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

[senordesol]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

That's not was the language of the text says.

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.

No where does it say 'freedom of speech against the government ONLY'

Make no mistake, you *can* use your speech to speak out against the government OR express an opinion that might be unpopular. Either way, you can't be arrested.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.

Not odd.

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.

Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.

Not odd.

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.

Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.

And I've point out before that the WBC already won their SCOTUS case 8-1, and case law basically says you can do what they do. Because what they're doing is being assholes. But it's not really any of the things you've listed.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.

Not odd.

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.

Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.

And I've point out before that the WBC already won their SCOTUS case 8-1, and case law basically says you can do what they do. Because what they're doing is being assholes. But it's not really any of the things you've listed.

I'm not saying that the WBC is breaking any of those, I'm saying that what the press/citizens can say has been and is currently limited.

Also, considering that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of 60+ people, I imagine that at least some of them agree with part of the WBC's rantings.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.

Not odd.

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.

Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.

And I've point out before that the WBC already won their SCOTUS case 8-1, and case law basically says you can do what they do. Because what they're doing is being assholes. But it's not really any of the things you've listed.

I'm not saying that the WBC is breaking any of those, I'm saying that what the press/citizens can say has been and is currently limited.

Also, considering that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of 60+ people, I imagine that at least some of them agree with part of the WBC's rantings.

And I've never said otherwise. However, that first amendment doesn't only protect speech against the government.

Also, citation needed on the second part. Because, no offense, but that's the biggest load of malarkey I've heard in quite a while.

 

[Kopikatsu]

And I've never said otherwise. However, that first amendment doesn't only protect speech against the government.

Also, citation needed on the second part. Because, no offense, but that's the biggest load of malarkey I've heard in quite a while.

Have you been around old people? 'Cause I've volunteered at a nursing home for a few years, and the older someone is, the greater chance there is of them being a hyper-religious homophobic, xenophobic, racist, and/or sexist douche. True story.

On the other hand, they might be sent to nursing homes because nobody else wants to deal with them. Hm...

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

And I've never said otherwise. However, that first amendment doesn't only protect speech against the government.

Also, citation needed on the second part. Because, no offense, but that's the biggest load of malarkey I've heard in quite a while.

Have you been around old people? 'Cause I've volunteered at a nursing home for a few years, and the older someone is, the greater chance there is of them being a hyper-religious homophobic, xenophobic, racist douche. True story.

On the other hand, they might be sent to nursing homes because nobody else wants to deal with them. Hm...

Whole to part fallacy.

Then again, if you intended it as a joke...

Regardless, this is getting off topic.

 

[senordesol]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.

Not odd.

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.

Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.

And I've point out before that the WBC already won their SCOTUS case 8-1, and case law basically says you can do what they do. Because what they're doing is being assholes. But it's not really any of the things you've listed.

I'm not saying that the WBC is breaking any of those, I'm saying that what the press/citizens can say has been and is currently limited.

Also, considering that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of 60+ people, I imagine that at least some of them agree with part of the WBC's rantings.

Therefore, I would argue further limitations tread on dangerous ground as it is. The fact is, WBC is nothing more than annoying. They're not threatening anyone, they aren't inciting to violence. They preach a general opinion; one that 99.999^% of people disagree with, but an opinion all the same.

Nothing is really served (apart from sparing some hurt feelings) and much is put at risk by imposing a limitation on expressing an opinion 1,000 feet away from a funeral. Now I'm all for saying 'New Rule; it's got to be 2,000 feet now', but eliminating the speech entirely? No. No thank you.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.

Not odd.

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.

Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.

And I've point out before that the WBC already won their SCOTUS case 8-1, and case law basically says you can do what they do. Because what they're doing is being assholes. But it's not really any of the things you've listed.

I'm not saying that the WBC is breaking any of those, I'm saying that what the press/citizens can say has been and is currently limited.

Also, considering that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of 60+ people, I imagine that at least some of them agree with part of the WBC's rantings.

Therefore, I would argue further limitations tread on dangerous ground as it is. The fact is, WBC is nothing more than annoying. They're not threatening anyone, they aren't inciting to violence. They preach a general opinion; one that 99.999^% of people disagree with, but an opinion all the same.

Nothing is really served (apart from sparing some hurt feelings) and much is put at risk by imposing a limitation on expressing an opinion 1,000 feet away from a funeral. Now I'm all for saying 'New Rule; it's got to be 2,000 feet now', but eliminating the speech entirely? No. No thank you.

