HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Limiting Hate Speech In A...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 02:20 PM

Limiting Hate Speech In America Is A Valid Debate

Despite frequently stated viewpoints to the contrary, there is and has been an ongoing discussion between academics, attorneys and concerned citizens about the clear and present danger that hate speech eminating from America poses to not only its own citizenry, but to the world at large.

All of us are impacted negatively by hate speech, and it is important to understand the consequences, especially when the "blessing" that was supposed to be the internet has in many ways proven to be a two edged sword -- on the one hand an awesome technological foundation for unlimited communication, entertainment and knowledge -- but on the other hand a powerful first weapon of choice weilded by those who are motivated to incite hatred.

The internet and growth of other mass communication technologies has been a recent development in America's long history of hate speech. In regards to hate speech, the result has been to provide a high tech megaphone to every lunatic in America, of which we have plenty. And now, through the internet and other communication technologies, the purveyors of hate are banding together under the common purpose of spreading their message. They are fund raising, recruiting, growing. Hate speech has become a for-profit business endeavor, with thousands of practitioners and many more thousands of devoted followers. Rob Stein, a Democrat insider, analysed the conservative echo chamber in 2004 and estimated that they received more than US$300 million annually.

The proponents of hate speech ARE organizing. Hate speech is no longer just the crazy guy on the street corner spewing his hatred to passers-by like it was thirty years ago, not even close. The internet has lauched hate speech into the stratosphere. Hate speech, eminating from America, has gone global.

The purpose of this post is primarily to provide a sampling of the many articles, essays and other documents available for those who might be interested in learning more about the ongoing debate. Many of the articles are well documented, with references to a wide range of authoritative sources.

But first, I'd like to make this point. When it comes to fervid first amendment absolutists who oppose any restrictions on free speech (except for the restrictions that we already have and accept), there are two basic categories.

The first category includes those strongly idealistic individuals who support civil rights and just causes, and feel that any infringement on free speech will put us on a "slippery slope" as regards our free speech rights, the idea being that if we give up the right to hate speech, then inevitably there will be more erosions of free speech rights to follow.

The second category, and by far the largest and most vocal, includes those individuals who support hate speech because they, or the groups that they support or are involved in, are the primary ones benefiting from the right to spread the messages of hate, either financially or for other reasons. It goes without saying that some individuals in this category pretend to defend against hate speech limits for the same reason as those in the first category, but their real reasons are not nearly as idealistic.

To those in the first category, I say that we should not fear taking a great leap forward for mankind just because there is a possibility that we might trip and fall. And to those in the second category, I say that hate is NOT an American value --your efforts to invoke fear and incite violence are being scrutinized -- you will not succeed in disrupting or stiffling debate on this very important topic.

SOME LINKS

While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film (Innocence of Muslims), arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. "Based on my understanding of the events," 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, "I think this meets the imminence standard."

Finally, much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits, says Lewis. "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/18/opinion/la-oe-chayes-innocence-of-muslims-first-amendment-20120918

For many years, freedom of expression was seen as the handmaiden of tolerance, freeing minority voices from majority control. But in recent years, this liberal consensus has fractured. Many have come to regard the absolutist position on free expression not as a bulwark of, but as an impediment to, a just and tolerant society.

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=Intellectual_Freedom_Issues&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2424

The right to freedom of expression is an internationally recognized human right. However, freedom of expression is not absolute. Both national constitutions and international conventions allow restrictions on speech to safeguard other societal values. Among human rights lawyers and scholars there is a heated debate as to whether hate speech deserves free speech protection. Both sides offer powerful arguments.

http://www.enotes.com/hate-speech-reference/hate-speech

Violent acts of hate are generally preceded by hate speech that is expressed publicly and repeatedly for years, including by public figures, journalists, leading activists, and even the state. Some examples include Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist acts in Norway (June 2011), the assassination of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller (May 2009) and other abortion providers in the 1990’s, the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis (1994), the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995), and the Nazi Holocaust.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2011/09/21/limits-free-speech-5

