General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

206. So, when laws change, your principles do?

Reply to WinkyDink (Reply #196)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:30 PM

Sep 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

210 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"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

This message was self-deleted by its author 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

This message was self-deleted by its author 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

Post removed Post removed 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

This message was self-deleted by its author 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