The US should probably consider banning hate speech like the rest of the free world.
- Thread starter Kopikatsu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People should be able to say what they want (and this is an opinion that has gradually formed), although in cases such as that I would suggest that where they say it (and I believe they have to hold their tard-fest a certain distance away from the funeral) be restricted.
There is an inherent problem of ideology vs. practicality, and simply saying "hate speech should be banned" is practically useless.
There is an inherent problem of ideology vs. practicality, and simply saying "hate speech should be banned" is practically useless.
Such as?Darknacht said:
To put it in internet terms:
1. You ban something.
2. It gets extended a little bit because there are things the language doesn't directly cover.
3. It gets expanded a little more because there are things it definitely should cover, but aren't technically "hate speech".
4. ????
5. Absolute censorship.
To put it in words:
Free speech has to remain entirely free or its not free speech at all. Once we start drawing broad, arbitrary lines around things you can't say, we lose the entire concept of free speech.
1. You ban something.
2. It gets extended a little bit because there are things the language doesn't directly cover.
3. It gets expanded a little more because there are things it definitely should cover, but aren't technically "hate speech".
4. ????
5. Absolute censorship.
To put it in words:
Free speech has to remain entirely free or its not free speech at all. Once we start drawing broad, arbitrary lines around things you can't say, we lose the entire concept of free speech.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with being responsible for what comes out of your mouth. They are two different concepts.tobyornottoby said:
This isn't a case of censoring speech because of some subjective judgement of the value of the thought being expressed, but rather holding people responsible for their speech based on the danger it poses to public safety.tobyornottoby said:
Hate speech would not fall under the latter description unless it begins to tread into the realm of actually inciting violence and calling on people to commit acts of violence or something similar.
US law is based on English common law. The constitution is mostly a generalized framework for how the government it structured and functions with restrictions on what the government is allowed to do. Much of the wording and content of the constitution was actually written with the assumption that one would understand it so long as one understood english common law (most of the authors had been english lawyers).SongsOfDragons said:
In the US you can be charged with all manner of crimes, or sued, regarding speech. The law is required to have a reasonable basis for restricting speech and must show that there is no better way to remedy the issue than to create the restriction. When the WBC was taken to court and the Supreme Court decided in their favour it was for no other reason than that the plaintiffs could not show damages. They actually had no idea that the WBC was protesting outside the funeral and only saw a story about it on the news when they got home.
As much as I despise the Westboro baptist church, free speech should be allowed every where.
If I were to install regulations at all there would be no protesting of funerals. Insulting the dead is about as bad as picking on someone because they have special needs
If I were to install regulations at all there would be no protesting of funerals. Insulting the dead is about as bad as picking on someone because they have special needs
It's illegal to harass somebody with hate speech, i.e. you should have the freedom to walk to work in the morning without somebody yelling at you because of your skin colour, you cannot defend that with free speech, because it is very upsetting for the victim, and it is pretty much abuse, I'd rather have scumbags that harass minorities be punished than let this go unchanged, but sure, let people say all the ridiculous things they want, as long as they're not personally attacking somebody and making their life a misery.
Also a lot of people here seem to have a very emotional attachment to the word 'freedom', as in, they would give their life for it. You're just being silly, the world doesn't work like that.
Also a lot of people here seem to have a very emotional attachment to the word 'freedom', as in, they would give their life for it. You're just being silly, the world doesn't work like that.
Except that the US too has them, in the form of anti-slander laws.Pimppeter2 said:
It also seems to work pretty well over here, a public speaker here is not allowed to rally people to do damage or hurt someone. I can't see something wrong with that really, inciting such a thing.
I don't mind freedom of speech... it's just when assholes use it to harass people then it pisses me off. *SIGH*
Them stopping is one of two possible outcomes.SaneAmongInsane said:
The other outcome is they do something even crazier than being them in order to get attention. Attention in America is like gold. And American's are pretty damn greedy. All that glitters, after all.
I say let us be even more free, if someone wants to protest at a funeral then allow the mourning people to beat them to death to help them handle the sorrow. Win-win.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." As disgusting as Fred Phelps may be and no matter how stupid racism is we cannot ban such speech without compromising the very basis of our country. As hated and pitied as we may be in America it would be irresponsible to toss out the constitution to quiet unpopular speech. As much as I hate Fred I cannot agree with the restriction of free speech.
...That is exactly how it is in America too.zumbledum said:
Incitements to violence are not covered under free speech and ARE illegal (there are a few members of the Occupy movement that got charged with that).
Speech that puts others in direct danger is illegal too. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded building, because you're putting people in danger as they rush to get out. If someone get's hurt in the scramble, you are very much liable.
That kind of thing is right as long as you agree with it. So long as you agree with what is "Not called for". Maybe you trust your government more than I do, because I'd never trust mine to decide what is "right" for people to say. Have you seen the US government? It's a madhouse full of sell-outs and zealots.
