the practical hero worship of these stupid assholes who want to terrorize a community! If I saw a cross on fire, I'd take a hose to it. If I saw someone about to burn a Qu'ran, and had the opportunity to grab it, I just might. And since I'm not the government? I'm not suppressing anyone's 1st amendment rights. And if anyone doesn't like it they can cry about it on the internet. I don't care. Just like I'm sure skater dude doesn't.

[Skip Intro]

20. K&R.

I feel like I'm in a George Romero movie...

[azul]

21. I disapprove of what you say,

and I will beat the heck out of you or will get crunched trying, if you say that again about my mother.

We are a hot-headed breed and there are limits to provocative language and actions. Say what you will, it is your right, but expect consequences if you deliberately push someone's hot buttons. Temporary insanity: legality is forgotten in the spur of the moment.

[Orrex]

28. In fact, temporary insanity is hardly the get-out-of-jail-free card that it's believed to be

Additionally, I accept the consequences of my speech.

[rocktivity]

24. The right to do something

doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[tabatha]

27. +1000

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. No, but I'm increasinly thinking that by now it is right to burn the Koran.

Not as a comment of any kind on its contents, but because it's looking as though the right to do so is coming under threat, and I think the only way to defend that right is to exercise it.

[Chulanowa]

37. Really? It's coming under threat?

Another Pam gellar reader in the crowd. Hiegh-fiveuh!

[Nye Bevan]

62. Well, plenty of DUers have claimed that it is/should be illegal

and is not protected by the First Amendment.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. Well, Obama and Gates claim it is.

Do you believe them when they say that it would be met by violence, or not?

Also, look at the number of posters here trying to claim it is/should be illegal. And at the number supporting and defending the skateboarding Koran-thief.

[Chulanowa]

99. I don't think you understand what "coming under threat" means

But please, don't let me stand in your way whilst you crow about how hateful sacks of shit are an oppressed minority in desperate need of protection. You'll have to stand in line behind the Phelps clan, though.

[hfojvt]

33. plus, people seem to miss a point

the burning pastor was not stopped by the government. Neither by statute, or police force, nor militarty force. The one was stopped by persuasion and the other stopped by a kid. Applauding the actions of the kid does not equate to "wanting the government to stop them by statute or police force," ergo, it does not equate to dis-respecting the first amendment.

But I certainly disagree with some interpretations of the first amendment, even if they are done by SCOTUS. Money = speech? Corporations = persons?

[notesdev]

45. He sure was stopped by the government

He had the FBI come visit and the President of the United States saying that he was sure there was a law the guy could be convicted under. He was told not to do it by a four-star general and then got a personal phone call from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (both of which cross a MAJOR line with regards to military involvement in domestic politics).

And who knows what else that didn't get reported.

[Pithlet]

50. That was the other guy.

Unless they paid this guy a visit, too. And I don't think they forced him out of it, either, though I'm sure that was mighty intimidating. And I'm sorry, but I can see why they'd want to try to talk him out of it, given the circumstances.

[ehrnst]

56. Yes! (nt)

[Codeine]

77. Isn't that the Right's position on the Financial District Mosque?

DU didn't buy that argument then, why is it lapping it up so hard now?

[rocktivity]

96. They said it was the wrong thing to do, but they were wrong

about it being a mosque, about it being at Ground Zero, and most significant, about holding American Muslims responsible for what mostly Saudi-Arabian Muslims did.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[JVS]

38. I believe that the time has come for a new maxim

May our new motto be "Fuck you and fuck what you have to say, fuckface!"

[Swamp Rat]

39. Say that to Skittles

:yoiks:

[notesdev]

40. Too bad in practice

very few people here have the integrity to follow through

Say something that contradicts the orthodox party line and they'll alert you to hell and back before you can blink.

[jobycom]

47. Will you defend to your death the right of a troll to not be banned by Skinner?

You know why you won't? Because the First Amendment only protects our right to expression from government oppression, it does not guarantee our right to say everything we want in every situation. A troll can be banned because Skinner is banning it as a private individual.

The kid who snatched the Qur'an was just a regular citizen, expressing his opinion, too. Are you morally opposed to counter-demonstrations? Or will you defend to your death the Skateboarder's right to express his belief about the burning of that Qur'an?

If the owner of the Qur'an wants to press charges for theft, he should go ahead. I'm sure a kerosene-soaked book would be worth about a buck fifty. In the extreme you could value the Qur'an and the kerosene at replacement costs, I suppose. It might amount to a misdemeanor.

[Orrex]

58. I absolutely support Skinner's authority to ban people for TOS violations of sufficient magnitude

Why would you think otherwise?

The kid who snatched the Qur'an was just a regular citizen, expressing his opinion, too. Are you morally opposed to counter-demonstrations? Or will you defend to your death the Skateboarder's right to express his belief about the burning of that Qur'an?

His right to counter-protest extends only to the point when he "snatched" Grisham's property. Up to that point I would certainly defend his right to protest. For what possible reason would you suggest otherwise?

If the owner of the Qur'an wants to press charges for theft, he should go ahead. I'm sure a kerosene-soaked book would be worth about a buck fifty. In the extreme you could value the Qur'an and the kerosene at replacement costs, I suppose. It might amount to a misdemeanor.

The dollar-value of the book is hardly the issue, and I would hope that you recognize this.

[jobycom]

95. I think otherwise because you confuse private actions with repression of speech.

Supporting the skateboarder's actions isn't opposing free speech, because there was no government repression involved. You seem to not like the fact that he protested, and you are using an artificial argument about theft as a basis. The item "stolen" was about to be burned. We don't know that the burner even owned the object, so the skateboarder may have been retrieving it (at least it wasn't in any article I read). The skateboarder may have given it back if asked. The dollar amount is so small that it's unlikely any form of arrest or prosecution would have occured over it.

The demonstration clearly wasn't about theft, it was a battle over which form of expression would win out. The theft issue and the free speech issues are red herrings. That's what worries me here. Every time a counterprotestor holds up a sign saying "I'm with stupid" or "Liar!" the original protestor's speech is interfered with. No one hear screams about dying to protect free speech because there isn't an issue of free speech. Government repression of speech is not allowed. Private counter-protests, and even private restriction of speech (as in the trolls I originally brought up) are not First Amendment issues, nor free speech issues.

You're talking in absolutes, and false absolutes at that. I hate absolutes, or most of the time I do. In your case it's coming off as a juvenile, fundamentalist attitude that I know you are better than. You would not die to protect Fred Phelps's right to demonstrate at a funeral from a counter-protester. You shouldn't, because his actions are despicable and you should be joining the counter protest. There is no government repression involved (although limits have been places on how he and others, like anti-abortionists, can protest, based on how much they are interfering with or threatening others with their protests).

This is not an issue of theft, nor of repression of expression, nor of the First Amendment. It's one group trying to halt an offensive demonstration by another group. Violence wasn't used--one guy grabbed a book out of another guy's hand when the other guy wasn't paying attention. His actions were meant to counter the hatred of the first protester, to express his disagreement with the method of protest, and probably to help protect America's reputation, and maybe even citizens, abroad. The minor issue of grabbing a book out of someone's hands is a distraction to the real point. If the action had been violent, that would be a different issue.

I would hope that you recognize this. For what possible reason would you suggest otherwise?

[BzaDem]

51. Why don't YOU defend the first amendment rights of those who criticize the pastor's actions?

Very few people actually say that the pastor does not have the legal right to do it. You are pumping up an imaginary man with straw, and then mercilessly attacking the man of straw.

Instead, people are using their OWN First Amendment rights to strongly criticize the pastor. It is YOU who seems to be criticizing first amendment rights when they are used to criticize others. So YOU should be the one that votes for option 2 in your own poll.

[Orrex]

59. You're kidding, right?

Very few people actually say that the pastor does not have the legal right to do it.

In fact, quite a few have said exactly that, decrying his actions as the "hate speech" of a "megalomaniac."

In stark contrast, I dare you to find me the post in which I claimed that anyone anywhere does not have the right to criticize the pastor's actions. Such a post does not exist.

Instead, I am criticizing Isom for curtailing Grisham's right to make a political statement. Isom's objections were fine up to the point when he stole Grisham's copy of the Quran.

[BzaDem]

65. Calling his speech "hate speech" of a "megalomanic" does not mean he doesnt have the right to say it

In this case, that is an accurate characterization of his actions. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to do it. Hate speech is not always illegal. Holocaust denial is not illegal here, for example.

I have seen very few people say that the first amendment does not permit him to do what he did (or that any law, constitutional or otherwise, prohibits him from doing what he did). So I don't see how your post is relevant to the dispute at hand. If you are arguing that his speech is not "hate speech," then it is you that is wrong (not his critics).