Slippery slope fallacy. That's why I made the point of mentioning that the US is the only first world country that permits hate speech, and Britain (for example) isn't a fascist dictatorship where people are afraid to express their opinion for fear of being dragged away by the government, right? (Yes, this is hyperbole. But it's still true.)

 

[senordesol]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.

Not odd.

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.

Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.

And I've point out before that the WBC already won their SCOTUS case 8-1, and case law basically says you can do what they do. Because what they're doing is being assholes. But it's not really any of the things you've listed.

I'm not saying that the WBC is breaking any of those, I'm saying that what the press/citizens can say has been and is currently limited.

Also, considering that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of 60+ people, I imagine that at least some of them agree with part of the WBC's rantings.

Therefore, I would argue further limitations tread on dangerous ground as it is. The fact is, WBC is nothing more than annoying. They're not threatening anyone, they aren't inciting to violence. They preach a general opinion; one that 99.999^% of people disagree with, but an opinion all the same.

Nothing is really served (apart from sparing some hurt feelings) and much is put at risk by imposing a limitation on expressing an opinion 1,000 feet away from a funeral. Now I'm all for saying 'New Rule; it's got to be 2,000 feet now', but eliminating the speech entirely? No. No thank you.

Slippery slope fallacy. That's why I made the point of mentioning that the US is the only first world country that permits hate speech, and Britain (for example) isn't a fascist dictatorship where people are afraid to express their opinion for fear of being dragged away by the government, right? (Yes, this is hyperbole. But it's still true.)

Not so much hyperbole as you think. Did you hear what got pushed through with the NDAA? I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm saying the risk of it happening is nowhere near worth the 'reward'. Again, what would such a law be attempting to accomplish besides sparing a few hurt feelings?

I don't trust the US government with any form of 'grey' area regardless of what the rest of the countries around the world do. If the Alien and Sedition Act happened once, it can happen again.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.

Not odd.

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.

Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.

And I've point out before that the WBC already won their SCOTUS case 8-1, and case law basically says you can do what they do. Because what they're doing is being assholes. But it's not really any of the things you've listed.

I'm not saying that the WBC is breaking any of those, I'm saying that what the press/citizens can say has been and is currently limited.

Also, considering that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of 60+ people, I imagine that at least some of them agree with part of the WBC's rantings.

Therefore, I would argue further limitations tread on dangerous ground as it is. The fact is, WBC is nothing more than annoying. They're not threatening anyone, they aren't inciting to violence. They preach a general opinion; one that 99.999^% of people disagree with, but an opinion all the same.

Nothing is really served (apart from sparing some hurt feelings) and much is put at risk by imposing a limitation on expressing an opinion 1,000 feet away from a funeral. Now I'm all for saying 'New Rule; it's got to be 2,000 feet now', but eliminating the speech entirely? No. No thank you.

Slippery slope fallacy. That's why I made the point of mentioning that the US is the only first world country that permits hate speech, and Britain (for example) isn't a fascist dictatorship where people are afraid to express their opinion for fear of being dragged away by the government, right? (Yes, this is hyperbole. But it's still true.)

Not so much hyperbole as you think. Did you hear what got pushed through with the NDAA? I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm saying the risk of it happening is nowhere near worth the 'reward'. Again, what would such a law be attempting to accomplish besides sparing a few hurt feelings?

I don't trust the US government with any form of 'grey' area regardless of what the rest of the countries around the world do. If the Alien and Sedition Act happened once, it can happen again.

Government officials are elected by the populous. If you don't trust the government, then isn't that the problem of Americans as a whole?

 

[Chaos1228]

If you ban even hate speech, then you're not completely free, simple as that

In any case, a law against picketing funerals would seem to be a better idea.

But if we did that, then when a member of the WBC dies we wont be able to have any fun

 

[Photon987]

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

I feel that this should prove to be a good read for those of you that are interested.

 

[senordesol]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.

Not odd.

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.

Libel, slander, CDA, fighting words, obscenity (Miller vs California), clear and present danger, etc.

And I've point out before that the WBC already won their SCOTUS case 8-1, and case law basically says you can do what they do. Because what they're doing is being assholes. But it's not really any of the things you've listed.

I'm not saying that the WBC is breaking any of those, I'm saying that what the press/citizens can say has been and is currently limited.

Also, considering that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of 60+ people, I imagine that at least some of them agree with part of the WBC's rantings.

Therefore, I would argue further limitations tread on dangerous ground as it is. The fact is, WBC is nothing more than annoying. They're not threatening anyone, they aren't inciting to violence. They preach a general opinion; one that 99.999^% of people disagree with, but an opinion all the same.

Nothing is really served (apart from sparing some hurt feelings) and much is put at risk by imposing a limitation on expressing an opinion 1,000 feet away from a funeral. Now I'm all for saying 'New Rule; it's got to be 2,000 feet now', but eliminating the speech entirely? No. No thank you.

Slippery slope fallacy. That's why I made the point of mentioning that the US is the only first world country that permits hate speech, and Britain (for example) isn't a fascist dictatorship where people are afraid to express their opinion for fear of being dragged away by the government, right? (Yes, this is hyperbole. But it's still true.)

Not so much hyperbole as you think. Did you hear what got pushed through with the NDAA? I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm saying the risk of it happening is nowhere near worth the 'reward'. Again, what would such a law be attempting to accomplish besides sparing a few hurt feelings?

I don't trust the US government with any form of 'grey' area regardless of what the rest of the countries around the world do. If the Alien and Sedition Act happened once, it can happen again.

Government officials are elected by the populous. If you don't trust the government, then isn't that the problem of Americans as a whole?

Neither here nor there. Popular vote or electoral college; keep the governments grubby hands out of things that ultimately don't matter says I.

 

[DarkRyter]

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.

It is not the business of the government to decide what people can and can't say.

It is not the business of the government to even exist.

 

[chadachada123]

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

I feel that this should prove to be a good read for those of you that are interested.

At first I thought that the quoted letter was the author's response, and was getting ready to ***** about the author being a tosser. Then I saw that he was just quoting someone else and was pleasantly surprised.

That piece was pretty damn awesome, and reading about Mike Diana made my blood start to boil. Florida is fucking nuts.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Mind you, I think there is a process in Canada, where you can attempt to prove in front of a court that what could be considered hateful speech shouldn't be (and as such shouldn't be censored). I'm not 100% sure about this, as I am not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that's one way it works here.

I don't know if it's the best analogy, here, but you could say that just like pornography isn't protected under the first amendment of the US, hateful speech isn't considered to be part of free speech under Canadian laws.

I'm not sure it's THAT hard to distinguish between speech that encourages violence and discrimination and actual free speech that should be used by people to express their opinions (hatred against other human beings isn't a valid opinion, in my humble opinion).

Just my two cents.

 

[Commissar Sae]

I like the oxymoron in your title.

But it's true. The US is the only first world country (and I don't think there are even any second world countries where it's legal) where hate speech is legal.

Umm...
Look up oxymoron...

I didn't say that it wasn't an oxymoron.

Then your quoting me is pointless. Because I clearly dont care how many other countries have laws against hate speech, its still wrong.

My point in saying it was, the rest of the free world is still free despite not permitting people to be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc douches. Not being able to call people " are all going to hell and blah blah blah" isn't going to lower your quality of life, and will raise quality of life for others, even if it's only by a minuscule amount.

Not free according to my definition. Not being able to speak for myself and my ideals is exactly what I don't consider free.

There is no proof that it would raise the quality of life whatsoever. There is no evidence of that.

My average quality of life is raised knowing that I don't have to deal with the WBC or neo-nazis holding rallies in the street outside my house. Also the fact that I can press charges against people for inciting racial hatred and genocide is a nice perk.

Remember guys, hate speech isn't just disagreeing or unwanted speech, its speech that actively promotes hatred for a certain group and advocates harm done to them. Hypothetically saying you think Homosexuality is wrong isn't hate speech, saying all gays should be executed or thrown in prison is.

Also no one is actually totally free. The whole point of society is that there are certain agreed upon boundaries that we do not cross, and that crossing this boundaries is against our agreed upon laws.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Sticks and stones will break my bones. The Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to be as verbally horrible as they like because smart people will recognize it as the blind, harmless ignorance that it is. They aren't allowed to actually hurt anyone, so what's the problem?

Besides, who actually gets to define "hate speech"? That's a bit of a slippery slope, isn't it? No, best to keep total free speech, and just accept that not all of what you get is going to be worth listening to.