3 of 6
3
Should hate speech be protected as free speech?
Posted: 12 October 2013 03:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2671
Joined  2011-04-24
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 11 October 2013 02:05 PM
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?

There is no proper way, if I understand you correctly. Free speech is free speech.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2013 05:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Rocinante - 09 October 2013 05:48 PM
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

At what moment do children become adults?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2013 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
mid atlantic - 12 October 2013 03:41 AM
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 11 October 2013 02:05 PM
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?

There is no proper way, if I understand you correctly. Free speech is free speech.

Then there is no country which practices free speech. Every country has laws against ratting out government / military secrets.

What is the limit to what speech should be allowed and which shouldn’t be.

 

For example (this kind of surprised me)
Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their way of thinking.


Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order.

Crime and punishment in American history
By Lawrence Meir Friedman ,  Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law
page 100

It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was


with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being.

Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: .
By Phillip I. Blumberg ,  dean of law at the University of Connecticut
332-334

 

 

So, in the days of our Founding Fathers,  it was considered “against the public order”  (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy.  Now one may be able to
argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore.

But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be.  At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similar

 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
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 12:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2671
Joined  2011-04-24
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 18 October 2013 02:59 PM

Then there is no country which practices free speech. Every country has laws against ratting out government / military secrets.

What is the limit to what speech should be allowed and which shouldn’t be.

To be precise, a person who has access to government/military secrets has to have some type of security clearance, and that comes with the understanding that you waive certain rights. You’re correct in that sense, there isn’t total free speech.

For example (this kind of surprised me)
Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their way of thinking.


Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order.

Crime and punishment in American history
By Lawrence Meir Friedman ,  Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law
page 100

It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was


with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being.

Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: .
By Phillip I. Blumberg ,  dean of law at the University of Connecticut
332-334

 

So, in the days of our Founding Fathers,  it was considered “against the public order”  (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy.  Now one may be able to
argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore.

But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be.  At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similar

Well, the Chandler case was after the founding fathers’ day; that is messed up though.

As I understand it, states rights cannot supercede the supreme court, judge Clayton got very lucky.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2013 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14
mid atlantic - 19 October 2013 12:51 AM
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 18 October 2013 02:59 PM

Then there is no country which practices free speech. Every country has laws against ratting out government / military secrets.

What is the limit to what speech should be allowed and which shouldn’t be.

To be precise, a person who has access to government/military secrets has to have some type of security clearance, and that comes with the understanding that you waive certain rights. You’re correct in that sense, there isn’t total free speech.

For example (this kind of surprised me)
Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their way of thinking.


Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order.

Crime and punishment in American history
By Lawrence Meir Friedman ,  Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law
page 100

It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was


with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being.

Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: .
By Phillip I. Blumberg ,  dean of law at the University of Connecticut
332-334

 

So, in the days of our Founding Fathers,  it was considered “against the public order”  (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy.  Now one may be able to
argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore.

But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be.  At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similar

Well, the Chandler case was after the founding fathers’ day; that is messed up though.

As I understand it, states rights cannot supercede the supreme court, judge Clayton got very lucky.


I would have to disagree

blasphemy statues did not disappear after the revolution. They survived the disestablishment of churches and
remained on the books in many states throughout the nineteenth century. Few people, apparently, saw any conflict between these
laws and the Bill of rights, or freedom of religion
.

Total justice,        By Lawrence Meir Friedman (Standford Law School),      Page 114

 


But again, one can argue that this may not be the ideal case in the US anymore.    (I am not arguing if that argument is correct or not, just saying it is a good point)
If that is case, what is the universal case of what speech should be allowed and forbidden.

[ Edited: 19 October 2013 10:35 AM by I.J. Abdul Hakeem ]
 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
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 03:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2671
Joined  2011-04-24
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 19 October 2013 10:22 AM
mid atlantic - 19 October 2013 12:51 AM
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 18 October 2013 02:59 PM

Then there is no country which practices free speech. Every country has laws against ratting out government / military secrets.

What is the limit to what speech should be allowed and which shouldn’t be.

To be precise, a person who has access to government/military secrets has to have some type of security clearance, and that comes with the understanding that you waive certain rights. You’re correct in that sense, there isn’t total free speech.

For example (this kind of surprised me)
Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their way of thinking.


Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order.

Crime and punishment in American history
By Lawrence Meir Friedman ,  Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law
page 100

It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was


with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being.

Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: .
By Phillip I. Blumberg ,  dean of law at the University of Connecticut
332-334

 

So, in the days of our Founding Fathers,  it was considered “against the public order”  (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy.  Now one may be able to
argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore.

But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be.  At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similar

Well, the Chandler case was after the founding fathers’ day; that is messed up though.

As I understand it, states rights cannot supercede the supreme court, judge Clayton got very lucky.


I would have to disagree

blasphemy statues did not disappear after the revolution. They survived the disestablishment of churches and
remained on the books in many states throughout the nineteenth century. Few people, apparently, saw any conflict between these
laws and the Bill of rights, or freedom of religion
.

Total justice,        By Lawrence Meir Friedman (Standford Law School),      Page 114

 


But again, one can argue that this may not be the ideal case in the US anymore.    (I am not arguing if that argument is correct or not, just saying it is a good point)
If that is case, what is the universal case of what speech should be allowed and forbidden.

There is no universal case, but if you mean universal in the “American” sense, all speech -  controversial or not, should be allowed in the US.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 08:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2013-10-30
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.

excellent point - nice post.  People forget that it is not a crime to hate.  I don’t know about others on here but I want to know what people think even if I find it abhorrent.  Farrakhan is a perfect example.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2013 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

There is one thing more dangerous to a population than free speech—restrictions on free speech.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2013 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4534
Joined  2008-08-14

Free Speech is becoming overrated.
Free speech has without a doubt allowed propaganda organs to arise in the US
that have had a definite impact on the intelligence level of voters.

So while some of you may complain out of one side of your mouth about the social-political situation we have found ourselves in
and then hail Free speech as a blessing out of the other side of your mouth…

Please don’t bother retorting about the sacred sacrament of Amendment #1. Hoky Fiddle Faddle!

There’s dozen upon dozens of other nations with various iterations of law and speech protections
with speech being protected in varying degrees.

Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets.
Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate.  But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive
populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show.
In order to maintain that “theater” peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon.

This is how you end up with a nation of seemingly vibrant, cultured, innovative people who somehow
live in parallel with the most incarcerated people per capita
and the biggest War/Killing machine the world has ever known, that absorbs half of the national treasury.

How’s that free speech working out for ya’ll!?!?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2013 10:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2013-10-30
VYAZMA - 01 November 2013 09:44 PM

Free Speech is becoming overrated.
Free speech has without a doubt allowed propaganda organs to arise in the US
that have had a definite impact on the intelligence level of voters.

So while some of you may complain out of one side of your mouth about the social-political situation we have found ourselves in
and then hail Free speech as a blessing out of the other side of your mouth…

Please don’t bother retorting about the sacred sacrament of Amendment #1. Hoky Fiddle Faddle!

There’s dozen upon dozens of other nations with various iterations of law and speech protections
with speech being protected in varying degrees.

Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets.
Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate.  But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive
populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show.
In order to maintain that “theater” peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon.

This is how you end up with a nation of seemingly vibrant, cultured, innovative people who somehow
live in parallel with the most incarcerated people per capita
and the biggest War/Killing machine the world has ever known, that absorbs half of the national treasury.

How’s that free speech working out for ya’ll!?!?

Finally someone that gets it - a position beyond reproach by which all other speech should be compared.  An opinion so righteous and pure that it will give us the right to judge and silence all dissent to save this country from tyranny, the law, and, of course, the terrible war/killing machine.  I know I will sleep better tonight knowing that the forces of good will finally conquer ignorance and hatred that is free speech.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 12:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2671
Joined  2011-04-24
VYAZMA - 01 November 2013 09:44 PM

Free Speech is becoming overrated.
Free speech has without a doubt allowed propaganda organs to arise in the US
that have had a definite impact on the intelligence level of voters.

So while some of you may complain out of one side of your mouth about the social-political situation we have found ourselves in
and then hail Free speech as a blessing out of the other side of your mouth…

Please don’t bother retorting about the sacred sacrament of Amendment #1. Hoky Fiddle Faddle!

There’s dozen upon dozens of other nations with various iterations of law and speech protections
with speech being protected in varying degrees.

Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets.
Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate.  But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive
populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show.
In order to maintain that “theater” peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon.

This is how you end up with a nation of seemingly vibrant, cultured, innovative people who somehow
live in parallel with the most incarcerated people per capita
and the biggest War/Killing machine the world has ever known, that absorbs half of the national treasury.

How’s that free speech working out for ya’ll!?!?

ohh Have you been drinking?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4534
Joined  2008-08-14
mid atlantic - 02 November 2013 12:09 AM

ohh Have you been drinking?

No. Why should I accept the defense of Hate Speech on principle alone?
Many countries have restrictions on hate speech and inflammatory speech.  They seem to be doing just fine.

If we were to make modifications to our laws concerning hate speech or inflammatory speech do you really think
there would be an overwhelming crowd of people in the streets demanding to bring back hate speech.
I doubt it.

What’s your basis for defending all forms of hate speech other than some old crusty parchment that was written over 250
years ago?  A document that didn’t list hate as something to be defended in the first place.

Don’t bother with corny retorts.  Everybody’s heard all the old adages about freedoms and rights.
Don’t ask if I have been drinking, give me a real counter to this.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 01:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4534
Joined  2008-08-14
volcanoman - 01 November 2013 10:54 PM

Finally someone that gets it - a position beyond reproach by which all other speech should be compared.  An opinion so righteous and pure that it will give us the right to judge and silence all dissent to save this country from tyranny, the law, and, of course, the terrible war/killing machine.  I know I will sleep better tonight knowing that the forces of good will finally conquer ignorance and hatred that is free speech.

Yes, thank you.
But I meant change the laws. 
I didn’t say “save the country from the law.”
Laws can be changed and modified.
Nobody’s going to miss hate speech…except haters.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 04:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2671
Joined  2011-04-24
VYAZMA - 02 November 2013 01:42 AM
mid atlantic - 02 November 2013 12:09 AM

ohh Have you been drinking?

No. Why should I accept the defense of Hate Speech on principle alone?
Many countries have restrictions on hate speech and inflammatory speech.  They seem to be doing just fine.

We accept a lot of things on principle alone, constitutionally. The countries that restrict speech are dull and lifeless.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 04:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2671
Joined  2011-04-24
VYAZMA - 02 November 2013 01:42 AM

If we were to make modifications to our laws concerning hate speech or inflammatory speech do you really think
there would be an overwhelming crowd of people in the streets demanding to bring back hate speech.
I doubt it.

 

I don’t know if we can make modifications to this. But Yeah, I do think many people would be in favor bringing free speech, or as you consider it- “hate speech” back. If it was taken away.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3