[Orrex]

68. Several posters have called it hate speech and have claimed that it's therefore illegal

They have also called it a terrorist act and equated to cross-burning, both of which are illegal.

[mitchum]

52. You can say whatever you like, but I am only defending myself to the death

What? Do you think I'm crazy?

[slackmaster]

53. Other - Quote cited in OP is of Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire. He never said that.

She published it in 1934 as an actual translation, but recanted it about a year after it was published. It was a Yogi Berra moment for her - He wrote a book titled "I Really Didn't Say Everything I Said".

http://www.amazon.com/Yogi-Book-Really-Didnt-Everything/dp/0761110909

I'm not willing to die to defend your right to say whatever you please. If you have a problem with someone restricting your freedom of expression, you deal with it and call out the militia if the struggle becomes violent. Then I'll help.

Unrec for failing to cite the actual source of the quote. In this case, the context alters its meaning significantly.

[Orrex]

61. Did I claim that it was Voltaire?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

79. No, but you said nothing about the source. My point is that it's basically a bogus Voltaire quote...

...that was published in 1934, and went uncorrected until 1935. I've seen and heard that quote many times, and most people simply assume that it's genuine Voltaire. Your failure to research and cite the real source tends to perpetuate the falsehood. As an OP writer you have a quasi-journalistic obligation to validate the veracity of your post. I say you failed.

You solicited responses, and I gave you mine. I suggest that next time you post such a question, you include an "Other" option in your poll.

The fact that it was a MISQUOTE of a famous philosopher puts the sentence in quite a different light, than viewing it with the assumption that it's an original gem of wisdom from a brilliant mind.

One contributor replied with "It's the bedrock of our system." If the bedrock of our system is a phony maxim, we're in deep shit.

One of my favorite real quotes from General George S. Patton is this:

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." That may be a Baudlerized version, and I don't have time to research it properly this morning.

Another common one is this:

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

[Orrex]

82. I wasn't aware that the authorship of the quote was in question

I thought that everyone knew that it wasn't Voltaire.

Nor should it be relevant, unless you're claiming that the validity of a statement is contingent upon its speaker.

[slackmaster]

83. I guess it's confession time. I learned that it wasn't Voltaire only a few years ago.

Nor should it be relevant, unless you're claiming that the validity of a statement is contingent upon its speaker.

The context in which the quote was made is relevant IMO because the author was paraphrasing something Voltaire actually wrote. Her failure to properly cite that fact resulted in the sentence being given much more gravitas than it really deserves.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

54. I am ready to die day and night for anybody who wants to say or do anything

according to the first amendment, and internet anonymity.
I.e., I prefer to not have anybody come to my house to
test it out, but under the right circumstances, yes.
It is what makes America everything it is. I was ready
to die for Germans in the 60s to say anything they
wanted, even if I couldn't understand anything they
said and even if I was smoking hash in an army warehouse,
so how couldn't I do the same for every American. I regret
that I have only one life to give for that or anything
else.

[HEyHEY]

72. Where were you when I was 14?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

84. Probably high somewhere daydreaming about dying for a noble cause

& having a hero's funeral.

[Jim Lane]

55. The First Amendment protects hate speech, but it doesn't protect the theft of other people's books.

The contributors to this thread who emphasize their condemnation of the Koran-burning as "hate speech" are missing the point. Even if it's hate speech, so what? The First Amendment protects hate speech. The First Amendment protects speech that causes some people extreme emotional distress. The First Amendment protects speech that poisons the public dialog by catering to irrational prejudices.

As for the skateboarder, if the government would normally prosecute a theft of this sort, but law enforcement winks and looks the other way because of dislike for Koran-burning, then I'd consider that a First Amendment violation. The government would be withholding the protection of the law from someone, based on dislike for the content of the theft victim's speech.

Of course, it's also true that the First Amendment protects the criticism of hate speech, as long as the criticism is confined to speech and doesn't include conduct (such as theft).

Here's where things can get a little tricky. Sometimes the yahoos who don't understand the First Amendment will call for governmental suppression of some speech that's really despicable. Progressives can get caught up in opposing the would-be censors and forget to make clear that they disagree with the speech that's being censored. On the other hand, to give too much emphasis to that disagreement might strengthen the hand of the would-be censors. Navigating these practical difficulties isn't always easy.

[Orrex]

60. Brilliant post

:applause:

[The Northerner]

67. Brilliant indeed

[Swamp Rat]

90. "The First Amendment protects hate speech."

