The US should probably consider banning hate speech like the rest of the free world.

[Kinguendo]

This thread fucking depresses me. I'm from the UK and I didn't honestly think this many people thought banning hate speech stopped them being free. For fucks sake people.

WE have hate speech banned here, and can you really say you don't consider my country to be free? Because we bloody are. Are you saying you'd prefer to have people like the WBC run free and do things like this?

I think it's disgusting that this is allowed, and have always thought it needed to be sorted out.

EDIT: To further my rant, free speech refers to your ability to speak out against your government. The ability to do shit like this is NOT what makes your country fucking free. Can you tell me, truly, that you country benefits more from having hate speech, rather than the opposite?

We have, what I like to call, "Fair Speech".

We still have people flapping their gums saying terrible floods and the like are the cause of our positive view of homosexuality... they say those things and in return we say "Did you hear that dickhead?" "A right nobhead int he? Haha.". Case closed.

We can still say anything we want about the government, our comedians take the piss every day of the week and so do the people. We even have arseholes like the BNP forming a political party, which is bad and all but they still can try... then we use fairness to force them to accept people of the very groups they hate. Bloody classic!

 

[Waffle_Man]

So tell me, where are your communist parties?

F [http://www.cpusa.org/]o [http://www.freedomroad.org/]u [http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/]n [http://usmlo.org/]d [http://rwor.org/rcp-e.htm] them. [http://www.workersworld.net/]

That is not a Communist party. Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. Try again.

You make it sound as if I only posted one party...

 

[Matthew Dunn]

The Westburough Baptist Church are a bunch of pigs
Im surprised no one has try to have them disbanded... oh thats right free spee
Im glad that they are banned from entering the UK
Because if they tried here im sure they would not have come out in one piece
Im also surprised no one has attacked them.. unless ive missed something
Its time someone showed them the meaning of STFU and GTFO

 

[rcs619]

The protesters shouldn't have been given the permit then. They're speech is directed at the mourners, their claiming that the deceased deserved to die. Can't get more personal than that.

As for a politician claiming homosexuals causing cancer is mild, and the rest of it.... this is why many people call the U.S. hypocritical and dumb. No the individual people themselves, but their government and thinking that this is normal. Hope I haven't said anything offensive, don't mean to diss Americans, it just seems weird to me that you would use further examples of hate speech to say that hate speech is okay....

That would be a whole other legal issue there. According to the letter of the law, the WBC's protests aren't doing anything illegal. They stand on a street-corner, rant and rave for a couple hours, and go home. No one gets hurt, and they aren't inciting anyone to violence.

It's illegal to try and use your speech to hurt someone. It is perfectly legal to act like a complete dickhead so long as you have the permits to do so.

If a city denied them a permit, you can bet they'd be in court so fast your head would spin. They know the legal system. At one protest, one of the family members actually punched one of the WBC guys. The WBC took him to court, won, and forced him to pay THEM. Don't mistake their backwards views for stupidity. They're a wily bunch when it comes to these kinds of legal matters.

Oh, no. The US government is extremely corrupt and hypocritical. Most of our politicians have been bought out, or are religious zealots at this point. You didn't say anything offensive.

I would never say that hate speech is "okay". Believe me, I am no fan. The actions of people like the WBC, and some of our politicians embarrasses me and frustrates me to no end. All I was saying is that, according to the law, they haven't done anything wrong... and that, personally, I do not see how that sort of thing could be regulated if it were made illegal. If the US had a perfect government... maybe. But not in its current state. Right now the US government is a complete mess and fairly untrustworthy unless you're making more than $300,000 a year and/or are a fundamentalist christian.

 

[Wushu Panda]

Shit man, I'm not going to throw freedom out the window because some internet people don't like what this one group is doing. That would just be stupid.

And the free world you just mentioned doesn't sound that free if some clean handed pussies can go around prosecuting people for saying shit.

I was merely using this one case as an example. There are many, many, MANY other examples out there. Like the Neo-Nazi march through the Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois.

They have a right to gather just as anyone else. I probably detest them more than most people and do not agree with their existence, but they have a right to believe with whatever they want...thats what makes it a FREE COUNTRY.

You can debate and argue with someone over your different beliefs and thoughts, but at the end of the day if you cannot change their mind you have to accept they see things differently. Even if you do not agree or like what that is, they have that right and so do you.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire

 

[AntiChri5]

This is what confuses me about America. So zealously guarding everyone's right to be an unbelievable asshole, because stopping them would give the government too much power, when your government already has the ability to kill you if you break certain laws.

Why is the right to free speech more important then the right to life? Why can the government take one but not the other?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

As much as I despise the Westboro baptist church, free speech should be allowed every where.

This isn't a matter of free speech. Where in your local free speech law does it literally say you're allowed to grieve people for no reason, harass them and force their religion upon others?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

This IS a matter of free speech, as far as case law goes.

You're welcome

Also, it isn't a "local" free speech laws. There's something called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it.

OT: Read up here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

I can say "I hate X" and have it be legal. I cannot say "Let's go kill X" and have it be legal.

Biiiiiig difference.

Toodles

-Caleb

 

[Ledan]

The protesters shouldn't have been given the permit then. They're speech is directed at the mourners, their claiming that the deceased deserved to die. Can't get more personal than that.

As for a politician claiming homosexuals causing cancer is mild, and the rest of it.... this is why many people call the U.S. hypocritical and dumb. No the individual people themselves, but their government and thinking that this is normal. Hope I haven't said anything offensive, don't mean to diss Americans, it just seems weird to me that you would use further examples of hate speech to say that hate speech is okay....

That would be a whole other legal issue there. According to the letter of the law, the WBC's protests aren't doing anything illegal. They stand on a street-corner, rant and rave for a couple hours, and go home. No one gets hurt, and they aren't inciting anyone to violence.

It's illegal to try and use your speech to hurt someone. It is perfectly legal to act like a complete dickhead so long as you have the permits to do so.

If a city denied them a permit, you can bet they'd be in court so fast your head would spin. They know the legal system. At one protest, one of the family members actually punched one of the WBC guys. The WBC took him to court, won, and forced him to pay THEM. Don't mistake their backwards views for stupidity. They're a wily bunch when it comes to these kinds of legal matters.

Oh, no. The US government is extremely corrupt and hypocritical. Most of our politicians have been bought out, or are religious zealots at this point. You didn't say anything offensive.

I would never say that hate speech is "okay". Believe me, I am no fan. The actions of people like the WBC, and some of our politicians embarrasses me and frustrates me to no end. All I was saying is that, according to the law, they haven't done anything wrong... and that, personally, I do not see how that sort of thing could be regulated if it were made illegal. If the US had a perfect government... maybe. But not in its current state. Right now the US government is a complete mess and fairly untrustworthy unless you're making more than $300,000 a year and/or are a fundamentalist christian.

I would agree that the U.S. government is not trustworthy enough to censor "hate speech". And its riddled with problems. I think the problems with the U.S stem from it being old new instead of new old.... Its using an outdated system that was very modern for its time, whereas most of Europe is using a modern system because our old system was old for its time. In a hundred or so years our roles may yet again be reversed, America new and reliable, Europe old and unreliable.
I think we're on the same page here. Would you agree, that in general it is a good theory to ban hate speech?
Also: sympathy for your government. We all have to wait until the older generation either gives up power or dies out, then we can hopefully get some more sensible people in government.

 

[The Ambrosian]

This thread fucking depresses me. I'm from the UK and I didn't honestly think this many people thought banning hate speech stopped them being free. For fucks sake people.

WE have hate speech banned here, and can you really say you don't consider my country to be free? Because we bloody are. Are you saying you'd prefer to have people like the WBC run free and do things like this?

I think it's disgusting that this is allowed, and have always thought it needed to be sorted out.

EDIT: To further my rant, free speech refers to your ability to speak out against your government. The ability to do shit like this is NOT what makes your country fucking free. Can you tell me, truly, that you country benefits more from having hate speech, rather than the opposite?

We have, what I like to call, "Fair Speech".

We still have people flapping their gums saying terrible floods and the like are the cause of our positive view of homosexuality... they say those things and in return we say "Did you hear that dickhead?" "A right nobhead int he? Haha.". Case closed.

We can still say anything we want about the government, our comedians take the piss every day of the week and so do the people. We even have arseholes like the BNP forming a political party, which is bad and all but they still can try... then we use fairness to force them to accept people of the very groups they hate. Bloody classic!

Aye. I don't see how our system is not better. A system where the fucking WBC protesting at a funeral like this would cause them to get, y'know, arrested.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

Hate speech is one of those words that can get blown out of proportion. Was this Westboro case a bad thing? Oh, yes, unambiguously (to me). But you could get all kinds of accusations out of a legal system where such an ambiguous term is used. Is it hate speech if you bash the majority? Where does criticism end and hate begin?

I don't think Westboro (or anyone else) should have been able to picket a funeral. That's disrespectful in a serious way. A funeral is not any kind of influential event. Picketing the Capitol or something, now that's one thing. Picketing someone's personal mourning? Entirely different. Quite frankly, the dead person could be an absolutely horrible person and I still wouldn't encourage protesting at the funeral. Be respectful of other people, even if you don't respect the dead person in question.

The problem is, freedom of assembly is important also. Restricting where they can picket feels like restricting what they can say, but in the end, it seems less of an abusable thing than does limiting free speech. It seems like such personal events as funerals should have some amount of legal protection from these kinds of things.

 

[direkiller]

Land of the free. So tell me, where are your communist parties?
.

http://www.cpusa.org/
http://sp-usa.org/
and if you believe the GOP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

CPUSA did have a member in the house of Representative.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's astounding how many people get offended by petty, meaningless shit like this. Seriously, censorship is the best way to deal with a non-issue?

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find it a 'minor issue' if they were fucking with you at a funeral of someone in your family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

This IS a matter of free speech, as far as case law goes.

Which is obviously in error, because Phelps had no interests in the case and Snyder had heavily-weighing interests. There wasn't even an expression of opinion involved, as Phelp's objective wasn't to debate something or even show a one-sided opinion, but the sole intent was to cause grief. The whole freedom of speech doesn't enter the case.
Then again, that's what you get for appointing antique conservatives for life.
Besides, note that was a liability claim. The only possible relation of the case can be towards the grounds of causing grief. Four other separate grounds as to why such funeral picketing is illegal remain.

"Antique conservatives"?

You are aware that the SOLE dissenter was Alito, correct? A conservative.

All the liberal justices voted in the majority.

Also, here [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf] is the whole opinion.

Regards

-Caleb

 

[j0frenzy]

This is what confuses me about America. So zealously guarding everyone's right to be an unbelievable asshole, because stopping them would give the government too much power, when your government already has the ability to kill you if you break certain laws.

Why is the right to free speech more important then the right to life? Why can the government take one but not the other?

Assuming that one does support one and not the other (I personally rather dislike the death penalty for a long list of reasons, but that is not the point of the thread) one is a right written into our constitution ("Congress shall make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech"). The other is a right that was never understood to be in the minds of the framers and was never expected to be protected in our Constitution.

 

[Treblaine]

I like the oxymoron in your title.

Quoted for truth.

Westbro are easier to tolerate than the secret police and government making decisions on what is and is not hateful. If it doesn't directly incite violence or other direct harm the police should not be encroaching of freedom of speech.

Now if their protest gets too loud, too close or otherwise breaches the peace, that's another thing but it would be a terrible precedent to allow these scumbag religious trolls to sacrifice freedoms.

Westbo's protesting only affects people who have nagging doubts that there IS a god and that he IS a fucking psycopath who would make these sorts of things happen. But I don't believe than and no one else should either. It's like they are saying the Stay Pufft Marshmallow man did this, it's utter babble. As long as they are quiet and peaceful then they can protest.

 

[peruvianskys]

Westbro are easier to tolerate than the secret police and government making decisions on what is and is not hateful. If it doesn't directly incite violence or other direct harm the police should not be encroaching of freedom of speech.

I agree with this. I'd much rather have 0.001% of the population spew their racist/homophobic bullshit than have the other 99.998% live in fear of the government declaring their reasonable opinions illegal. America's dedication to free speech is incredible and although I am not a jingoist at all, I love that facet of our culture. Inciting violence and crime or blatantly harassing people is definitely illegal anyway; we don't need to do anything more.


The practice of making a simple opinion, no matter how odious it is, illegal terrifies me. I don't care so much for the rights of the bigots and assholes but far more for the rights of people with controversial opinions that do need to be heard. As an atheist, for example, I hate Islam. I think it's a terrible, backwards religion. So many anti-Islamic speakers and writers in the European continent have been charged with hate speech or barred from entering countries because they have the bravery to voice an opinion that is out of style with the current national philosophy of a country that has decided making people never have to think is more important than getting to the truth.

Would it have been hate speech to support Nat Turner in the 1800's? Would it have been hate speech to say that Nazis were disgusting shitpiles in 1938? I'm sure the governments in power during either time would have said so. I'd much rather have to endure a march or two from some backwards inbred hick than be afraid that every unpopular opinion in the world could be made illegal on a government's whim.

 

[astrav1]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10364954-anti-gay-westboro-baptist-church-to-protest-at-slain-powell-boys-funeral

If you're too lazy to read the article, there was an incident recently where a man killed himself and his two sons after losing custody of them. (This same man was under investigation for the disappearance of his wife two years ago). The Westboro Baptist Church is going to be holding an anti-gay protest at their funeral, because they claim that the boy's deaths were an act of vengeance from God because of Washington's recent support of homosexual rights.

And it's completely legal. Go America.

Well we have a little something here called the first amendment. In fact, we have an entire Constitution. You should look at it sometime, jolly good read.

 

[AntiChri5]

This is what confuses me about America. So zealously guarding everyone's right to be an unbelievable asshole, because stopping them would give the government too much power, when your government already has the ability to kill you if you break certain laws.

Why is the right to free speech more important then the right to life? Why can the government take one but not the other?

Assuming that one does support one and not the other (I personally rather dislike the death penalty for a long list of reasons, but that is not the point of the thread) one is a right written into our constitution ("Congress shall make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech"). The other is a right that was never understood to be in the minds of the framers and was never expected to be protected in our Constitution.

......and? Sorry, i always tend to dismiss arguments based on reverence of certain texts. Whether it is a holy scripture or a constitition. It just seems silly, since the world changes so quickly and such things get outdated.

But, to be fair, you have amendments so you are allowed to update the thing.

So, if there had been something in the constitution about how life was sacred and no government had a right to take it away, you think Americans would be as opposed to the death penalty as they are limiting freedom of speech? I like to think people are more independant then that, that they aren't so completely shaped by their forefathers decisions.

Bah, ignore my rambling. Now, to drunkenly stumble back into the direction of the topic......

The space where someones right to freedom of speech ends and someone elses right to be free of persecution begins is very grey. Humans are too variable for any definitive line to be drawn. At one side of the spectrum, you have poncy wankers who get offended at everything and anything. On the other, you have these Westboro fuckwads who make it their lifes mission to be as offensive as possible.

We must be able to find a way to shut the dickheads up without giving the poncy wankers the ability to cry at every imagined slight.

Perhaps America can institute a system in which people vote to revoke the freedom of speech of those who have proven themselves incapable of living with the responsobility of such a freedom. If 95% of voters say yes, the group in question are legally declared "Gibbering fuckwads" and are told to shut the fuck up in public.

 

[AntiChri5]

Yeah, how dare someone hold a different viewpoint and question a culture.

 

[LilithSlave]

I think that something in the world should be in place to help people at least have the option to avoid hearing speech that offends them when other people are doing their best to shove speech that offends them in their face all the time. Like the Westboro Church making it a point to offend American war dead. Free speech is good and all, but I also think people have the right to avoiding hearing certain crazy things on a constant basis if they so choose.

That being said, I'm pretty "faggy", as in, I'm a bisexual that practically worships androgyny, I can't tell which I like more, even, androgynous men, or androgynous women. And I think these folks are a glorious gift to LGBT folks, because they managed to draw into public eye how ridiculous homophobic people are. So much so that they might even convince other homophobic people that homophobia is bad.

 

[AntiChri5]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10364954-anti-gay-westboro-baptist-church-to-protest-at-slain-powell-boys-funeral

If you're too lazy to read the article, there was an incident recently where a man killed himself and his two sons after losing custody of them. (This same man was under investigation for the disappearance of his wife two years ago). The Westboro Baptist Church is going to be holding an anti-gay protest at their funeral, because they claim that the boy's deaths were an act of vengeance from God because of Washington's recent support of homosexual rights.

And it's completely legal. Go America.

I don't agree with the Westboro Baptist Church. But I would rather die defending their freedoms than see a tyrant take them away.

To be honest, in the history of America, the Westboro Baptist Church is COMPLETELY mild compared to many of the things that have gone on in America's history (during the election of 1856, the Democratic Party staged a protest with hundred of white girls ages 5-8 wearing signs that said, "Please daddy, protect me from marrying niggers." - just as an example).

And yet it's still a cherished right.

The question is: When does it stop? It paves a clear path for tyranny. The government says, "You can't say bad things about homosexuals." Then it says, "You can't say bad things about our politicians." then it says, "You can't say bad things about America." etc. I don't have so much faith in government (indeed, I don't have faith in humanity) that such a course of events would NOT happen.

Look at the history of the modern world and you'll see a clear picture of the LIKELIHOOD that such tyranny could arise.

So no. I may disagree with what you say, sir, but I will die for your right to say it.

I see no such "LIKELIHOOD". As a matter of fact, i see the exact opposite. Australia has no law or constitution guaranteeing a right to free speech (we may sort of have an implied right to it, apparantly) yet i do not see thought police marching down the street. No one hesitates to criticise the government even on government funded tv channels. From what i hear of the anti-hate speech laws of the UK, they have found a way to make hate speech illegal while resisting the temptation to make anti-government speech illegal.

Is there something special about American politicions that i don't know about? Are they all Sith? I am pretty sure they can't be that much more evil then politicians elsewhere.