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: "I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech." [View all]Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)83. Again, a markedly different situation than making a statement, or a film, that angers other people.
Still as far as the specific statute goes, I'd be interested to see if it's been actually applied lately, and how.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
210 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
"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech." [View all]
cthulu2016
Sep 2012
OP
Having a post hidden is not curtailing anyone's free speech. This is a private website.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#11
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
You may well not support the OP's position, but that shouldn't be what the jury is about
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2012
#44
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
Except it wasn't targeted at the OP, but at the concept of unrestricted free speech.
Sirveri
Sep 2012
#124
so-called "hate speech" is PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment. Sorry, it is.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#10
And you should of course be able to distinguish between defending the right to say something
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#81
The actors could have a legal case, yes, but that's not the same thing as censoring the speech.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#95
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
Cyberstalking? In what way? if you're talking about intimidation, threats, harassment, slander or
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#132
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
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
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
"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
A Catholic priest, an Orthodox priest, a Protestant minister, a Reform rabbi, a Buddhist monk,
snooper2
Sep 2012
#174
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
Yeah, they did, read the law again, though for non-obscene langugage it must be "repeatedly":
moriah
Sep 2012
#73
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
America and its states also have laws against certain kinds of speech. ALL speech is not allowed.
Honeycombe8
Sep 2012
#14
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
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
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
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
under the U.S. Constitution - it is legal. Just as Nazis marching though Skokie is legal
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2012
#32
What do you refuse to grasp about US law? Seriously. WHY do you keep nattering on, trying to
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#188
Mockery is not illegal. The US Courts have spoken. Don't like it? TS, Eliot.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#187
You don't have to have any opinion on it; the COURTS have declared child porn illegal.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#186
Not a free speech issue- let's talk about the Saudi-supported radical clerics and groups
JCMach1
Sep 2012
#27
There are? What SPECIFIC law do you think was violated, and how would it be prosecuted?
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#96
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
So, if some group of reactionaries vow to riot unless women in our media are covered
TheKentuckian
Sep 2012
#59
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
"Offering graphic harm" is the legal definition of "assault." There are laws to cover this.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#191
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
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
Would people be so eager to defend a hate film against Jewish or gay people based on free speech?
limpyhobbler
Sep 2012
#39
Where do you live? Such hate films and books are common, and religious haters
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#66
We also do NOT attack the principle of free speech we counter Chick fil A with more
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#139
Do you understand the difference between the principle and the thing itself?
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#114
Usually, everything that comes after the "but" is what the person really means to say.
MNBrewer
Sep 2012
#71
this is dumb. There actually ARE limits to "free speech" this is flame bait. nt
progressivebydesign
Sep 2012
#98
Your noting is noted. Is there somekind of politically correct test that makes DUers
patrice
Sep 2012
#151
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
Right. I'm someone AGAINST corporate dollar funded "free speech". You're FOR it. Obvious, indeed.
Romulox
Sep 2012
#199
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