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

[SongsOfDragons]

I am actually glad that here in the UK one cannot claim freedom of speech. The exceptions to the common law and European Convention on freedom of expression mean that we don't have to tolerate some of these examples, nor our teachers the whining in the classroom. Incitement to Religious and Racial Hatred also help muchly - though I will admit that it seems to be political correctness that stops our top brass from acting as they should most of the time!

Does the US have common law? As far as I know - I'm not a law or history study - common law is something that's developed over centuries to fit the attitudes of the country and is flexible to suit situations. The amendments seem...unable to match the attitude or the flexibility. Freedom of speech is all well and good but it seems much too broad, and I've only ever heard of it being cited in situations where a fair argument would have sufficed over here, where some...individuals...use it to breach the peace (a crime here) or in schools.

 

[SongsOfDragons]

XD Scandinavia is expensive!! My parents lived in Norway for 8 months before I was conceived and my friend visited Finland recently, and both made their bank accounts cry! But I agree, I do love their savvyness whe it comes to some of their laws.

 

[370999]

I hate the concept of hate speech. It shouldn't matter what emotions motivates my words. the same I hate the concept of hate crimes, thingsd are crimes because they are against the laws not because I really hate X group. So I have no problem against for instance havinglaws agaisnt incitment to violence i.e if a neo nazi group was talking in public about how we should all kill jews and then discusssed the best ways to do so, that would be a crime. But for them to somply say something along the lines that they hate Jews that that is perfectly fine.

to me, a right is something you are free from the government to do, not soemthing to government choses to give as a present to you. That mentality is very dangerous in my mind as it makes the whole idea of free speech become something that you can only do as along as it is in the narrow confines of a set opinion.

 

[Vivi22]

Freedom of expression should end when another persons suffering begins.

Bull-fucking-shit. This is the most ridiculous argument I could possibly imagine because it could be used to ban anything from hate speech to homosexuals kissing in public.

If someone's words bother you so much then speak out against them. Make YOUR voice heard. But you don't get to censor someone because your feelings are hurt.

When your physical safety is at risk, or they are threatening you with a crime then it's something entirely different, but if someone's saying gays are evil then guess what; you can either speak out or shut your mouth and move on. In either case, you either you have to suck it up and deal, not infringe on the rights of others because you disagree.

 

[zxvcasdfqwerzxcv]

Like all rights, the right to free speech has limitations. In particular, when it infringes on the rights of others.

It seems that the American attitude is that all rights are absolute and unlimited. What is forgotten is that with rights come responsibilities i.e. not to abuse rights to hurt others.

For example in Ireland I have the right to a good name. Therefore no one can write in a newspaper baseless assertions about me that could damage my reputation, regardless of their right to free speech. They can write any assertions about me that are proven or provable. One right has limitations imposed on it by other rights! One right is not more powerful than another - they coalesce together (or at least they should!)

The Westboro Baptist Church not only mocks the dead, they mock the very freedoms upon which the United States was founded. They are abhorrent and disgusting and truly a representation of something that has gone awfully wrong in the USA. If I were an American I would not be jumping to defend their right to free speech - I would be jumping to defend all those Americans and their rights, who the Westboro Baptist Church mocks and abuses.

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

Absolute freedom only equals absolute chaos.

 

[ph0b0s123]

I am actually glad that here in the UK one cannot claim freedom of speech. The exceptions to the common law and European Convention on freedom of expression mean that we don't have to tolerate some of these examples, nor our teachers the whining in the classroom. Incitement to Religious and Racial Hatred also help muchly - though I will admit that it seems to be political correctness that stops our top brass from acting as they should most of the time!

Does the US have common law? As far as I know - I'm not a law or history study - common law is something that's developed over centuries to fit the attitudes of the country and is flexible to suit situations. The amendments seem...unable to match the attitude or the flexibility. Freedom of speech is all well and good but it seems much too broad, and I've only ever heard of it being cited in situations where a fair argument would have sufficed over here, where some...individuals...use it to breach the peace (a crime here) or in schools.

Actually I disagree. The restrictions the UK has put around speech makes the country less free. The only speech that I have any support in criminalizing is incitement to violence where violence has taken place that can be directly liked to that speech. But even that is a hard sell to me as it sounds to vague. Free speech is free speech and if you have limits on it, then it is no longer free speech. The UK does not have free speech full stop.

Now UK politenesses are want to put in place Internet block for websites that might have extremist views. What constitutes an 'extremist view' is of course vague. Some would argue the Daily Mail (UK version of Fox News in paper form) aught to be first on the block. Enough already, this is not freedom.

O/T The supreme court already ruled on these guy's that their antics are supported by the constitution. Free speech is a double edged sword. And as a double edged sword any restriction you make to it will have as many bad results as well as good (stopping those muppets). Still don't know why people don't go and picket their church, fight fire with fire so to speak.

 

[TheGroovyMule]

Free speech is a two way street, can't ban people from saying something just because you personally don't agree.

Now I'm not saying I agree with these nutjobs, but banning particular speech is a slippery slope. Besides, what's socially acceptable to say changes from generation to generation. I'm personally of the camp that people should be free to say what they want, so long as it's not encouraging, inciting, or threatening violence against someone else.

If it's socially unacceptable (Such as this incident), they'll be shunned and boo'd by people exercising -their- right to free speech, which will act as a deterrent on it's own, without needing to place undue restrictions on what one can say. People do not have the right to demand silence just because they don't agree, which is just plain toxic to legitimate public discourse.

 

[Wintermoot]

I agree it might contradict free speech but some people can't handle that freedom.
in Holland you can get a prison sentence if you hold a hate speech.

 

[Aurgelmir]

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 think that you in Norway would be arrested by the police for disturbing the general public peace... and probably other things.

I do think the Westboro Lunatic Family should have the right to protest whatever the hell they want, but not wherever they want.

What and Where are two important factors of free speech imo.

 

[LordFisheh]

Better, I think, if hate speech were allowed. Someone saying hateful things doesn't directly restrict anyone else's freedom, but banning it does. Hate speech should be dealt with socially - we're largely an educated society which believes in equality and decency. So racists should be social outcasts and pariahs. You're free to make your Nazi speech if you want, but first understand that nobody will talk to you, that your friends and family will abandon you, that no one will employ you or rent you a house. That is how justice should be served against such people, not by gagging them and letting them fester. Free means free to be an asshole as well. But in turn, society is free to speak against them, by making them pariahs.

 

[Vivi22]

homosexuals kissing in public =/= standing outside your sons funeral claiming he died because 'merikas goin gay son'.

They protest on public property which is entirely their right. Just as it is the right of anyone who wants to to go and counter protest them (which has happened before I believe). Regardless, whatever they may say about another person, or what they preach about, the government shouldn't have the right to decide if such speech is appropriate or not.

There's a thing called common sense, I know judicial systems and the people in charge of them tend to completely lack it, but that's no reason to abandon it.

Common sense does not dictate that we allow government to forcibly silence those we don't agree with. Common sense would say we exercise our rights to speak out against what they are saying as any reasonable and rational person would do.

Our right not to have religious doctrine shoved down our throats supersedes someone else's right to preach about it.

If someone wants to preach their religion in a public place they are well within their rights. Just as you would be well within your right to ignore them or walk away. They aren't shoving anything down your throat unless they force you to listen by restricting your ability to leave, or if they barge in through the front door of your home. And there are already laws to deal with both.

End of fucking discussion, hate speech is banned in countries far more free and infinitely more sensible than America. Hello Sweden.

Some countries banning it but otherwise being pretty nice places to live isn't an argument for it. There are plenty of countries that ban various types of speech which are absolutely terrible places to live as well. Try harder next time.

Stop using outdated 'slippery slope' arguments.

Such arguments are hardly outdated when we're referring to a country who's government has made some previously unthinkable strides towards infringing on the rights and freedoms of it's citizens even within the last ten years or so, not to mention actually has tried to limit free speech with varying degrees of success in the past.

Americans absolutely should be worried about the idea of setting a precedent for allowing their government to limit free speech, because it's not just possible they'd abuse it, these days it's pretty damn likely.

 

[As Seen On 360]

Freedom of speech is a double edged sword really. You can reveal your knowledge of a topic and rationally expand on your side of the argument, or you can show how utterly moronic and disreputable you are by making radical statements and backing them up with absolutely nothing.

Free speech allows us to more easily identify the morons, not only do their words have little effect (except perhaps emotional) on the rest of us, but we can quickly discern who is and is not competent.

Think of it as Natural Selection for daily social interactions, we need them to slip up and kill their own argument so that the mentally healthy individuals can thrive. Limiting their abilities to screw up only makes them a victim, and a victim is more easily sympathized with than an outright hate monger.

 

[rcs619]

I despise the Westburough Baptist Church and the crap they spout. They are a disgrace to not only Christians, but to good, decent humans in general.

However, they do have the right to say what they want, so long as they are not physically harming someone or putting them in danger. That's how free speech works, everyone has it regardless of how stupid their speech is.

I do think there needs to be some limits on how much they can harass people though, because let's face it, that is why they are there. They want to harass people, they want media attention, their wet-dream is for people to lash out against them so they can feel persecuted and righteous. I fully support legal limits to how close they can get to funerals (I know some states have this already). They should not be allowed within ear-shot. Let them protest a block or two away where no one cares. If they forced the Occupy movement to protest away from Wall Street itself, then they can shove the Westburough Baptists down the road a ways to practice their free speech.

As sad as it is, free speech is one of the only rights the average American has left. Our government can spy in on our phone calls and emails without warrants. Our police can violently disperse protesters and face no repercussions so long as the people being protested are the government or rich people (and even arrest people for recording videos of them doing it). Hell, the US military has the right to indefinitely detain US citizens without due process of law, and even execute US citizens abroad without presenting any evidence other than saying "They were badguys/working with the bad guys".

Let's try to milk free speech for as long as we can before that inevitably becomes illegal too.

 

[SongsOfDragons]

Actually I disagree. The restrictions the UK has put around speech makes the country less free. The only speech that I have any support in criminalizing is incitement to violence where violence has taken place that can be directly liked to that speech. But even that is a hard sell to me as it sounds to vague. Free speech is free speech and if you have limits on it, then it is no longer free speech. The UK does not have free speech full stop.

Now UK politenesses are want to put in place Internet block for websites that might have extremist views. What constitutes an 'extremist view' is of course vague. Some would argue the Daily Mail (UK version of Fox News in paper form) aught to be first on the block. Enough already, this is not freedom.

This is very true. And I do agree with you - It is less free, by definition. But I have never come across any restriction on myself or others I know (mostly because we're all nice cowards XD). I read a blog called Nanny Knows Best which airs the stupidity of local government; it has been running without censor for years. I like to think that - in principle, yes I can be a right muppet of an idealist sometimes - 'they' can stop actual violence or hatred, instead of having their hands tied.

I don't know how much the Interweb censorship is going to fly over here, either. You ever seen the commentors on the BBC News website? The bile makes my screen melt. The Daily Mail could be a lot worse than it is. Us Brits want a friendly internet too.

 

[nccish]

Banning hate speech? No! Banning expression of contempt based on race, skin colour, nationality or ethnic origin, religious belief or sexual orientation? Yes!

 

[zumbledum]

Freedom of speech doesnt have to mean freedom to do anything. afaik the law here in England says you have freedom of speech but are not allowed to incite hate or violence. your allowed to have and speak racist sexist anti gay or whatever you want your not just not allowed to call for attacks on those groups.

I think if you could go back in time to the drawing up of the American constitution and ask them what sort of things this whole freedom of speech is meant to protect and allow they might be pretty horrified at how its now being used as an excuse to attempt to remove all the rights from some people.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Yes freedom of speech should not be absolute. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

 

[pirateninj4]

If they come to anything involving me and mine? I'm gonna exercise my right to punch foo's in the face. And then when I get pulled up by their lawyer ***** daughters, I'm gonna punch them in the face too. And that crotchety old man who runs the show, and the little kids parading outside.

Fuck those guys. I hope they get burnt to death in their own homes.

 

[cobra_ky]

I would rather see the WBC at the funeral of everyone i ever loved than live in a country where i could be jailed simply for expressing a point of view.