Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If we're not supposed to condemn the jerks that made the anti-islam movie [View all]SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)59. There is no prohibition on hate speech in the United States
But of course, you knew that.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
231 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If we're not supposed to condemn the jerks that made the anti-islam movie [View all]
ehrnst
Sep 2012
OP
Don't you know the film represents American Values & Freedom of Speech????????????
Voice for Peace
Sep 2012
#97
No it isn't yelling fire, however after watching people in your country disintegrated and
2on2u
Sep 2012
#226
The Idea the Makers Of this Film Should Not Be Condemned, Sir, is Ludicrous
The Magistrate
Sep 2012
#2
We have a lot of DUers suggesting the contrary under their "FREE SPEECH" at all costs argument...
hlthe2b
Sep 2012
#4
The 'right' of 'free speech' has never been an absolute right. The SCOTUS has
coalition_unwilling
Sep 2012
#130
So now any DUer who strives to uphold the 1st Amendment is a bigot? Really?
riderinthestorm
Sep 2012
#139
Hateful bigots have a right to be bigots, and others have the right to criticize...
Odin2005
Sep 2012
#211
Only in the fevered imaginations of some folks who don't understand the bill of Rights.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#163
It is depressing to see how many people don't understand the 1st Amendment. "Hate Speech" is NOT
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#107
And if you think you can define "saying anything that might make people mad" as "incitement", you're
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#151
Excuse me, did we have a riot outside now at two embassies and one Consulate?
nadinbrzezinski
Sep 2012
#154
I was in Skokie when the Nazis marched, "Sparky". I take the 1st Amendment REAL fucking seriously.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#162
Right, so the only reason no one has been prosecuted for inciting a riot lately, is because they're
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#170
I'm not sure why you are confusing, say, "blasphemy" or speech-that-someone-finds-offensive, with
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#172
Your own words, upthread: "There are limits to free speech- HATE SPEECH IS ONE OF THEM"
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#181
"Hate Speech" is not prohibited, or even defined, by the 1st Amendment.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#189
You said there are "real limits" on "hate speech". Here. That is what YOU said.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#192
What specific code prohibits "Hate Speech". The specific "code". The specific LAW.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#194
Hate speech is not prohibited. Read Virgina v. Black, Snyder v. Phelps, etc...nt
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#116
I would imagine there are plenty of Muslims in the US who are incensed by that "film"
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#165
Apparently, if someone believes that, they're a member of "The Federalist Society"
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#195
Don't let them look at the dissents, then...heads can explode from too much irony. nt
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#196
I have seen posts on DU that say "there is no excuse to riot over a low budget movie"
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#11
if you're clever enough to operate a computer, then you probably know the answer
frylock
Sep 2012
#55
You can criticize the dumb-ass deliberate provocation that was this "film" and still say that, too.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#67
"pin the due portion of responsibility for those consequences to your utterance." It is a rare U.S.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#101
The riots didn't take place in the US under US law. The world doesn't belong to the US.
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#160
Sorry, the YOUTUBE promotion is clearly ugly incitement and they do have blood on their hand.
hlthe2b
Sep 2012
#5
I never wished death on him or anyone. Who here has demanded the death of the filmmaker?
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#21
knowing the sensitivity of the muslim world, this was nothing less than inciting violence
spanone
Sep 2012
#7
Oooh, the "sensitivity"!! So do American Evangelicals get to have the same "sensitivity"?
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#90
How about American homosexuals? Do we get to burn down megachurches and kill the preachers
MNBrewer
Sep 2012
#169
Held accountable how? Which part of the First Amendment do you want to do away with?
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#61
Hate speech and inciting violence can be subject to civil suit when damage or death occurs.
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#76
Inciting violence, eh? So if I pay 2000 people to go riot over your pro-theocracy arguments
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#91
I think that covers it - I personally think that it fits a basic definition of porn
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#123
No, why does implicating the propaganda makers diminish the crime of people who acted on it?
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#18
i will call it like i see it. isreal and rw joint in creating this mess. mob rule wrong. obama,
seabeyond
Sep 2012
#23
It's not hard for me. Both film-maker and his ilk and the rioters should be condemned.
randome
Sep 2012
#30
Yes - there are some here that think you can't see the wrong on both sides. (nt)
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#31
WE can attack the propagandists, but the Prez doesn't have that luxury - yet.
reformist2
Sep 2012
#36
I'm fucking sick of the danger of drunk drivers. But I still stay off the roads on new year's eve.
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#118
This country is filled with preachers who call for war on gay people, who say 'take off the gloves
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#44
And if two gay people kiss in front of a chick-fil-a and it starts a violent riot
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#69
I think that their "promotion" of it after they were asked to desist by the military
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#83
Never said that - in this case the Military had an understanding of local conditions
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#137
Some of the rest of the world needs to grow a thicker skin when it comes to things like religion
slackmaster
Sep 2012
#51
I think Americans are well aware of the lack of freedoms elsewhere. How should that affect OUR
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#75
Ummmm ....... so what? If the Libyans want to put him on trial in abstentia, go ahead. nt
kelly1mm
Sep 2012
#168
people who stir up hatred against entire religions, races, etc. are responsible for the consequences
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#53
Really? The reactors have no Free Will NOT to riot, kill, bomb, attack, ....??? By this standard,
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#77
who said anything like that? i said those who stir up hate are responsible for the consequences
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#155
i assume that 'thugs' of any kind don't need provocation, as they're 'thugs'. why are you so
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#206
I've done plenty of Christianity bashing on DU, so don't try to make me out as focused on Islam
MNBrewer
Sep 2012
#208
You know, Terry Jones did not make that thing. This fact is muddling much of what you are
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#161
There is a massive and fundamental difference between this movie and the ones you cited.
Xithras
Sep 2012
#152
So long as you don't seek to have the government punish or stop the asshats that made
kelly1mm
Sep 2012
#164
When the US starts sending Muslims to concentration camps your point may work.
CBGLuthier
Sep 2012
#207