General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If we're not supposed to condemn the jerks that made the anti-islam movie [View all]nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)What is prohibited is incitement to a riot.
it is even in US Code. In this case that would be a tad tricky since the crimes did technically occur on US Territory per CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW and the people making the film were not physically there (or they'd be dead). So that is to a point, moot.
What is also prohibited is slander. I cannot go and destroy your reputation or call you all kinds of names, unless, critical qualifier here, you make your living in the public eye.
The third, very well known, is to scream fire in a crowded theater, which translates to speech that could lead to bodily harm.
Those three are part of speech, are they not?
What is stunning is that people believe all these rights are absolute, whether it is the first or the second, I will use my Poli Sci instructors crass explanation of the limits. My rights end up at the point yours begin. Yes, crass, more like the Golden Rule, but a nice way to avoid getting into your rights, isn't it?
No, rights are not absolute, they never have been, US Code has those limits nicely codified into law. Go look up slander cases, they abound. And hate speech, by the by, many a times does come hand in hand with INCITEMENT TO A RIOT. That is a line that even neo nazis know not to cross these days.