That is how it already works in America. You have freedom of speech, until you begin to infringe on someone's rights. You can't incite violence, you can't put people in direct danger, you can't walk up to someone and call them racist names or harass them because of their religion, and you can't do things like walk down the middle of the street at night yelling and screaming and disturbing the whole neighborhood. There are limits on free speech in America.
As much as it sucks, the Westburough Baptists are doing none of those. They aren't directly inciting violence, they aren't creating a situation that endangers others. They have obtained the proper permits to be at that location to protest. It is morally despicable, sure... but they aren't actually hurting anyone or violating the law. In most states they go to, they are required to be a certain distance away from the funeral. The only people who give them attention are the media... which is what they want. They're trolls and attention-whores. That's all that they are.
The right to express my opinion, no matter how objectively wrong it is, no matter how emotionally abusive it is, is perhaps the most sacred right here in the US. Don't take it for granted. Don't think that its ever ok to censor people. Because thats what it is. What the opposing stance is suggesting is giving the government the power to censor opinions. Which is no different than SOPA/PIPA nonsense we were up in arms about 5 minutes ago.
Grow a thicker skin and show some spine. People are assholes, this is nothing new, so grow up and deal with it. As long as they aren't threatening to harm you, or inciting a panic, then there is no need to get the government involved: America does not need a nannie state to tuck us in at night.
Grow a thicker skin and show some spine. People are assholes, this is nothing new, so grow up and deal with it. As long as they aren't threatening to harm you, or inciting a panic, then there is no need to get the government involved: America does not need a nannie state to tuck us in at night.
No one likes the Westboro church (isnt it just a family group?), and I would like someone to give them a taste of their own medicine. What they do is callous and insensitive, regardless of what they believe. If they hate gay people, fine, but do they need to protest it at a funeral? An if you have banners stating inflammatory things then we should be free to react accordingly. To confront them, tear down the signs ad kick the shit out of them. That church would love it im sure, they want a reaction and they would get it.
But spouting race and homophobic hatred is against the law in the UK. You can be arrested for it. Sometimes i wonder if thats more to save the person from get beaten up for it.
But i guess thats the difference. You can ignore a protest, just walk on by. But if someone is in your face spouting hatred, then thats different and thats what the law is against. Thing is, if that group hate gays, fine, but why keep protesting a spread hate? Nazis cant print anti jewish or anti black litrature so why do westboro get away with it? I guess their is a fine like between what is an isnt acceptable.
But spouting race and homophobic hatred is against the law in the UK. You can be arrested for it. Sometimes i wonder if thats more to save the person from get beaten up for it.
But i guess thats the difference. You can ignore a protest, just walk on by. But if someone is in your face spouting hatred, then thats different and thats what the law is against. Thing is, if that group hate gays, fine, but why keep protesting a spread hate? Nazis cant print anti jewish or anti black litrature so why do westboro get away with it? I guess their is a fine like between what is an isnt acceptable.
Hate speech is still protected by Free speech. An unfortunate evil. Really, the best solution (other than God or just some guy waiting for all of the WBC to be in their main building before blowing it the fuck up) is to have a counter speech... or look up any number of ways that people have fucked over WBC on TVTropes. I would say directional speakers with some religous music blasting right at them.
There are ways to handle groups like WBC without taking away free speech.
There are ways to handle groups like WBC without taking away free speech.
Woah! What's wrong with this forum?
Hate speech should be illegal. Like the op said, its illegal in most first world countries.
You are free to do whatever you want, to yourself. when it come to other people, the law steps in and puts limits.
You are not allowed to kill, steal, or assault people. False advertising is illegal. And in a similar manner, hate speech is illegal. 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.
Like these forums. The're great because people restrain themeslves from insulting one another, because it is regulated. Go to look at youtube, people say whatever they want. Hate speech can lead to real world violence, suicides, etc.
Hate speech should be illegal. Like the op said, its illegal in most first world countries.
You are free to do whatever you want, to yourself. when it come to other people, the law steps in and puts limits.
You are not allowed to kill, steal, or assault people. False advertising is illegal. And in a similar manner, hate speech is illegal. 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.
Like these forums. The're great because people restrain themeslves from insulting one another, because it is regulated. Go to look at youtube, people say whatever they want. Hate speech can lead to real world violence, suicides, etc.
I've read alot of these posts claiming you are not free if you ban hate speech...
Well my country of Australia is by no means utopia however I would not consider myself free in any sense of the word if I lived in a country that tolerated hate speech.
Definitely not free from bigotry, definitely not free from fear from persecution for myself or my friends for our belief's or simply.
As that is all hate speech is, fear and intimidation tactics against people who disagree with you.
Just because it is private citizens persecuting and intimidating you instead of the government, probably makes you less free not more...
Well my country of Australia is by no means utopia however I would not consider myself free in any sense of the word if I lived in a country that tolerated hate speech.
Definitely not free from bigotry, definitely not free from fear from persecution for myself or my friends for our belief's or simply.
As that is all hate speech is, fear and intimidation tactics against people who disagree with you.
Just because it is private citizens persecuting and intimidating you instead of the government, probably makes you less free not more...