2 of 6
2
Should hate speech be protected as free speech?
Posted: 08 October 2013 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
WuCares - 03 October 2013 09:01 PM
Rocinante - 03 October 2013 06:23 PM

The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech.  Popular speech needs no protection.  Hating something or someone is not a crime.

The first amendment has nothing on the power of political correctness and the ability for certain groups to crash public speeches to shout down those they don’t agree with. There is also special interest groups organizing boycotts of services that support social programs they oppose.

The Chick filet issue is a good example of this. Two mayors spoke about taking action against Chick filet for it’s support of anti-gay marriage groups.


They still have the right to say what they think. It’s even ok to shout down the opposition and it’s done every day, from both sides of any issue.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2013 03:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
Occam. - 04 October 2013 04:05 PM
Rocinante - 03 October 2013 06:23 PM

The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech.  Popular speech needs no protection.  Hating something or someone is not a crime.

  A very common limitation on Freedom of Speech is that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is outside the protections of the First Amendment.  A similar situation is the prohibition against the use of extreme expletives in public places and fora. Since they are “unpopular” shouldn’t they also be protected, Rocinante? 

Occam

Shouting fire in a crowded theater (or even one that is not so crowded) is a dangerous thing to do. Expressing “unpopular” ideas is not dangerous (at least not physically). There is a lot of speech I’d like to cut off, but we can’t.  We can only ask for courtesy, even though it is often not forthcoming.

Lois

[ Edited: 18 October 2013 08:05 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2013 03:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  76
Joined  2013-09-18
George - 08 October 2013 07:29 AM
WuCares - 08 October 2013 06:42 AM

Remember Mel Gibson? His one drunken tirade about Jewish people will stay with him forever.

I don’t know about forever, but so long as the Jews are in control of Hollywood, he is pretty much unemployable. It’s obviously fine for Jews to mock others ethnicities, as is evident from Sacha Baron Cohen’s success, brought together by making fun of blacks (Ali G), Arabs (General Aladeen) and Eastern Europeans (Borat).

Every time his name is mentioned he will be remembered for the drunken rants. People outside hollywood pretty much don’t care who runs Hollywood. All they care about is the quality of the movies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2013 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  76
Joined  2013-09-18
George - 08 October 2013 07:57 AM
WuCares - 08 October 2013 06:42 AM

Remember Michael Richards from Seinfeld and what he did to his career in a single night, tossing racial taunts at a black guy.

What did it do to his career? Since the “incident” in 2006 he has kept pretty busy. According to Wiki, “In 2007, Richards voiced character Bud Ditchwater in the animated film Bee Movie, which starred, and was produced by, Jerry Seinfeld. In 2009, Richards and the other main Seinfeld cast members appeared in the seventh season of Curb Your Enthusiasm. In 2012, Richards appeared in comedy web series Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, hosted by Jerry Seinfeld. Richards is to make a comeback on Kirstie’s New Show with Kirstie Alley on TV Land in late 2013.”

All these were done with the help of his friends. What will determine if he is beyond that incident is the willingness for those outside his circle of friends to invest in him again. I don’t see any productions specifically attributed to him after the failure of the show with his name on it and please note that he retired from stand up, which is what he was doing when he started the rants.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2013 04:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
WuCares - 08 October 2013 03:33 PM

All these were done with the help of his friends.

Well, lucky for him his friend Seinfeld is a Jew. If Seinfeld was black and Hollywood were run by blacks, Richards would be screwed just like Gibson is now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2013 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
WuCares - 08 October 2013 03:27 PM
George - 08 October 2013 07:29 AM
WuCares - 08 October 2013 06:42 AM

Remember Mel Gibson? His one drunken tirade about Jewish people will stay with him forever.

I don’t know about forever, but so long as the Jews are in control of Hollywood, he is pretty much unemployable. It’s obviously fine for Jews to mock others ethnicities, as is evident from Sacha Baron Cohen’s success, brought together by making fun of blacks (Ali G), Arabs (General Aladeen) and Eastern Europeans (Borat).

Every time his name is mentioned he will be remembered for the drunken rants. People outside hollywood pretty much don’t care who runs Hollywood. All they care about is the quality of the movies.

True, but it’s not impossible for him to be successful, even with that hanging over his head.

