Yesterday's Supreme Court Hate Speech decision was wrong!

[natrlron]

Chief Justice Roberts was right when he wrote in yesterday’s opinion protecting the speech of protestors at a military funeral that “debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open.” However, the particular speech in this case that he and the seven concurring justices ruled was protected by the 1st Amendment consisted of, “God Hates Fags,” “God Hates Your Tears,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

As Justice Alito said in his lone dissent, these words are more like fighting words … a “vicious, verbal assault … brutalizing innocent victims.” For once I agree with Justice Alito.

The United States has a long history of upholding the most heinous forms of speech, so long as that speech does not directly incite violence or otherwise endanger people. Most of the countries of Europe and Canada, on the other hand, have laws that criminalize hate speech.

Why the difference? Part of the difference stems from Europe’s experience with the Holocaust. They understand more clearly the evil that hate speech can bring about.

But mostly the reason lies with the interpretation of our 1st Amendment, which prohibits any laws that infringe on the freedom of speech. Absent a “clear and present danger,” the courts have generally held that even the most vile and hateful speech is protected.

So the result, for example, is that while it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, etc., it is not against the law to encourage hatred against African-Americans, Jews, or any other group.

The question that must be asked is, why is discrimination prohibited but hate speech allowed? There is no rational answer. The answer is historical … the right of free speech has long been a sacred cow of American constitutional jurisprudence.

But hate speech does not foster reasoned debate on issues of national import. Rather it fosters just the opposite. It fosters at a minimum highly emotional positions that actually hinder reasoned debate, and at worst it fosters an atmosphere of fear that can lead to violence. Additionally, it tears apart our social fabric. Thus, even absent a “clear and present danger,” there is no reason to protect such speech.

The argument against prohibiting such speech is that it presents a “slippery slope.” Once you allow for one type of speech to be prohibited, where do you draw the line?

But the right already is deemed not to be absolute. Thus the question becomes whether such speech has value … “redeeming social value” in the context of the obscenity cases … to America’s marketplace of ideas, to the furtherance of rational discourse.

The answer is, “no.” We prohibit discrimination, we prohibit hate crimes, we should prohibit hate speech.

For more on this and other issues, see my blog, http://PreservingAmericanGreatness.blogspot.com

[YellowRubberDuckie]

1. Don't you realize that if you tell them they can't do this...

...next the right is going to site it to tell the people in Wisconsin they can't do what they are doing, or the people in Ohio can't do what they are doing? Everything has a consequence, and as soon as you stop letting these fruit loops exercise their rights the rest of us are fucked. Just because someone exercises their rights poorly, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to the death for their right to do it.
Duckie

[Kurovski]

18. westboro made it a personal matter.

The Snyders had every right to sue.

[mdmc]

2. you and Palin are wrong

so silly..

[markpkessinger]

3. Not so fast

I think any of us who is in possession of a shred of decency is appalled by the actions of Westboro Baptist Church. But to say we should ban "hate speech," while perhaps a seemingly attractive option, is a beastly thing to implement in the real world. The devil, as they say, is in the details. How do you define what constitutes "hate speech?" What would prevent, at some point in the future, a politician or a party from declaring that, for example, criticism of them or their policies constituted such "hate speech" and thus subjecting political opponents to prosecution? It's a very slippery slope, with profound ramifications.

[natrlron]

5. You all follow

the Party line. The old slippery slope. But hate speech is not like any other speech. It can be narrowly defined. And in Europe it has been so defined while maintaining a very robust right to free speech.

The right to free speech is not absolute to begin with. Not only do you have the clear and present danger exception, but if you are not truthful, you can be sued for your advertising (Truth in Advertising) and you can be sued for libel/slander. The point is that the courts or legislatures made a rational decision that such speech does not deserve to be protected because it does not add to the national discourse, it harms it. That's what should be done here.

[NuclearDem]

20. Being unequivocally pro-First Amendment isn't 'following the Party line'

Even for the most despicable among us.

[Adsos Letter]

6. Very well said!

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Freedom of speech grew out of autocratic monarchy's, where the king...

decided what you could say, when you could say it, and to whom you could say it. Phelps and his crew are vile, but the decision was good.

[rustydog]

7. Freedom of speech can't stand without freedom of unpopular speech too

[natrlron]

13. Hate speech is not

the same as unpopular speech. Hate speech is a narrowly defined term; unpopular speech is very broad. And contrary to some of the postings here, hate speech is not defeated by the light of day. In this particular case, Phelps may be looked at by many as a kook, but the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Sarah Palins who practice this perversion of free speech have developed a fervent following and no amount of reason will dissuade them.

[Kurovski]

19. You have a right to sue when you are personally attacked, or suffer damage.

Just wait until a corporation wipes out your livelihood through negligence. See how quickly the Right wing corporate SCOTUS defends your right to sue against some poor little person who also happens to be a multi-national corporation.

This was about an individuals ability to sue for damage.

[CBGLuthier]

8. God Hates Republicans

Damn it's good to be an american sometimes. Leave my fucking first amendment alone and move to Canada if that's how you want to live.

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. I'll play!

Please list some "speech" that you would declare "illegal".

[DinahMoeHum]

10. Sorry, but feelings and emotions don't trump the Constitution

or the Bill of Rights.

Otherwise, we get to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and RWers get to repeal the 15th Amendment.

Etc.

:evilfrown:

[LoveIsNow]

11. If we stop them from their protesting

then we have given them the right to call themselves oppressed. All decent people are appalled by the WBC's harassment, but the ingenious part of absolute free speech is that when such odious sentiments are given the full light of day, they are soundly rejected by the public over time. This church is not winning any converts. If we as a nation carry out such oppression, we will have silenced that sulfuric message which keeps them outcast, and worse still, made them an underdog. If the bite of their message is muzzled and they don't seem so bad, people will forget, and may become sympathetic. It is always the dull razor that cuts you.

[Arkana]

12. "Hate speech" is a fluid term.

What happens when the court decides that calling some a stupid conservative is "hate speech"?

We can despise the Phelps clan and call them human garbage (they are) and say they'll burn in their Christian hell for what they've done (they will)--but as long as they're not physically hurting people they have the right to say what they want same as we do.

[Modern_Matthew]

16. +1!

[AsahinaKimi]

14. "so long as that speech does not directly incite violence

or otherwise endanger people."

It didn't work out so well for Dr. Tiller. O'Reilly is still shooting off his mouth.

[natrlron]

22. Precisely

When we're dealing with hate speech, we're dealing with something very different from the other types of speech. The consequences can be extreme, even if there is no direct incitement. Most of the postings are so worried that if one prohibits hate speech, that will open the door to their speech being prohibited. The slippery slope. That hasn't happened in Europe and there's no reason for it to happen here. If they had lived through the holocaust or grown up black in the old south, maybe people would feel differently on this issue. Or as you said, look at what happened to Dr. Tiller.

[Modern_Matthew]

15. You either have a right or you don't. No itemizing. Why is that so hard to accept? nt

[NYC Liberal]

17. No. I will never support such a horrendous infringement of

free speech, and I don't think I would want to live in a country that allowed it.

hate speech does not foster reasoned debate on issues of national import

The First Amendment does not only protect "reasoned debate" and nor should speech be limited to that.

They understand more clearly the evil that hate speech can bring about.

And that is absolutely insane and wrong. Criminalizing certain expressions does nothing to dispel the feelings that prompt that kind of speech. If people are not allowed to speak their feelings, then how are we ever to know exactly who the racists or the bigots or the nut jobs are? How can we have debate if one side is muzzled?

Absent a “clear and present danger,” the courts have generally held that even the most vile and hateful speech is protected.

"Clear and present danger" hasn't been the standard in a long time.

it is not against the law to encourage hatred against African-Americans, Jews, or any other group.

And that's how it should be: "encouraging hatred" SHOULD NOT be against the law. Inciting or promoting actual acts of violence or crime? Absolutely. Hatred is a feeling - a terrible one, but a feeling still - and to criminalize the encouraging of a feeling would be dangerously close to thoughtcrime laws.

why is discrimination prohibited but hate speech allowed? There is no rational answer.

There is a rational answer. The answer is that discrimination is an actual act against another person. Refusing to serve someone because they are black is an action against that person. Saying "Black people are inferior in every way" is not an act but the expression of an opinion - however vile that opinion may be.

It fosters at a minimum highly emotional positions that actually hinder reasoned debate, and at worst it fosters an atmosphere of fear that can lead to violence.

So what? Lots of things foster "highly emotional positions" - that is no reason to ban them. As for fostering "an atmosphere of fear that can lead to violence" -- inciting violence is already illegal. There is nothing wrong with preventing it. But there is a difference between that and expressions of one's hatred for certain people or groups. Expressions of racism or bigotry do not automatically or inherently lead to violence.

Thus the question becomes whether such speech has value … “redeeming social value” in the context of the obscenity cases … to America’s marketplace of ideas, to the furtherance of rational discourse.

Speech should not have to have "redeeming social value." Nor should it have to further rational discourse. Ought it? Yes, sure. But should it be required by law to do so? Absolutely not.

[NuclearDem]

21. "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."

"Because I'm the worst."

Hate speech is horrible, I agree. But speaking it shouldn't be a crime. Acting on it, yes. Crimes carried out against others carry much stiffer penalties if it's shown that the crime was driven by bigotry.