Limiting Hate Speech In America Is A Valid Debate [View all]

[Jessy169]

Despite frequently stated viewpoints to the contrary, there is and has been an ongoing discussion between academics, attorneys and concerned citizens about the clear and present danger that hate speech eminating from America poses to not only its own citizenry, but to the world at large.

All of us are impacted negatively by hate speech, and it is important to understand the consequences, especially when the "blessing" that was supposed to be the internet has in many ways proven to be a two edged sword -- on the one hand an awesome technological foundation for unlimited communication, entertainment and knowledge -- but on the other hand a powerful first weapon of choice weilded by those who are motivated to incite hatred.

The internet and growth of other mass communication technologies has been a recent development in America's long history of hate speech. In regards to hate speech, the result has been to provide a high tech megaphone to every lunatic in America, of which we have plenty. And now, through the internet and other communication technologies, the purveyors of hate are banding together under the common purpose of spreading their message. They are fund raising, recruiting, growing. Hate speech has become a for-profit business endeavor, with thousands of practitioners and many more thousands of devoted followers. Rob Stein, a Democrat insider, analysed the conservative echo chamber in 2004 and estimated that they received more than US$300 million annually.

The proponents of hate speech ARE organizing. Hate speech is no longer just the crazy guy on the street corner spewing his hatred to passers-by like it was thirty years ago, not even close. The internet has lauched hate speech into the stratosphere. Hate speech, eminating from America, has gone global.

The purpose of this post is primarily to provide a sampling of the many articles, essays and other documents available for those who might be interested in learning more about the ongoing debate. Many of the articles are well documented, with references to a wide range of authoritative sources.

But first, I'd like to make this point. When it comes to fervid first amendment absolutists who oppose any restrictions on free speech (except for the restrictions that we already have and accept), there are two basic categories.

The first category includes those strongly idealistic individuals who support civil rights and just causes, and feel that any infringement on free speech will put us on a "slippery slope" as regards our free speech rights, the idea being that if we give up the right to hate speech, then inevitably there will be more erosions of free speech rights to follow.

The second category, and by far the largest and most vocal, includes those individuals who support hate speech because they, or the groups that they support or are involved in, are the primary ones benefiting from the right to spread the messages of hate, either financially or for other reasons. It goes without saying that some individuals in this category pretend to defend against hate speech limits for the same reason as those in the first category, but their real reasons are not nearly as idealistic.

To those in the first category, I say that we should not fear taking a great leap forward for mankind just because there is a possibility that we might trip and fall. And to those in the second category, I say that hate is NOT an American value --your efforts to invoke fear and incite violence are being scrutinized -- you will not succeed in disrupting or stiffling debate on this very important topic.

SOME LINKS

While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film (Innocence of Muslims), arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. "Based on my understanding of the events," 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, "I think this meets the imminence standard."

Finally, much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits, says Lewis. "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/18/opinion/la-oe-chayes-innocence-of-muslims-first-amendment-20120918

For many years, freedom of expression was seen as the handmaiden of tolerance, freeing minority voices from majority control. But in recent years, this liberal consensus has fractured. Many have come to regard the absolutist position on free expression not as a bulwark of, but as an impediment to, a just and tolerant society.

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=Intellectual_Freedom_Issues&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2424

The right to freedom of expression is an internationally recognized human right. However, freedom of expression is not absolute. Both national constitutions and international conventions allow restrictions on speech to safeguard other societal values. Among human rights lawyers and scholars there is a heated debate as to whether hate speech deserves free speech protection. Both sides offer powerful arguments.

http://www.enotes.com/hate-speech-reference/hate-speech

Violent acts of hate are generally preceded by hate speech that is expressed publicly and repeatedly for years, including by public figures, journalists, leading activists, and even the state. Some examples include Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist acts in Norway (June 2011), the assassination of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller (May 2009) and other abortion providers in the 1990’s, the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis (1994), the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995), and the Nazi Holocaust.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2011/09/21/limits-free-speech-5

"It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/americas/11iht-hate.4.13645369.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Free speech jurisprudence is not a seamless web. There are fissures, inconsistencies, and aberrations. Despite the crystalline text of the First Amendment, Congress does make laws that abridge the freedom of speech. Whether those laws withstand constitutional challenge is, as always, up to the chair umpire, i.e., the Supreme Court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/stolen-valor-act_b_1279502.html

For the last thirty years, conservative activists in particular have been quick to grasp the potential of apocalyptic rhetoric, forever reminding their listeners of the terrible threats posed by “militant gays,” “liberal educators,” “baby killers,” and “godless politicians.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/15/american-political-hate-dominic-sandbrook-on-its-roots.html

Hate speech is shifting our culture, creating a social licence to commit political violence against people who belong to designated groups: Jews, greenies, Muslims, progressives of any stripe. It is part of the deliberate political programme of the extreme right in the USA, and is funded by various ‘philanthropists’, most notably the Koch brothers, who own America’s biggest private corporation, Koch Industries (a major polluter).

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2693120.html

The most stunning growth among all groups came among the rightwing anti-government "Patriot" groups, which the report classifies as those groups which perceive the "federal government as their primary enemy." The "Patriot" groups grew from 149 groups in 2008, skyrocketed to 512 in 2009, jumped to 824 in 2010, and last year continued to surge to 1,274. That's a 755% growth spurt in just three years.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/08

The question is, do the benefits of hate speech laws override the disadvantages. Given the fact that hate speech is operational in creating a network of anti-government underground groups, radical armed groups, killings, a repressed society, fearful, unifying and linking haters and anti-government extremists across the country, we are just one national even away from serious problems, hate speech has facilitiated the rise of the right wing we now see operating, their irrational lies and misinterpretations just an extension of their hatred. Calls for assassination are only prevented by an overloaded law enforcement, how long until they are no longer able to hold back the tide.

And many, many more...