The movie “Apocalypto” was released after Gibson’s rant, and was very successful; of course that may be because he did not appear in the film, only directed it….. still, though.

[ Edited: 08 October 2013 10:04 PM by mid atlantic ]
 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2013 10:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
GdB - 08 October 2013 12:43 AM

Democracy can only exist where people respect minorities. No law, guaranteeing the possibility of free speech or forbidding hate speech can teach people to be democratic.

Agreed.

Somebody who thinks he is democratic and professes hate speech is a living contradiction. He is not worth to listen to.

This is true in the sense of a Democracy being a system where all citizens have a say in the process.

Should we listen to fascists? Or should we even forbid them to speak?

We should let everyone speak; we don’t have to like what they say, IMHO.

I am sure mid atlantic respects minorities. Don’t you?

Yes, they’re citizens with constitutional rights.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 05:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  76
Joined  2013-09-18
George - 08 October 2013 04:49 PM
WuCares - 08 October 2013 03:33 PM

All these were done with the help of his friends.

Well, lucky for him his friend Seinfeld is a Jew. If Seinfeld was black and Hollywood were run by blacks, Richards would be screwed just like Gibson is now.

Lets not reduce everything down to race. There are people of all colors that are above revenge on those with small minds

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 05:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  76
Joined  2013-09-18
mid atlantic - 08 October 2013 09:55 PM
WuCares - 08 October 2013 03:27 PM
George - 08 October 2013 07:29 AM
WuCares - 08 October 2013 06:42 AM

Remember Mel Gibson? His one drunken tirade about Jewish people will stay with him forever.

I don’t know about forever, but so long as the Jews are in control of Hollywood, he is pretty much unemployable. It’s obviously fine for Jews to mock others ethnicities, as is evident from Sacha Baron Cohen’s success, brought together by making fun of blacks (Ali G), Arabs (General Aladeen) and Eastern Europeans (Borat).

Every time his name is mentioned he will be remembered for the drunken rants. People outside hollywood pretty much don’t care who runs Hollywood. All they care about is the quality of the movies.

True, but it’s not impossible for him to be successful, even with that hanging over his head.

The movie “Apocalypto” was released after Gibson’s rant, and was very successful; of course that may be because he did not appear in the film, only directed it….. still, though.

Yes, but look at his history in films dating back the The Mad Max days. He is a marketable person in the eyes of the entertainment industry. Profit can make a world of difference in a world built, not on ethics but capitalism.

[ Edited: 09 October 2013 05:25 AM by WuCares ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
WuCares - 08 October 2013 03:27 PM
George - 08 October 2013 07:29 AM
WuCares - 08 October 2013 06:42 AM

Remember Mel Gibson? His one drunken tirade about Jewish people will stay with him forever.

I don’t know about forever, but so long as the Jews are in control of Hollywood, he is pretty much unemployable. It’s obviously fine for Jews to mock others ethnicities, as is evident from Sacha Baron Cohen’s success, brought together by making fun of blacks (Ali G), Arabs (General Aladeen) and Eastern Europeans (Borat).

Every time his name is mentioned he will be remembered for the drunken rants. People outside hollywood pretty much don’t care who runs Hollywood. All they care about is the quality of the movies.

I doubt that. What they care about is what is spectacular, exciting, scary, loud, often vomit-inducing. It seems to me that any movie considered “quality” is guaranteed to be a box office bust.


Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

George,

Once again you have demonstrated your deep-seated racism couched as sociological observation. “Jews run Hollywood” isn’t that far off from “international Zionist conspiracy for world domination,” and it’s equally ridiculous. Of course you will likely say that the relative proprotion of Jewish Americans in the film industry is higher than in the genral population, which might very well be true. But the implication that anti-semitism like that expressed by Mel Gibson is somehow only denounced because of this, and that other kinds of racism are tolerated, blithely glosses over the fact that such bigoted behavior deserves to be denounced by everyone, Jewish or not. That you seem less bothered by anti-semitism than by the purported domination of the film industry by Jews says nothing good about your own racial attitudes. Not that this is surprising given the more and more blatant racism you have expressed over the years here.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5184
Joined  2010-06-16