"It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/americas/11iht-hate.4.13645369.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Free speech jurisprudence is not a seamless web. There are fissures, inconsistencies, and aberrations. Despite the crystalline text of the First Amendment, Congress does make laws that abridge the freedom of speech. Whether those laws withstand constitutional challenge is, as always, up to the chair umpire, i.e., the Supreme Court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/stolen-valor-act_b_1279502.html

For the last thirty years, conservative activists in particular have been quick to grasp the potential of apocalyptic rhetoric, forever reminding their listeners of the terrible threats posed by “militant gays,” “liberal educators,” “baby killers,” and “godless politicians.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/15/american-political-hate-dominic-sandbrook-on-its-roots.html

Hate speech is shifting our culture, creating a social licence to commit political violence against people who belong to designated groups: Jews, greenies, Muslims, progressives of any stripe. It is part of the deliberate political programme of the extreme right in the USA, and is funded by various ‘philanthropists’, most notably the Koch brothers, who own America’s biggest private corporation, Koch Industries (a major polluter).

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2693120.html

The most stunning growth among all groups came among the rightwing anti-government "Patriot" groups, which the report classifies as those groups which perceive the "federal government as their primary enemy." The "Patriot" groups grew from 149 groups in 2008, skyrocketed to 512 in 2009, jumped to 824 in 2010, and last year continued to surge to 1,274. That's a 755% growth spurt in just three years.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/08

The question is, do the benefits of hate speech laws override the disadvantages. Given the fact that hate speech is operational in creating a network of anti-government underground groups, radical armed groups, killings, a repressed society, fearful, unifying and linking haters and anti-government extremists across the country, we are just one national even away from serious problems, hate speech has facilitiated the rise of the right wing we now see operating, their irrational lies and misinterpretations just an extension of their hatred. Calls for assassination are only prevented by an overloaded law enforcement, how long until they are no longer able to hold back the tide.

And many, many more...

75 replies, 5415 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 75 replies Author Time Post
Reply Limiting Hate Speech In America Is A Valid Debate (Original post)
Jessy169 Sep 2012 OP
cali Sep 2012 #1
tama Sep 2012 #8
Riftaxe Sep 2012 #47
sadbear Sep 2012 #2
tama Sep 2012 #12
Bad_Ronald Sep 2012 #3
tama Sep 2012 #10
former9thward Sep 2012 #26
tama Sep 2012 #30
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #62
Impious Sep 2012 #66
JoeyT Sep 2012 #4
shrdlu Sep 2012 #16
tama Sep 2012 #31
Edweird Sep 2012 #38
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #57
cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #5
Zalatix Sep 2012 #6
Octafish Sep 2012 #7
zellie Sep 2012 #9
xchrom Sep 2012 #11
cali Sep 2012 #15
Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #58
Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #68
cali Sep 2012 #13
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #27
COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #49
Oilwellian Sep 2012 #59
ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #14
tama Sep 2012 #32
glacierbay Sep 2012 #17
zellie Sep 2012 #20
glacierbay Sep 2012 #23
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #29
glacierbay Sep 2012 #60
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #61
CJCRANE Sep 2012 #18
Lightbulb_on Sep 2012 #64
Egalitarian Thug Sep 2012 #19
Codeine Sep 2012 #40
sarcasmo Sep 2012 #48
Odin2005 Sep 2012 #21
Bad_Ronald Sep 2012 #25
KharmaTrain Sep 2012 #28
porphyrian Sep 2012 #22
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #24
sarcasmo Sep 2012 #50
Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #33
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #34
Codeine Sep 2012 #41
tammywammy Sep 2012 #55
Edweird Sep 2012 #35
ruffburr Sep 2012 #36
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #37
L0oniX Sep 2012 #39
Marrah_G Sep 2012 #42
COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #51
Taverner Sep 2012 #43
MNBrewer Sep 2012 #44
Socal31 Sep 2012 #45
tritsofme Sep 2012 #46
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #52
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #53
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #54
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #56
MichaelMcGuire Sep 2012 #63
Impious Sep 2012 #65
MicaelS Sep 2012 #67
Romulox Sep 2012 #69
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #70
99Forever Sep 2012 #71
Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #72
Impious Sep 2012 #73
NYC Liberal Sep 2012 #74
Impious Sep 2012 #75

Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 02:33 PM

1. this is not going to wash.

it's just not. no matter how much YOU want to put restrictions on speech, it's very, very unlikely to happen- not with the current Supreme Court and unlikely with a future court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:09 PM

8. Horizontal peer 2 peer democracy and self-regulation

 

DU3 jury system is happening and has full ability and legitimity to block and censor hate speech, if and when the community and juries so decide.

Potential for change from within is much more powerful that debate (which quickly devolves what many consider violent speech) about what authorities like SCOTUS or government at large should regulate or not top-down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 06:39 PM

47. DU is a private for profit corporation

and as such able to set it's own rules for speech and discussion, there is a huge difference between DU and it's juries and government regulation of political speech.

I understand that you despise the 1st amendment because of the possibility that people might get their feelings hurt, however; I suspect you will find that more people support freedom of speech then oppose it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 02:35 PM

2. Let's address cash speech first.

IMO it's a bigger problem in this country than hate speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:15 PM

12. Money is speach, a promise

 

that is fraudulent from the beginning and does not as such enjoy 1st amendment protection. And a strong case can be built that it not just fraudulent but also hate speech, as it creates artificial scarcity: supermarkets are full of food but you can't feed your starving children if you don't have money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 02:54 PM

3. And who gets to determine what constitutes "hate speech"??

 

Careful what you wish for. Once you let this particular genie out his bottle there will be no going back. The RW would just love to have a tool like this in their arsenal to silence the people that offend them. And that's the inherent flaw in your argument: you only see the people whose rancorous opinions offend you being silenced. You don't see any draconian hate speech laws being turned against you to silence your opinions, which they almost certainly could/would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad_Ronald (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:11 PM

10. Peer 2 peer juries, like here on DU?

 

DU jury system is very much out of the bottle...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:50 PM

26. DU is not governed by the First Amendment.

Administrators can censor any post or poster for any reason they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:01 PM

30. That's the point.

 

Is the cure against hate speech, assuming that is what we are after in ourselves and in our relations, more hate-speech (aka debate) over First Amendment and authoritarian top-down control? Having followed some of the discussions about 1st Amendment on DU I dare suggest it is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:49 AM

62. Oh, brother. Yes, let's build a million more court-houses for "hate speech" cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad_Ronald (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:38 AM

66. I don't understand how the OP can't see the danger

Why separate religious opinion from political opinion for coddled treatment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 02:55 PM

4. Yes, it's a legitimate debate,

but always beware unintended consequences.

I don't argue from the position that speech is a sacred right that trumps all else. I argue from practicality. These people that are arguing in favor of criminalizing hate speech ain't gonna be the ones writing the hate speech laws, and that is why I oppose it.

When the people like the Kochs are the ones that write the hate speech laws and you're not allowed to criticize corporations or speak ill of "job creators", I might tell you I told you so, if I'm still allowed to say it. Take a look at the difference between the reaction of the government to OWS and the Teabaggers, if you want to get an idea what speech is going to be criminalized.

The fight for women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, the union movement, and the gay rights movement were considered the height of offensive speech at one time. Especially by those in power. We cannot limit our tools to enact social justice, and potentially handing over our very ability to speak out for social justice is destroying a very large set of tools indeed.

So yeah, I'll defend everyone's right to free speech, no matter how vile, because I know that our desire to fight for social equality is considered far more terrible, especially by the assholes with the money and the power, who will be the ones doing the deciding on what is or isn't hate speech.

