Reply #39

In the discussion thread: "I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech." [View all]

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:36 AM

39. Would people be so eager to defend a hate film against Jewish or gay people based on free speech?

Or pick your group.

The same free speech principle applies.

But people don't usually rush to defend that kind of stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

210 replies	Author	Time	Post
"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech." [View all]	cthulu2016	Sep 2012	OP
"some speech comes at a cost" nt.	Snotcicles	Sep 2012	#1
Slander, libel, intimidation, incitement...	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#2
Jury results (I am #4)	Sirveri	Sep 2012	#8
Having a post hidden is not curtailing anyone's free speech. This is a private website.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#11
I've started a thread in Meta-Discussion on this	muriel_volestrangler	Sep 2012	#17
Some people don't get it. Some people have an agenda, and some don't want to get it IMHO.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#18
Exactly	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#67
Spam deleted by Warren DeMontague (MIR Team)	parazito86	Sep 2012	#122
I was #6. (Reposting here.)	DEMTough	Sep 2012	#23
You may well not support the OP's position, but that shouldn't be what the jury is about	muriel_volestrangler	Sep 2012	#44
You're right. And I agree. That shouldn't be what it is about.	DEMTough	Sep 2012	#49
The ACLU Attorney Who Argued On Behalf Of The National Socialist Party In Said Case Was Jewish	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#97
I come from a Jewish family and I had Jewish friends in Skokie in 1977.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#123
This message was self-deleted by its author	DEMTough	Sep 2012	#50
Remember muriel	dogday	Sep 2012	#180
I would be embarrassed to admit that	Confusious	Sep 2012	#34
I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the alerter.	Sirveri	Sep 2012	#112
How do you get all that from the alerter's comments?	JonLP24	Sep 2012	#116
Except it wasn't targeted at the OP, but at the concept of unrestricted free speech.	Sirveri	Sep 2012	#124
That's a seperate issue	JonLP24	Sep 2012	#146
Are they going to alert on a post that they agree with?	Sirveri	Sep 2012	#156
It wasn't about disagreeing,	Confusious	Sep 2012	#117
No it's passionate language used to make a point.	Sirveri	Sep 2012	#120
Repeat.	Confusious	Sep 2012	#129
Well I guess it's too bad it wasn't your call to make then.	Sirveri	Sep 2012	#131
so-called "hate speech" is PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment. Sorry, it is.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#10
Oh, I'm aware.	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#24
And you should of course be able to distinguish between defending the right to say something	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#81
The "Ron Paul Logic"...	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#89
The actors could have a legal case, yes, but that's not the same thing as censoring the speech.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#95
And you, like many others, fail to miss the point.	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#118
Did you see the entire film? 'Cuz all I saw was a 14 min. "trailer" that was real fuckin' incoherent	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#121
Only because it is not a defined exception	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#128
Cyberstalking? In what way? if you're talking about intimidation, threats, harassment, slander or	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#132
That's a simplistic answer	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#148
I'm not categorically ruling it out if it falls under a different category (i.e. it's a threat) ALSO	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#152
There are scores of films/videos that mock Jews, gays, and other groups	oberliner	Sep 2012	#19
Yes there are.	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#29
Have you actually seen the movie in question?	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#22
I've watched the clips, yes.	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#33
Sorry Scootaloo, but this has revealed a flaw in Muslim culture that can't be downplayed.	napoleon_in_rags	Sep 2012	#126
Correction, the movie has revealed a flaw in a bunch of rioting violent fundie maniacs	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#179
I've been laying off the DU lately...	napoleon_in_rags	Sep 2012	#209
He is a horrible guy, but he does have First Amendent rights.	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#133
Excellent post, thank you. Some bigotry is more equal than other bigotry.	sabrina 1	Sep 2012	#90
Who Said It's OK To Mock Some Groups But Not Others?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#99
You mean the way the KKK mocked African Americans and Far Right bigots mock Gays?	sabrina 1	Sep 2012	#106
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." nt	Romulox	Sep 2012	#141
The argument isn't whether people have a right to say something, the point is	sabrina 1	Sep 2012	#144
There is a clear, legally established standard for dividing incitement from free speech.	Romulox	Sep 2012	#162
Read the last part again:	sabrina 1	Sep 2012	#167
"Imminent lawless action" is a legal term of art. The research trail all begins with Brandenburg,	Romulox	Sep 2012	#168
The concept of a "verbal action" may help you conceptualize the difference. nt	Romulox	Sep 2012	#140
Watching the "trailer" online, it seems far more like satire.	moriah	Sep 2012	#159
A Catholic priest, an Orthodox priest, a Protestant minister, a Reform rabbi, a Buddhist monk,	snooper2	Sep 2012	#174
"Garl Glittergold?"	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#203
Our constitutionally guarenteed right...	PoliticalBiker	Sep 2012	#207
"money"	eShirl	Sep 2012	#3
This should've been the end of the thread right here. Winner!	Efilroft Sul	Sep 2012	#136
As the saying goes	Confusious	Sep 2012	#4
There are many precedents about the restriction of free speech in the US.	moriah	Sep 2012	#5
The speech itself is not prohibited, that's one important distinction.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#15
In the example I gave, I was referring more toward the usual idea of "fighting words".....	moriah	Sep 2012	#21
In the case of the Arkansas law, the speech isn't protected even if it wasn't designed to provoke	onenote	Sep 2012	#30
Mens rea must still be established.	moriah	Sep 2012	#48
Yes, but my point is that even with mens rea, the provision cited only applies	onenote	Sep 2012	#70
Yeah, they did, read the law again, though for non-obscene langugage it must be "repeatedly":	moriah	Sep 2012	#73
This message was self-deleted by its author	onenote	Sep 2012	#74
Has this statute been applied any time recently? I'd be interested to see the real-world	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#75
Well, the statute is meant to apply to those who are harassing individuals, not public speech.	moriah	Sep 2012	#79
Again, a markedly different situation than making a statement, or a film, that angers other people.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#83
And on that note, as I've said a few times, I defer to the Onion:	moriah	Sep 2012	#84
The people in the crowded theatre are forced to hear the shout of "Fire!"	oberliner	Sep 2012	#20
I think the "fire" thing is misused	JonLP24	Sep 2012	#111
The danger, though, is extreme and understimated.	moriah	Sep 2012	#155
Death threats.	Curtland1015	Sep 2012	#6
I have long agreed. This whole credible, actionable threat thing -	jsmirman	Sep 2012	#7
EXCELLENT. Applies to freedom of religion as well.	Zax2me	Sep 2012	#9
That's why we have libel laws and defamation statutes.	WCGreen	Sep 2012	#12
America and its states also have laws against certain kinds of speech. ALL speech is not allowed.	Honeycombe8	Sep 2012	#14
define "speech that interferes with someone else's rights"	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#16
Well with fox it is also the freedom of the press that they bastardize.	WCGreen	Sep 2012	#28
This is about the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#76
Yes, there are laws in America against certain kinds of speech, although not called hate speech.	Honeycombe8	Sep 2012	#43
Wrong and a half. There are no federal laws against 'certain words' which 'can not be	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#60
There aren't any federal laws, but there are city/municipality ones.	JoeyT	Sep 2012	#63
The other poster said 'certain words can not be said in public' and that is bullshit	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#69
You know, for all the talk about "yelling fire in a theater", one, I don't think there are actually	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#78
So if I say "fuck, I dropped a hammer on my toe", that's interfering with your rights?	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#86
Incidental impingment vs. attack. Big difference.	TheMadMonk	Sep 2012	#107
I don't really care what the psychological or physiological mechanism involved is, although it is	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#108
That is grammatically incorrect and thus erroneous in meaning. It is "NOT ALL speech is allowed."	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#184
Reasonable people can differ on the opinion of what is free speech. You know that.	Honeycombe8	Sep 2012	#13
+1	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#176
US courts have spoken on this issue, and---because let's be honest here---MOVIES ARE FREE SPEECH.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#185
