Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And not just apparently; but very obviously you don't know what in h*** you're talking about even after links posted showing America has actually thrown kids in jail for dissing on each other over Facebook....
You can stop with the faux superiority as it doesn't play, either in the figurative or the realistic.
I checked out some of the links. The crimes all involved physical violence or the threat of physical violence. I understand that there are exceptions to free speech: libel, slander, threats of violence, terroristic threats, etc. But I am unaware of anyone in the U.S. doing jail time for merely saying something that someone finds offensive.
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
A couple of issues:
(1) "offends"… some people are very easily offended while other people are very rarely offended. So who are we defining "offends" for? The easily offended, super-sensitive person or the very rarely offended, thick-skinned person? Was my referencing "super-sensitive person" offensive??
(2)"Other traits"… too vague, too open to interpretation & manipulation.
I don't believe that free speech should be legally limited. However, I believe that most people these days have no grasp of etiquette or manners and that is causing all sorts of conflict. We can say whatever we want to say… but should we? No. We shouldn't.
OK so say something negative and hateful about the Islamic religion. I can if I desire.
And so can anyone else in North America! Jeeez louise!
How many times must we go through this silliness?
Hate speech in an advanced society is defined as "inciting violence" against a recognizable minority or other entity. You can say Muslims are all azzh***s but you cannot say "all muslims should be killed or tortured" while using a public forum. You can say whatever you like about a recognisable minority or entity as long as you do not use your freedom of speech to incite hatred in the form of violence or perceivable and tangible harm upon them.
Perhaps the careful crafting of a law would clearly define Hate Speech so stuff like this wouldn't happen in your "FREE" country.
Now should we talk about the Patriot Act and it's little abrogation of at least three of your "guaranteed "rights stipulated in your Constitution? .......... US Constitution vs. The Patriot Act
OK so say something negative and hateful about the Islamic religion. I can if I desire.
So can I but the difference is, that what I say better be true or I open myself to be charged. Now the charge is not very different than any libel charge except that in the case of hate libel directed against one group or another it's "Criminal" libel. For instance if I said, "all Muslims are terrorists". Firstly, it's not true which puts me in a bad spot to begin with, secondly, it could cause great harm to innocent people by those ignorant and deranged enough to believe what I had said and them to act upon it.
So can I but the difference is, that what I say better be true or I open myself to be charged. Now the charge is not very different than any libel charge except that in the case of hate libel directed against one group or another it's "Criminal" libel. For instance if I said, "all Muslims are terrorists". Firstly, it's not true which puts me in a bad spot to begin with, secondly, it could cause great harm to innocent people by those ignorant and deranged enough to believe what I had said and them to act upon it.
So at least we are straight now. The left opposes free speech, while the right continues to support it and fight for it.
Speech is a direct physical or verbal manifestation of thought; hate speech being a crime is tantamount to criminalizing thought, something George Orwell coined a term for: thought crime. Any abridgement of freedom of expression is wrong and plainly illegal under the Constitution, and by the way, the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater is a restriction of free speech" is a falsehood, since the reason such is wrong is the damage you inflict upon the property owner and other people, not the expression itself. If you yell fire in a crowded theater and are totally ignored you have done no wrong, and most people would support leaving you in peace.
Besides, contrary to some bluster we see in earlier pages there is no bright line defining what hate is nor can there be, and it is inevitable that eventually government will expand the definition of hate speech to include criticism of itself, no doubt believing it's in the best interest of society. Indeed, since several Sedition Acts have been passed before I'd say it would happen sooner than people think. The attitude that leads to such terms as "abusing freedom" (an oxymoron, since unlike privilege, freedom is not supposed to be used only in a certain way) would take to it like a moth to a flame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
True, but that was quite a while back (mid-70's, I think...?). The political/social climate has changed radically since then (no pun intended). So-called "speech-codes" are already a fact on many college campuses. And like kidkaos2 said, it wouldn't take but one vote -- at present, on SCOTUS -- to tip the scales...
The 1970's may have been the golden age of American government institutions protecting personal freedoms. An institution that gave us Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Schenk* (among other abominations) should not and cannot be trusted to protect any law, anyone, or any freedom when what's at stake is government power.
*Interestingly, that was the origin of "yelling fire in a crowded theater", the context being that the principle justified imprisoning a man for expressing opposition to the draft. I suppose some of these people would then like to see this again in America? Namely a peaceable opposition candidate having to run from prison as Debs did in 1920? That was part of the horrific WWI era of American history, and I think it's telling that academics don't praise Harding for commuting Debs's sentence; in my opinion that alone makes Harding better than Wilson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Somehow -- in studying/researching history -- these "conspiracy" theories and/or "it can't happen here" have a way of becoming a reality.
Indeed, believing it can't happen here makes it happening here more likely than it would if people believed it could and were alert, paying attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
Firstly, it's not true which puts me in a bad spot to begin with [...]
Putting yourself in a bad spot shouldn't be a crime; after all, your neck is yours, not the state's.
Quote:
[...], secondly, it could cause great harm to innocent people by those ignorant and deranged enough to believe what I had said and them to act upon it. [emphasis added]
Could cause great harm? You'd think one would at least have to prove that harm was caused by a man before being allowed to imprison him. Any action or inaction has a non-zero probability of influencing the chain of events you describe, so either that means everything is a crime or we get selective enforcement by the state at its own will. Besides, ignorant and deranged people are not robots that will be triggered by command; they are people, who have free will and a mind capable of choosing between good and evil. If they choose evil it is they who should be punished, not a third party. They could (that word again!) have easily seen your comment and chosen not to do anything.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with free speech. How people react to it is a completely different matter. And this has nothing to do with leftist, it has to do with common sense. If you want to provoke people then don't complain when they react.
It absolutely does have to do with liberals. Liberals are the ones who supported net neutrality, the fairness doctrine, and speech codes on university campuses. When Bill Maher called Sarah Palin names you didn't see conservatives trying to get him fired the way you did leftists trying to get rid of Rush Limbaugh. The Southern Poverty Law Center out there classifying people into hate groups isn't full of Republicans. You don't see college conservatives out there trying to prevent liberal guest speakers from speaking the way you see leftist students. No matter how much it may offend your sensibilities that your end of the political spectrum is responsible for the overwhelming majority of attempts to suppress speech. It's not a giant leap to think they'd take what they're already trying to do in the private sector and make it official if given the chance.
And the standard liberal excuse for it is what you gave - that if you're going to say something offensive you should expect people to react to it. But see, that excuse doesn't wash. Because you leftists try to prevent it from being said at all. There's a monumentally huge difference between not liking what someone said and trying to make it so he gets no platform to speak at all.
The country would undoubtedly be a far better place if you did not have literally thousands of freakin idiots spreading their poisonous crap over the airwaves 24/7.
Now, lying in the media comes under a different heading altogether. You can not have a broadcast license and do that here.
It's against the terms of your right to broadcast.
Just curious how many of you believe so-called "Hate Speech" laws will be implemented in this country?
Im amazed they havent been yet!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