Not if it carries with it violent intent.

[Jim Lane]

101. Speech with violent intent: Sometimes protected, sometimes not, and the line isn't easy to draw.

In response to my statement that the First Amendment protects hate speech, you write: "Not if it carries with it violent intent." I agree that the possibility of violence will sometimes, in limited circumstances, justify temporary censorship, but it's certainly not a blanket disqualification from First Amendment protection.

Consider two examples:

Case 1: At a right-wing anti-Islamic rally on the Mall, with no hijabs in sight and with the entire crowd under the watchful eye of several thousand armed police officers, a speaker angrily declares: "I look forward to the day when decent Americans chase all the hanky-head Mooslims to the nearest seaport, so they can board boats and go back where they came from, and if some of them run too slowly and get trampled to death by the crowd, so be it."

Case 2: A prominent local imam is being held in the county jail. The structure, intended primarily for the temporary housing of prisoners awaiting transfer elsewhere, is not particularly secure, and is guarded by only a handful of deputies. A large mob has gathered outside, with its members screaming anti-Islamic imprecations at the jail, shaking their fists, and downing beer after beer. Quite a few of those outside the jail are armed. A prominent local hothead stacks up a couple of milk crates and begins to address the crowd, stoking antipathy toward Islam in general and this imam in particular.

Both of these examples represent hate speech. Both carry violent intent. If a government official strides to the podium (or the stack of milk crates) and prevents the speaker from continuing, is that action a violation of the First Amendment?

I would say that the speech in Case 2 can constitutionally be stopped, because doing so might be necessary to prevent this speaker's violent intent from directly and immediately causing a murder. (Obviously, the scenario is based on the actual murder of Mormon leader .) As for Case 1, it's certainly conceivable that the speech at the Mall could warp some hearers' minds in such a way as to cause violence at some other time and place, but the connection is too tenuous to justify the curtailment of free expression. If you would support suppressing that speech, then what is your principled basis for objecting when, in 2013, President Palin and Attorney General Taitz shut down DU on similar grounds?

Under current First Amendment jurisprudence -- the "imminent lawless action" test -- both these cases would be decided the way I think they should be. The Supreme Court has stated:

"(T)he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

You can read the full opinion . The gist of it is that the Warren Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had been spewing the typical racist and anti-Semitic filth. (I would quote some of his more vile remarks verbatim, except that I'm not sure DU rules allow such language. Check out footnote 1 if you're curious.)

I agree with the decision in Brandenburg. The First Amendment protects the right of Ku Klux Klansmen to engage in hate speech with violent intent, provided there's no imminent lawless action. By that standard, burning a Koran under the circumstances contemplated by our contemporary Islamophobic booboisie is protected speech, as it should be.

[dkf]

64. This is actually a very ironic statement on a moderated site.

If you would defend this right with your life I'm thinking you all are not doing a good job.

Truth is most wouldn't defend it with their life even if they believed in it.

[old mark]

70. Very good point!

Actually, most people would defend free speech with someone else's life, but would not be bothered themselves.

mark

[A-Schwarzenegger]

94. "Truth is most wouldn't defend it with their life even if they believed in it."

But isn't it pretty to think so?

[HEyHEY]

71. Yeah, but if the guy is being a dick!

Look, I think we're all taking this a bit too seriously. Some guy was being a dick, another guy went and stopped it, in doing so he was a dick too. However the latter dick I'd buy a beer for. Kinda like when the schoolyard bully gets strapped by the principle. Can't say I agree with either, but in the kingdom of human beings this shit'll happen.

[wtmusic]

78. +1

"However the latter dick I'd buy a beer for." :D

[A-Schwarzenegger]

85. "I regret that I have but one beer to buy for the latter dick."

Probably a little bit more realistic than dying for one of em.

[bemildred]

74. One needs to make proper distinctions or one will fail to make sense.

Defending someones legal right to do something stupid is not the same thing as refraining from telling them they are doing something stupid.

[Better Believe It]

80. K & R

[Swamp Rat]

89. "Defend to the death"-Ok, how come you are not fighting in Afghanistan supporting the 1st Amendment?

Someone with your level of passion should do more than just talk on an Internet message board or carry a sign in public.

Walk the walk.

[Codeine]

91. Afghanistan threatens the 1st Amendment?

:wtf:

[Swamp Rat]

92. Huh?

:wtf:

[Codeine]

93. How would fighting in Afg. support the 1st Amendment? nt