7
0

Hate Speech IS Free Speech


 invite response                
2014 May 28, 4:41am   19,485 views  60 comments

by resistance   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

The very essence of free speech is the freedom to say politically incorrect things.

Being free to say only things that are politically correct is no freedom at all.

The Wikipedia definition of hate speech is:

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Italics mine. There are two big problems with legally prohibiting all such hate speech:

First, when we come to the point where mere disparagement is forbidden, we will have already murdered free speech in the name of an Islamic-like orthodoxy.

Second, the idea that certain individuals or groups are "protected", this means those individuals or groups are given greater rights than the rest of us, and that everyone else is a second-class citizen.

In America, our new unofficial Koran is that the following characteristics in minorities confer legally superiority to the rest of us and may not even be disparaged except under threat of being fired, fined, or even jailed:

"race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation"

Though the First Amendment has not yet been official overturned, in reality, college campuses in particular routinely violate the first amendment via speech codes.

Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution.

from https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

Thank god for the ACLU. They have real integrity, and the balls to stand up for the rights of everyone and not just "protected" groups.

« First        Comments 40 - 60 of 60        Search these comments

40   Dan8267   2014 May 30, 6:34am  

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Dan8267 says

This is what restored Germany to an honorable state

Ask the Poles and Romanians and Greeks if they think so.

I'm a Pole and I think so. My brother is a Pole and he married a German. So, yes. The Germany of today is not anything like Nazi Germany. And the typical German today is not like the typical German during WWII.

I'm basically a mutt: Italian, Irish, English, Polish, Lithuanian. And I'm hung like a black man.

41   Dan8267   2014 May 30, 6:35am  

FortWayne says

I'll paraphrase... You are free to say anything as long as it doesn't make the owners of this country uncomfortable.

uncomfortable - interfering with profits or power.

42   FortWayne   2014 May 30, 7:19am  

Dan8267 says

elliemae says

Just like flag burning. It offends many, but it is the definition of freedom to say whatever the hell you want.

I assure you that I am at least as offended by the Bible as anyone else is offended by flag burning, and my reasons for being offended by the Bible are far more justified.

What I'm offended at is that our constitution states that we have rights, while our government simply ignores that portion when it's convenient for them. Now that's current, and offensive.

What offends me is that constitution gives us rights, while our own government instead of upholding those rights simply ignores them when it's convenient for them to subjugate us. That really irks me these days

43   Y   2014 May 30, 10:04am  

you're still typing...musta been cheap rope...

Dan8267 says

And I'm hung like a black man.

44   marcus   2014 May 31, 5:27am  

smaulgld says

The theater case could have been decided with a favorable outcome not by banning that type of speech but by holding the false crier liable for the damage he caused rather than banning speech.

This is stupid on so many levels, I wouldn't know where to start.

People get trample to death, and you're saying, "hey that's cool, as long as the family can sue the guy that caused it, that is if they can prove they caused it."

45   HydroCabron   2014 May 31, 5:35am  

The story about yelling "fire" has little basis.

I believe the justice who created the anecdote as part of an opinion was repeating something he read in the papers which was later refuted.

Like the NASA space pen story, it's only peripherally anchored in reality.

smaulgld says

The theater case could have been decided with a favorable outcome not by banning that type of speech but by holding the false crier liable for the damage he caused rather than banning speech.

I'm sympathetic to this sort of thinking, but this reasoning can also be used to legalize murder: just make the murderer liable for damages to the surviving relatives, and the civil courts will solve it.

46   smaulgld   2014 May 31, 5:40am  

marcus says

This is stupid on so many levels, I wouldn't know where to start.

People get trample to death, and you're saying, "hey that's cool, as long as the family can sue the guy that caused it, that is if they can prove they caused it."

It means that people will have to realize that speech has consequences-even for practical jokers.

A criminal intent on causing a panic will say whatever he wants- a law against saying it won't stop him

47   smaulgld   2014 May 31, 5:45am  

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I'm sympathetic to this sort of thinking, but this reasoning can also be used to legalize murder: just make the murderer liable for damages to the surviving relatives, and the civil courts will solve it.

that is a tricky one. Intuitively, that result would be a bad one.

The question that I have to think about more is does a free speech remedy have to be consistent with a murder remedy?

Initially, I think you can justify laws that appear to conflict in their philosophy because in the speech case you are trying to defend a right and balance it against a potential harm, whereas with murder there is no right to murder that you need to protect.

The government (from the point of few of the governed) has a far greater interest in protecting against murder than speech.

48   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 6:04am  

Iosef V HydroCabron says

The story about yelling "fire" has little basis.

It's not an anecdote; it is a metaphor. That's obviously why you don't understand the metaphor. You think it's referring to a real-life situation, when it is actually illustrating a principle.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I believe the justice who created the anecdote as part of an opinion was repeating something he read in the papers which was later refuted.

First of all, I don't believe that. But even if that were the case, it is irrelevant. He was not relying on the factuality of the anecdote, but rather was giving a hypothetical example of speech that would not be protected under the First Amendment. The hypothetical is valid. Whether such an event actually occurred does not matter.

49   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 6:14am  

smaulgld says

The theater case could have been decided with a favorable outcome not by banning that type of speech but by holding the false crier liable for the damage he caused rather than banning speech.

You too? It wasn't a "case"; it is a hypothetical.

Also, I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between "banning" and "holding the person liable". Those are the same thing, are they not? I mean, what you're saying is tantamount to saying, "Murder should not be banned; rather we should punish people for committing murder." A distinction without a difference. Once you institute any kind of penalty for an action, you are saying that action is illegal.

50   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 6:20am  

Maybe you guys are a little fixated on the one example. How about some other examples of non-protected speech:

"I'm hijacking this plane."

"This is a robbery. Everyone get down on the floor."

"I planted a bomb in the White House and it's going to go off at 5:00."

51   HydroCabron   2014 May 31, 6:22am  

Homeboy says

It's not an anecdote; it is a metaphor. That's obviously why you don't understand the metaphor. You think it's referring to a real-life situation, when it is actually illustrating a principle.

Yes, it's a metaphor, but I don't much care, because the metaphors and fictions become real in many minds, and give rise to the idea that such examples are not rare. For example, Scalia cited '24' in a torture opinion. We could say he did this because he is an idiot, but many, many people believe that if a situation can be acted out or described, it's real.

If we're going to ban murderous speech which can kill people, we should at least be aware of how rare or common such speech is.

"Dark side of the moon" has made many people believe there is a perpetually dark side of the moon; "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" leads to the conviction that we are ever at risk of homicidal pranksters who do this once or twice a month.

52   HydroCabron   2014 May 31, 6:23am  

Homeboy says

Maybe you guys are a little fixated on the one example. How about some other examples of non-protected speech:

"I'm hijacking this plane."

"This is a robbery. Everyone get down on the floor."

"I planted a bomb in the White House and it's going to go off at 5:00."

Uh, it was a metaphor, not an example.

53   smaulgld   2014 May 31, 6:30am  

Iosef V HydroCabron says

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" leads to the conviction that we are ever at risk of homicidal pranksters who do this once or twice a month.

Correct that is not the case- that is not a real and present threat that requires banning speech.

54   marcus   2014 May 31, 7:06am  

smaulgld says

Correct that is not the case- that is not a real and present threat that requires banning speech.

You remind me of forrest gump.

smaulgld says

A criminal intent on causing a panic will say whatever he wants- a law against saying it won't stop him

THe yelling fire in a crowded theater example isn't meant to be about that one specific example causing panic in that specific way.

It's meant as an example proving that there are exceptions to when free speech applies. And these exceptions are the cases when any reasonable person would deem a particular expression of speech to highly risk causing violence or injuries.

People are not free to do that. We don't have complete freedom to do whatever we fucking want.

IT's not that anyone is going to make laws about what people can and can not say. But if you tell a retarded kid to kill someone, and they do, you aren't going to be able to get out of trouble by invoking your first amendment rights. IF it's a fight, and you're a bystander and you yell, "pull out your knife and stab him!" you aren't going to be able to argue your freedom of speech rights.

55   smaulgld   2014 May 31, 7:25am  

marcus says

People are not free to do that. We don't have complete freedom to do whatever we fucking want.

No rights are absolute, the courts use a balancing test that considers the individual's right vs the government's need to protect a compelling government interest.

56   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 12:58pm  

marcus says

THe yelling fire in a crowded theater example isn't meant to be about that one specific example causing panic in that specific way.

Why do I feel like we're wasting our time here? It's as though Smaulgld and Iosef are incapable of abstract thought.

57   marcus   2014 May 31, 1:38pm  

Homeboy says

Why do I feel like we're wasting our time here? It's as though Smaulgld and Iosef are incapable of abstract thought.

Iosef's comments are often meant to be art, so you never know. As for Smaulgld, I don't know what his point is, and I don't think he does either.

58   Homeboy   2014 May 31, 4:04pm  

marcus says

Iosef's comments are often meant to be art, so you never know.

If that's the intent, it's not very well done.

59   Shaman   2014 May 31, 10:46pm  

elliemae says

I agree Patrick. People have the right to say hateful things, and I have the right to block them. But not to limit their ability to say things.

Just like flag burning. It offends many, but it is the definition of freedom to say whatever the hell you want.

A minor point: burning is the military's official means of old flag disposal. Flags that have served for a year are burned, not tossed in the trash. Which means that the burners who do it as a political statement are just about as ignorant as the people who get all offended by it.

« First        Comments 40 - 60 of 60        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions