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

[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.

 

[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.

......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.

I hold reverence to our body of law. If you think adhering to something as big and guiding as the Constitution is of so little value, go out and rob a store today. When you get arrested, tell them you don't hold value to pieces of paper. See how far that gets you.
There is a legal document to protect one right. There is no such legal protection for the other.

 

[lacktheknack]

Two way street, man.

After all, you're allowed to say horrendous things about the WBC in return... and people do.

 

[superstringz]

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.

NO! Thats mob justice. The US is a Republic first, and a Democracy second. Nobody, not even a super-majority, is above the law. Just because nearly everyone thinks x is a bad opinion does not make it so!

Not to long ago, well over 75% of UK/US/EU thought homosexuality should be a punishable crime. Under your proposal, even discussing the possibility of homosexual being people could have been enough to get sent to prison. The point of not punishing WBC is to uphold legal precedent of trusting the People to exercise their own judgment on who to ignore, and not punishing someone for speaking controversy.

I've noticed that the rest of the developed world seems to think information needs to be controlled in order to keep the public "right". (IE Germany and Nazi symbolism, Switzerland and Minarets, etc). I have always taken censorship as a deeply personal insult, because it says that you don't believe me to be capable of thinking for myself; like I need to be shepherded. I can assure you, I know the WBC is wrong. I do not require the governments intervention to tell that.

Thank you all for forcing me to defend the WBC by attacking pretty much the only right I care about. I feel so great about it.

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.

We nuked over 300,000 people. We can, and have, detained indefinitely without trial. We use torture. We spend nearly 50% of the worlds defense budget. 55% of Americans believe in creationism. One of our candidates for the most powerful office in the world believes that she is on a mission from god. Congress has been bought out by the ultra rich to lower the taxes of the 1% down to the point where they pay less than I do, and I make $6k/year. You Tell Me if our government is trustworthy.

 

[Nudu]

These are the kind of people we should fight to protect. No one's ever going to try to take away your right to say "That sweater is blue.", "I like pizza." or "Racism is bad."

Controversial speech IS what free speech is all about. Banning the freedom to express a viewpoint you disagree with also weakens your own position. As for this specific example, the funeral is a private service, and they can't spread their horseshit within a certain distance of the service itself, if I'm not mistaken.

I live in a country with hate speech laws, and I find it revolting.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

You know, as much as I'd love to jump on this bandwagon and say yeah let's ban hate speech and whatever; I have to wonder, if we start banning everything we find unpleasant how long before we find ourselves living in an Orwellian nightmare?

 

[AntiChri5]

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.

NO! Thats mob justice. The US is a Republic first, and a Democracy second. Nobody, not even a super-majority, is above the law. Just because nearly everyone thinks x is a bad opinion does not make it so!

Not to long ago, well over 75% of UK/US/EU thought homosexuality should be a punishable crime. Under your proposal, even discussing the possibility of homosexual being people could have been enough to get sent to prison. The point of not punishing WBC is to uphold legal precedent of trusting the People to exercise their own judgment on who to ignore, and not punishing someone for speaking controversy.

I've noticed that the rest of the developed world seems to think information needs to be controlled in order to keep the public "right". (IE Germany and Nazi symbolism, Switzerland and Minarets, etc). I have always taken censorship as a deeply personal insult, because it says that you don't believe me to be capable of thinking for myself; like I need to be shepherded. I can assure you, I know the WBC is wrong. I do not require the governments intervention to tell that.

Thank you all for forcing me to defend the WBC by attacking pretty much the only right I care about. I feel so great about it.

Yes, that would be mob justice. You know what else it was? A joke.

Not so long ago, homosexuality was a crime. There were articles about it on this very site just the other day. Society changed, now it isn't.

The issue is not that people will start to believe their bullshit. The issue is that thier bullshit is annoying and offensive.

 

[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.

I hold reverence to our body of law. If you think adhering to something as big and guiding as the Constitution is of so little value, go out and rob a store today. When you get arrested, tell them you don't hold value to pieces of paper. See how far that gets you.
There is a legal document to protect one right. There is no such legal protection for the other.

Correct me if i am wrong, but i believe i stated that i do not respect douments, as they become outdated and stop representing the culture they are supposed to be about. I did not say, or imply, i do not respect laws. America is young, and it's constitution is therefore rather recent. It can also be updated when necessary, so if you must have a culture defined by a document it is the best kind of document to do so with.

And? One right being legally protected does not make it more important then another.

 

[AntiChri5]

We nuked over 300,000 people. We can, and have, detained indefinitely without trial. We use torture. We spend nearly 50% of the worlds defense budget. 55% of Americans believe in creationism. One of our candidates for the most powerful office in the world believes that she is on a mission from god. Congress has been bought out by the ultra rich to lower the taxes of the 1% down to the point where they pay less than I do, and I make $6k/year. You Tell Me if our government is trustworthy.

Missed this, because you edited it in......

Most of that is just the result of you guys being the top dog. Most governments wouldn't hesitate to do the same. Torture, inprisonment without trial, using a great deal of force in war.....none of these are new. The same old crimes, in the newest ways and on a grander scale. Your government is not trustworthy. The only group less trustworthy then a government is a corporation. But that doesn't make them moustache twirling villians whose only goal in life is to take away your freedoms.

But i will admit, that bit about 55% of you being creationists is kinda horrifying.

EDIT: I have WAAAAY too many posts on this page, i have to draw the line at three in a row. I am off to bed. Sincere apologies to anyone i haven't responded to yet, i will try to get to it tommorow. Keep the discussion going, because this is interesting

 

[RatRace123]

I don't think we need to ban hate speech. We just need to ban the Westboro Baptist people, maybe to an island or possibly into the mouth of a volcano.