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

[Ledan]

If you stand on a soapbox and say "We should kill all Arabs, cause they're the cause of AIDS", someone should stop you. It's first of all a lie, and you are inciting people to do violence.

That IS inciting people to violence, and you CAN potentially be arrested for that in America.

Honestly, the main problem in this thread is that half the people posting do not actually know how American free-speech laws work.

You can say "I hate black people. They're lazy and they're stealing all the white athletes' jobs" all you want. But if you go around saying "Hey! We should go kill Kobe Byrant" you have just attempted to incite violence and have committed a crime.

It's like all the people who freaked out about Obama. They can call him a nazi, socialist, communist secret-muslim all they want. But if someone actually says "Let's go kill that guy!" or "Someone should kill him!" then yes, that's illegal.

There IS a legal difference between racist and stupid comments... and direct threats or attempts to cause people harm through the use of your speech. You can say what you want, until your words begin to put other people in danger.

Don't know much about American law, thanks for the clear up.
Still, if hate speech is "Obama is Stalin in disguise", I still think it would be wrong for a politician to say something like "Black people are inferior to white people. Also, homosexuals are the cause of cancer". And hate speech is still verbal abuse, which is usually illegal.

We recently had Rick Santorum, a presidential candidate, say that AIDS came from "One homosexual airline steward having sex with a monkey and then bringing it back to the US". Right now, a bunch of senators and congressmen are ranting on about how "Obama is trying to destroy our religious liberty" because he wanted to require that all hospitals have free birth control available, even hospitals affiliated with religious groups.

A politician saying that homosexuals are the cause of cancer would be pretty mild these days.

As for verbal abuse... it depends. If you walk up to someone and go "You dirty sand-n****r. Your people attacked us and I hope a predator drone killed your uncle over there" then, yes, that IS verbal abuse and is very much illegal.

A group of protesters standing in an area they obtained a permit to protest in yelling on about how their interpretation of God hates gay people, and how we should be thankful for soldiers getting killed because it is punishment for supporting homosexuality, is legal. It is stupid, morally reprehensible and hateful... but they aren't actually harassing an individual. If they did that in the middle of the night, or without the proper permits, then yes, they could be removed.

The Westburough Baptists know that though. They aren't stupid, and they fully understand the laws relating to what they are doing. That is why they are so brazen. They know exactly how far they can push the letter of the law without stepping into illegal territory. They're playing the system to get media attention. Honestly, stuff like this is exactly what they want... a bunch of people wasting their time discussing something they did.

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....

 

[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.