We're not fighting for the Klan's right to march, we're fighting for our right to criticize that march.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:19 PM

16. Excellent post, JoeyT...

...Your point about the treatment of OWS vs. the Teabaggers is spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:07 PM

31. When I'm called to jury service on DU

 

defending right for hate speech is not my priority. What any authority cannot be trusted to regulate from top down we can self-regulate on peer to peer basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:35 PM

38. No. Not just "no", but HELL FUCKING NO!

 

DU is a private website with an expressed political purpose. They are able to regulate what is posted here. In fact, for this board to be anything other than a spam bucket - they have no other choice. In 'real life' I'll be damned if I'll let the 'status quo' dictate what I am allowed to express. You are advocating the exact same stifling oppressive enforced monolithic speech that the Middle East fundies demand. It is the antithesis of the very foundation of MY country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 09:45 PM

57. Deny Jebus is our one true lord and savior and you get sent to the pokey

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:03 PM

5. Privatizing social security is also a Valid Debate

But, as with legal limitation of "hate speech," everyone one one side of that valid debate is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:05 PM

6. +1,000!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:05 PM

7. Censorship by any other name is the repealed Fairness Doctrine.

I say, put the Public back into the Public Airwaves, starting with free election commercials.

As for hate speech. Once the likes of Rush Limbaugh are off the air, the good people can drown them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:10 PM

9. I don't think I can agree

 

any less.

Sorry if any guy in Pakistan or Sausi Arabia wants us limit freedom of speech because it's against what they believe.

And I won't wear a burqa either . Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:11 PM

11. The problem is that not all good speech cancels bad or hate speech.

And as a member of a community who is regularly victimized by hate acts and hate speech - I agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:19 PM

15. One more time: Who decides what is hate speech?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 10:22 PM

58. Do you want to go to prison for saying "Fuck the Pope for hating gay people"? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:24 PM

68. Member of the same community here, and I disagree with you fully.

Without those freedoms, we'd not have any rights at all, we won them in great part through the ability, often won in courts of law, to express ourselves openly.
Ask the OP is he'd include in his limits clerics who attack gay people. Should it be illegal for an imam to call gay people names, or a minister? Ask that question.
There is a movement to create 'anti blasphemy' laws world wide. Such laws would allow any religious person to say anything they like against gay people, while we could be arrested for responding to them. Is that really what you want? It is the case in many places right here and right now. And some seek to impose such laws globally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:17 PM

13. there is so much wrong with your post.

first of all, factually. You really think that 30 years ago hate speech was limited to "the crazy guy on the street corner?" Bzzt. Gigantic FAIL. I gather you've never heard of Father Charles Coughlin, to give just one example. And that was 75 years ago.

Furthermore, what you are advocating is so antithetical to free speech rights, it's breathtaking. You're suggesting radically rewriting the Constitution by eliminating the 1st amendment. Yes, eliminating. I've been reading your ops on this subject. Thankfully, zealots like you are on a failed mission. You appear to suggest that the internet should be strictly policed. Ugh. No fucking thank you.

You claim that of those who support free speech, the haters are a far greater majority than those who are not... haters. Got any fucking evidence for that claim? Of course not.

Great leap forward for mankind, my ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #13)


Response to cali (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:01 PM

49. K&R Cali! X 1000

Nailed it cold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 10:34 PM

59. Totally, 100% agree n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:17 PM

14. just wait til someone decides YOUR position is hate speech n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #14)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:10 PM

32. Alert it

 

and see what happens in this DU system of self-regulating censorship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:25 PM

17. Here's my valid debate

 

NO, matter of fact, HELL FUCKING NO.
People like you are dangerous to our civil liberties, along with all the RW crazies. The 1st Amendment is the most important Amendment in the BoR and should not be altered, changed, re-written.
You've been pushing this for the last week or so now and how much support have you gotten so far? Very minimal, your position on this is untenable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:35 PM

20. I'm just a little confused.

 

How on any progressive/liberal/ democratic board could anyone want to eliminate/ limit freedom of speech?