I support free speech but I do not consider child pornography to be free speech	Douglas Carpenter	Sep 2012	#25
What about mocking other people's religions?	oberliner	Sep 2012	#26
under the U.S. Constitution - it is legal. Just as Nazis marching though Skokie is legal	Douglas Carpenter	Sep 2012	#32
In "less explosive" situations the standard should be different?	oberliner	Sep 2012	#42
What do you refuse to grasp about US law? Seriously. WHY do you keep nattering on, trying to	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#188
Quite a lot - seems like there is a good deal of grey area	oberliner	Sep 2012	#200
Totally acceptable	4th law of robotics	Sep 2012	#57
Mockery is not illegal. The US Courts have spoken. Don't like it? TS, Eliot.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#187
When does mockery become incitement?	oberliner	Sep 2012	#202
You don't have to have any opinion on it; the COURTS have declared child porn illegal.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#186
That poster does not live in the United States	oberliner	Sep 2012	#201
Not a free speech issue- let's talk about the Saudi-supported radical clerics and groups	JCMach1	Sep 2012	#27
Ahh...	99Forever	Sep 2012	#51
Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.	baldguy	Sep 2012	#31
+1000	renie408	Sep 2012	#36
So, to your mind, Blasphemy is not protected by the 1st Amendment?	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#85
The crime isn't blasphemy. The crime is incitment to riot.	baldguy	Sep 2012	#94
There are? What SPECIFIC law do you think was violated, and how would it be prosecuted?	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#96
This post was hidden by jury decision.	baldguy	Sep 2012	#135
So how do you prove that magical words 'caused' others to act against their own	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#142
Words cannot 'cause' anybody to do anything. To believe so is to believe in word magic.	friendly_iconoclast	Sep 2012	#150
You are wrong. period.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#192
It's been done before	JonLP24	Sep 2012	#113
Ha! Leave it to Hitch.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#115
As the US courts long ago ruled.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#189
I support free speech. But being a grown up, I also support consequences.	renie408	Sep 2012	#35
So, if some group of reactionaries vow to riot unless women in our media are covered	TheKentuckian	Sep 2012	#59
Expect zero response....	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#61
Remember that thought when a coworker queues up "Thank Heaven for Little Girls"...	TheMadMonk	Sep 2012	#110
A gun can fire a bullet which if put into motion by a user presents not only a threat but a	TheKentuckian	Sep 2012	#154
Not if they're pre-conditioned and on a hair trigger.	TheMadMonk	Sep 2012	#163
"Offering graphic harm" is the legal definition of "assault." There are laws to cover this.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#191
Which is why you've got so many "postal" events.	TheMadMonk	Sep 2012	#208
Goofy, now making a movie that offends someone is pretty much the same as	TheKentuckian	Oct 2012	#210
Your entire argument has been invalidated by the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#190
Do you support what Rush Limbaugh does every day? That is free speech as well and it	2on2u	Sep 2012	#37
I don't support it, but I support his right to say it (nt)	Nye Bevan	Sep 2012	#46
Fair enough. n/t	2on2u	Sep 2012	#47
I support his right to say it	Marrah_G	Sep 2012	#53
Since Rush is paid for what he says, I call it commerical speech. And we should look at whose paying	freshwest	Sep 2012	#100
Many other Americans think he's the cat's pj's. Ain't the Constitution grand?	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#194
"anything posted at DU"...	SidDithers	Sep 2012	#38
Would people be so eager to defend a hate film against Jewish or gay people based on free speech?	limpyhobbler	Sep 2012	#39
Free Speech is most importantly about speech we do not like	Marrah_G	Sep 2012	#54
They Sell "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" On Amazon	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#65
Where do you live? Such hate films and books are common, and religious haters	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#66
ohio.	limpyhobbler	Sep 2012	#103
We also do NOT attack the principle of free speech we counter Chick fil A with more	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#139
OK cousin I think you are confusing me with somebody else.	limpyhobbler	Sep 2012	#161
Do you understand the difference between the principle and the thing itself?	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#114
Um... yeah. I understand the difference.	limpyhobbler	Sep 2012	#160
I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I've done both.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#165
I completely agree.	limpyhobbler	Sep 2012	#166
I do not consider buying politicians free speech	flobee1	Sep 2012	#40
I'm getting sick of the free speech threads	davidpdx	Sep 2012	#41
Then you have the freedom to not post on them.	renie408	Sep 2012	#45
And I have the freedom to complain about how silly they are	davidpdx	Sep 2012	#109
just hide thread then	Marrah_G	Sep 2012	#55
No, I don't click on the topic or reply	davidpdx	Sep 2012	#58
We have a lot of this going on here	etherealtruth	Sep 2012	#52
I support free speech unless I don't like it	4th law of robotics	Sep 2012	#56
I hope you forgot your sarcasm tag...	Nolimit	Sep 2012	#62
Then it becomes almost impossible to discuss anything.	Bluefin Tuna	Sep 2012	#77
Welcome to DU.	Vincardog	Sep 2012	#80
Thank you.	Bluefin Tuna	Sep 2012	#82
Wouldn't authoritarianism be preferable?	4th law of robotics	Sep 2012	#137
This is sarcasm, right?	Bluefin Tuna	Sep 2012	#143
Yes, although I've seen a lot of people	4th law of robotics	Sep 2012	#153
Exactly! The Dept of No Mockery, headed by Sec. Alfred E. Newman.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#193
I may hate what one says, but I will defend their right to say it.	Odin2005	Sep 2012	#64
Money.	Zorra	Sep 2012	#68
Incorrect on both, but the concepts are not absolute	cthulu2016	Sep 2012	#87
No; sorry, you are wrong. Those are simply your opinions.	Zorra	Sep 2012	#92
Okay, so, if your employer refuses to pay you....	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#204
Usually, everything that comes after the "but" is what the person really means to say.	MNBrewer	Sep 2012	#71
"Some of my best friends are free speech." Love it. n/t	porphyrian	Sep 2012	#72
farts	rurallib	Sep 2012	#88
kiddie porn, terroristic threats	arely staircase	Sep 2012	#91
Acts already declared illegal should be beyond "opinion"!	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#195
Think about this.	Cleita	Sep 2012	#93
this is dumb. There actually ARE limits to "free speech" this is flame bait. nt	progressivebydesign	Sep 2012	#98
Do you consider Citizens' United free speech? Why not? nt	patrice	Sep 2012	#101
I don't. I don't consider money speech.	cali	Sep 2012	#119
So if you want to make a documentary	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#130
I should have said I don't consider money in political campaigns to be speecch	cali	Sep 2012	#134
That was not the actual issue in CU	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#149
You all are aware, of course, that the ACLU defends Citizens' United? link	patrice	Sep 2012	#102
Yeah, fight the power!	cthulu2016	Sep 2012	#125
Your noting is noted. Is there somekind of politically correct test that makes DUers	patrice	Sep 2012	#151
not only that, they have doubled and tripled down since then...	Blue_Tires	Sep 2012	#170
Someone needs to point out to a few people around here that that's IN. SUPPORT. OF. CITIZENS'.	patrice	Sep 2012	#171
LOL. I'm sure people will support PLUTOCRACY if you only explain it a little better.	Romulox	Sep 2012	#173
How. very. PLUTOCRATIC. of. you., but then, perhaps you're just a scared little CONFORMIST bully. nt	patrice	Sep 2012	#177
I'm guessing you don't know what several of those words mean, as your comment makes	Romulox	Sep 2012	#182
That tends to make me think much more poorly of the ACLU, rather than better about CU.	Romulox	Sep 2012	#172
??? So now you have your "friendly" hat on. What gives?	patrice	Sep 2012	#178
Word salad much? nt	Romulox	Sep 2012	#183
You couldn't be more obvious. nt	patrice	Sep 2012	#198
Right. I'm someone AGAINST corporate dollar funded "free speech". You're FOR it. Obvious, indeed.	Romulox	Sep 2012	#199
Democracy has hairy armpits.	Buzz Clik	Sep 2012	#104
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.-Voltaire n/t	EX500rider	Sep 2012	#105
Forgery	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#127
Understand that words have consenquences.	devilgrrl	Sep 2012	#138
Yelling "fire!!" in a crowded theater.	retread	Sep 2012	#145
Or "Theater!" in a crowded fire.	H2O Man	Sep 2012	#157
Yes, and that's no joke	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#205
Do you consider white supremacy free speech?	Initech	Sep 2012	#147
I don't have to "consider" anything; I go by the LAW.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#196
You do realize that 40 other countries have both free and hate speech laws in effect right?	Initech	Sep 2012	#197
So, when laws change, your principles do?	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#206
Nobody supports hate speech,	hughee99	Sep 2012	#158
I support freedom of speech, but I do not consider	Time for change	Sep 2012	#164
$	mmonk	Sep 2012	#169
I support nuanced dialog on free speech	LanternWaste	Sep 2012	#175
"disagreeing with me"	Bucky	Sep 2012	#181

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.