I’m not going to bother digging up the research, but as I recall, George, a study a few years ago found that the number of Jews in top positions, financial and controlling, in the entertainment industry, especially Hollywood, has shrunk greatly, and they no longer have much say.  I think Mel Gibson sank his own career by a number of asshole things he did including his attacks on a variety of people, Jews being only one.  The studios are only interested in profit, not people’s opinions, and Gibson developed enough of a negative reputation to a great many movie goers that the studios felt he would decrease viewership greatly if used in any movie.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 05:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Occam. - 05 October 2013 11:49 AM

If the theater has large enough exit doors and there are few enough people so that no one would be harmed, then would it be constitutionally legal to call “fire” in the theater?

The implication of the famous phrase “Yelling fire in a crowded theater” relies on the fact that theaters are dark with lots of people,  narrow aisles and only a few exits which cause a funnel effect during the exiting process and the fear of a fire would likely cause panic.  In your scenario, the person doing the yelling is similar to a person pointing a gun they think is loaded (but really isn’t) at another person and pulling the trigger.  Just because no danger exists in reality, the person doesn’t know that.  The intent is there in both cases.   

Occam. - 05 October 2013 11:49 AM

I didn’t see anything in the Constitution limiting Freedom of Speech when children are present.  Which Amendment does this?  And, if you don’t consider “hate speech” to be limited by the First Amendment, would it be acceptable for someone to engage in that when children are present?

The Constitution was written by adults for adults.  It’s a given that children are different than adults.  The Framers would never stop vomiting if they thought their descendants would see children and adults as the exact same across the board.  I draw a clear distinction between children and adults.  That’s why I use the benchmark “Consenting Adults” when deciding on the morality of something.  But I’m willing to listen to differing opinions on this topic, and thus, I do see where you are coming from.  It all depends on if it takes place in public or private and on the child’s parent’s or guardian’s desires on whether or not the child should be subjected to whatever form of speech is occurring.  At this point it starts to become so subjective that broad proclamations can’t be made.  To paraphrase Potter Stewart, “I know it when I hear it.” grin

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2013 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  129
Joined  2011-11-06

I think it depends on the platform. If it is a private group on their own property (such as a church teaching what ever they want), I feel they have that right, whether I agree with it or it is popular is none of my business. If you’re in the public square and you’re shouting degrading terms at people such as calling them “Fags,” I think that should be some sort of violation, or disorderly conduct. Also, bullying in the school system I think should come under the harassment umbrella…you wouldn’t be expected to report to work or any other public facility and receive unsolicited degradation (not that solicited degradation occurs). I think it all should come down to location such as public vs private property/organizations.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2013 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  206
Joined  2012-09-14
mid atlantic - 08 October 2013 10:21 PM
GdB - 08 October 2013 12:43 AM

Democracy can only exist where people respect minorities. No law, guaranteeing the possibility of free speech or forbidding hate speech can teach people to be democratic.

Agreed.

Somebody who thinks he is democratic and professes hate speech is a living contradiction. He is not worth to listen to.

This is true in the sense of a Democracy being a system where all citizens have a say in the process.

Should we listen to fascists? Or should we even forbid them to speak?

We should let everyone speak; we don’t have to like what they say, IMHO.

I am sure mid atlantic respects minorities. Don’t you?

Yes, they’re citizens with constitutional rights.

There may sometimes be a difference between how different nations may understand certain constitutional rights.
Take the quote below for example:

while all EU Member States have legislation outlawing hate speech, a majority of EU countries have long considered that the fundamental right to
freedom of expression inter alia precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se.

http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.pdf  page 2-3

Now these laws is to prevent any harm from befalling Jewish citizens (which seems to be quite reasonable)


But what is hate speech may vary from place to place.
For example;  holocaust denail is not a crime in the US.


In the United States, where the First Amendment to the Constitution ensures freedom of speech, it is not against the law to deny the Holocaust or to propagate Nazi and antisemitic hate speech. European countries such as Germany and France have criminalized denial of the Holocaust and have banned Nazi and neo-Nazi publications. The Internet is now the chief source of Holocaust denial and the chief means of recruiting for Holocaust denial organizations.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007272


  So what is the proper way of knowing which speech is allowed and which isn’t? Not just for Jews, but for everyone?

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 6
2