Why should we give in to what other cultures want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zellie (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:40 PM

23. I don't understand it either

 

this is something I would expect from the repukes and RW crazies.
I will never agree to limit our sacred right to freedom of speech like this person seems to want to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:01 PM

29. The point is that it is a valid debate

It doesn't matter what I think. The internet and libraries are full of discussion on this topic. I find it ironic that avid supporters of first amendment free speech rights are opposed to discussion of first amendment free speech rights when the discussion is about hate speech. My posting on this topic here doesn't equate to advocating that further limitations on free speech be imposed, only that a legitimate discussion is justified by the circumstances. Limitations already exist on free speech. The question of whether those limitations are sufficient or need adjusting to meet changing times is ALWAYS a valid topic of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #29)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:39 AM

60. My answer remains the same

 

there is NO FUCKING NEED to change, alter, amend or otherwise screw with the 1st Amendment. I don't care if it's being debated elsewhere, my answer would be the same.
You have just about zero support for your ideas on this topic, your views would be well received in other parts of the world, but not here in the US.
You're talking about criminalizing hate speech and that, in my mind, is a huge non starter.
I abhor the hate speech and the perpetrators of said speech, but I will always defend their RIGHT to say it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #29)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:47 AM

61. Blahdeblahblah. It isn't "ironic" in the least, because, AHEM, your OP has not been deleted.

THAT would be ironic.

What you are reading are responses to your post, and guess what? WE HAVE THE FREE SPEECH RIGHT TO TELL YOU WE DISAGREE WITH YOUR INSISTENT PREMISE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:32 PM

18. IMO the problem is more that we live in a connected world now.

However, the "bad speech" (such as the anti-islam video and the mullahs who exploit it) often isn't countered by enough good or accurate speech in the countries affected.

The hate groups' message can spread around the world pretty rapidly, we need some kind of anti-hate group or groups with a global reach too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #18)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:32 AM

64. It's like the news...

 

Bad traumatic story? Run with it and get fabulous ratings...

Good news with a warm fuzzy feeling? Look for a new job...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:34 PM

19. Do they even teach Civics in schools anymore? If they do, you apparently weren't paying

 

attention and I hope you got the grade you deserved. The offensive speakers have always been here. They have always been organized. This nation was founded, in large part, by people engaging in what England considered hate speech.

You and the folks you advocate seem to have completely missed the whole point of the First Amendment. Protecting speech that is in favor is not difficult, if you claim to want a free nation, you have to protect exactly the most vile and offensive speech and rely on truth to counter it. happened to this country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:38 PM

40. +1 and well said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:01 PM

48. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:37 PM

21. People don't have a right not to be offended.

They do have a right to PROTEST ANY OFFENSIVENESS PEACEFULLY, like folks in Skokie, IL did when the Neo-Nazis came to town.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:43 PM

25. but...but...

 

....<sniff...sniff> they hurt my feelings. Silence them!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course, I should be free to offend whomever I want, but as long as the people I don't like are muzzled, it's all crimson & clover. Why on earth should I be held to the same standard as the people I disagree with?

Do really need a sarcasm thingy here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:56 PM

28. A Message To Frank Collins...

...from the JDL describing how they'd bust his head also helped. Then the Nazis backed down..."peacefully"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:38 PM

22. It's already illegal to incite or commit crime with hate speech.

 

Everything short of that is Constitutionally protected and should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:41 PM

24. No thanks

The whole point of free speech is to protect unpopular speech, as popular speech needs no protection.

Let's put the blame where it belongs - on those that perpetrate violence because of what someone else said, not the people that said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:02 PM

50. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:11 PM

33. You say "fervid First Amendment absolutist"

as though that was a bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #33)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:12 PM

34. Wish I could rec a post n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #33)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:39 PM

41. For the win. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #33)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 09:39 PM

55. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:22 PM

35. I believe your posts may have an ulterior motive.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:26 PM

36. one mans junk is another mans treasure

Once you open up regulating speech, As always it wont stop at what you want to eliminate but go on and on till you won't be allowed to have an opinion, As much as i disdain tea bag speak and all uninformed hateful B.S. I don't want to take away their right to free speech, How else would one know who the Morons are? To me this idea however well intended is junk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:29 PM

37. Yes, our strict beliefs in total free speech gives you the right

 

to argue against any rights you wish. Even if some consider it hateful or wrong to the very core.

Ironic isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:38 PM

39. So if I say someones religion or some part of it is stupid ...that's hate speech? pffft!

Someone needs to get a life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:43 PM

42. I think you are very very wrong

You have been trying to argue for this all week.

We value free speech here, there are other places people can live who have limits of one kind or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:03 PM

51. Yep= this is the third or fourth post

on the subject. Keeps coming back to the same 'ol, same 'ol. I guess you keep asking the question until you get the answer you like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:48 PM

43. I have an idea - let's take the lowest common denominator and make that the bar

 

And censor from that bar - what could go wrong?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 06:12 PM

45. You can debate it all you want, but "hate speech" can be used as a catch-all term.

Unless someone is specifically advocating violence (which we already have laws on), they can say what they want.

As soon as a law is passed to quell the speech that you find offensive, someone else will use that law to silence what you say as well.

No reason to mess with the Bill of Rights. The ACLU is taking up a KKK case again. As much as I hate it when I read that, I understand the reasoning behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 06:19 PM

46. Speech restrictionists are a scary bunch. The First Amendment is always their biggest impediment.

Speech should not be dictated by the mores of a violent mob.

I will not give politicians the right to define acceptable speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:25 PM

52. Your quote

"The first category includes those strongly idealistic individuals who support civil rights and just causes, and feel that any infringement on free speech will put us on a "slippery slope" as regards our free speech rights, the idea being that if we give up the right to hate speech, then inevitably there will be more erosions of free speech rights to follow.

The second category, and by far the largest and most vocal, includes those individuals who support hate speech because they, or the groups that they support or are involved in, are the primary ones benefiting from the right to spread the messages of hate, either financially or for other reasons. It goes without saying that some individuals in this category pretend to defend against hate speech limits for the same reason as those in the first category, but their real reasons are not nearly as idealistic. "

First off, I do not think you have made a wise choice by using claiming the second category is "by far the largest." As you know, the logic you set up willmean that anyone who opposes your view is assumed to be of group two, the more odious and dangerous group, unless otherwise proven. When you carved your opponent into two groups, what basis did you decied to make one the majority? For someone who hates bigotry, you should know very well that the old "there are two types of" line is a method they have used.

Second, I put myself in group one, because while I find hate speech hateful, I find that putting any of these well meant "limits" will only ensure that some groups figures out a way to abuse them, and that said group will probably be the well organized and funded types (religion being a contender.) If you do not think that peoplelike Sanger and MLk were considered hateful bigots, a trip down in Dixie will have you hear many impassioned people who sincerely feel and think that they were made second class citizens byt those two. Of course that is BS, but the magic words "I am offended" will win.

Let's make this even more clear. To some, any criticism of Israel is hate speech. Anyone who says Israel should not be supported is lumped right in with the Nazis, as if the very mention of the word "palestine" was a code for someone who wanted to finish what the Nazis started. Come right here on DU, you will see it. On the OTHER hand, there are those that consider any critique of the PLO as Hate speech, anytime you imply that the PLO is one millimeter in the wrong, you are labeled an islamophobic racist who is probably a secret republican. Now, there are people on both sides that have points, but one can also see organized, well funded politics, where people in one group get the numbers together to bully whoever they can hold to the ground.

It boild down to this, do you want a mob to know that any time they want to silence dissent, they can cry "offensive?" Furthermore, if you even propose to judge this, how?

You will not do it by saying "most people who disagree with me are liars." which of course, is exactly what you know your words do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:50 PM

53. Try reading the First Amendment again. You think Jefferson didn't know about "hate speech"??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 09:36 PM

54. Its good to see the discussion going on, its also good to see its a very small group

Those nattering about this are a very small segment. That is what academia is for, discussion, elaborating, and vetting fringe stuff.

And make no mistake, at this point, its on the fringe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:16 AM

63. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in my book.

 

I understand the argument against free speech, but keep coming back to the conclusion in support for the free speech/1st Amendment. If truth be told I'm a wee bit envious of much of your Constitution. Would love Scotland to start drawing one up long the same vein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 11:35 AM

65. I think the OP has a problem distinguishing hatred of a notion versus hatred of an individual

Last edited Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm an atheist. My lack of "faith" is ridiculed constantly. I don't resort to violence. I welcome an exchange of ideas.

I know I'm in the minority, but I applaud ridicule of religion. I know it's not a particularly effective method of winning friends but sometimes it's the only method that has any chance of success, given that religion is never a rational subscription in the first place. Would you have jailed Voltaire or Mark Twain?

I don't hate religionists, and I don't agree that their religion is "fundamental" to their identity. Their skin color, their bones, blood, flesh, and brain are fundamental. The rest is opinion, which can be changed through argumentation, enlightenment, ridicule, and tortuous brainwashing. The first three methods are fair, the latter is not.

Why stop at criminalizing religious ridicule? Why not political ridicule as well? Since I lack a religion would you also assert that my political views are "fundamental" to my being? That would be equally nonsensical.

"Hate speech is shifting our culture, creating a social licence to commit political violence"

You're simply wrong. There is no such license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:04 PM

67. This is an extremely naive and foolish viewpoint.

Right Wing Christians would love a law like this. They would use it to go after every negative statement about Christianity, and Christians. DU would be prime target for the misuse of such a law, given how many members make posts against Christianity and Christians. They would sue in a court of law, force DU to reveal the real identifies of individual members, and then sue, or try to criminal prosecute DU members who make posts against Christianity and Christians. They would label DU a "hate speech website" and try to get it shut down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:26 PM

69. What is the point of arguing this OVER and OVER without at least looking at the case law (briefly?)

You are on a dead-end road, and you're cursing anyone who shows you a map.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #69)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:28 PM

70. +1000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:33 PM

71. Once again, the Absolutetists...

... make The Perfect World the enemy of a Much Improved World.

Many other nations successfully limit or even complete squelch hate speech and yet maintain the ability to have political debates and assorted other disagreements and most, if not all of the other "freedoms" we do.

Thanks for your thoughtful post and the links. Good food for thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:40 PM

72. Your act is getting old because you are so deeply wrong and also because you are

so evasive. You are correctly afraid of saying what you are actually advocating, so you keep repeating the same points which vast amounts of DUers reject.
I think what you, OP, would like are anti blasphemy laws which protect some religions (yours) from criticism while allowing those religions to attack others with full voiced, unhinged rhetoric. That's my guess. At any rate, no one here is buying what you are selling. Never will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #72)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:48 PM

73. I would bet, too, that the OP seeks protection of her own religion

I think it's pretty ironic to post such an opinion on a board that so openly ridicules other human opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:54 PM

74. No, thank you. I support freedom of speech, and that includes the right to speak hatefully

even if we don't like that speech.

Threats, defamation, and inciting criminal acitivity are all already illegal and always have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:55 PM

75. I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that...

people who advocate free speech because they benefit financially far outnumber the people who advocate free speech as a just cause? Did you conduct your own poll?

I also would like to know how you can actually separate the two groups? For example, I support free speech as a just civil rights matter, but also feel that as an American I've personally benefited enormously from that protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread