CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo shows his ignorance (illegal, regular, death)

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Cuomo; Hate speech is excluded from the First Amendment. Then says we should read the constitution. What an idiot.
----------------------
This was in response to the shooting outside Pamela Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest event in Garland, Texas. According to Cuomo, Geller and her ilk might not have a First Amendment right to express anti-Muslim speech deemed hateful—it says so, right there in the Constitution, if we would bother to read it.

Okay, let’s take Cuomo’s challenge. Let’s read the speech part of the Constitution. (I hope this doesn’t take too long; I hate reading.) Oh, good, the speech stuff is right there at the beginning of the "things you can do" section:

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.

My copy of the Constitution seems to be missing this fabled “except hate speech, none of that” clause.

CNN Anchor Says Constitution Doesn

Psst, there are plenty of laws on the books that limit what you say, yell fire in a theater when there is not one and see what happens to you next. Talk about bombs and high jacking next time you are going through the airport security check point and when you are once again free lets us know how that worked out for you. You may claim they are all Unconstitutional, but most all these cases have gone before the SC and guess what they say that they are legal. When it comes to public safety your freedom to spew anything you want can and will get you in trouble, you should keep that in mind like most thinking people do. Now if one wanted to they can make a valid argument that the idiots at the cartoon "Contest" were endangering the public by their actions and such events could be banned, even though I doubt it will be needed only a complete idiot would allow some group of morons with pencils to do the same on their property, the financial liabilities alone would be prohibitive.

[CapnTrips]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

Our freedom of speech would be all but meaningless if this sort of restriction applied because there is no general agreement on what is hate speech. What you may find hateful others may believe is perfectly reasonable.

Speech that is not protected is speech that has an affect of immediately inciting violence.

I agree, in fact the term "hate speech" itself is misleading given the real definition of what is not protected speech.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

I'm not going to take the time to read the opinion, but the Wiki entry seems to support my view that this decision was less about hate speech per se, and more about speech that tends to incite violence

HUH, you asked for me to back up my point, then you say you dont want to read it ?????

by the way, its only 4 lines.... I mean, its longer, but the meat that matters is only 4 lines and a quoted it and posted it for you to read.

I disagree, and it's interesting that the web site you linked supports my view. That website identifies six "Landmark Rulings' on so-called hate speech. In each and every case the right of individuals to freedom of speech was upheld.

the link I gave you said that those cases did not meet the requirement of hate speech

that was my point in posting them. The first quote I gave you was from the one that did and set precedence

Seems that my earlier comment that the court has consistently held that "hate speech" is protected was correct.

No, the court defined hate speech and said those do not constitute it.

How do i simplify this for you ?

At the age of 18 you are classified as an adult, Anything before that as a child, right, so at 17 years 364 days, you are still a kid.

Thats what we are debating here.

You see hate speech(adulthood) as anything withing the vicinity of 18 years, I recognize that it is anything after the threshold the supreme court set up

[CapnTrips]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

Now if one wanted to they can make a valid argument that the idiots at the cartoon "Contest" were endangering the public by their actions and such events could be banned, even

I'd like to hear someone try to convince a federal judge of that. For the Court to limit the exercise of free speech there'd have to a be a showing beyond "Everybody knows Muslims extremists don't like Mo cartoons, and they are generally known to be armed and violent people."

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by CapnTrips

I'd like to hear someone try to convince a federal judge of that. For the Court to limit the exercise of free speech there'd have to a be a showing beyond "Everybody knows Muslims extremists don't like Mo cartoons, and they are generally known to be armed and violent people."

They Do Now, now don't they, too bad the morons running the "contest" were too stupid to know it before hand, they are real lucky no one else got killed

[CapnTrips]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

They Do Now, now don't they, too bad the morons running the "contest" were too stupid to know it before hand, they are real lucky no one else got killed

So do you think this incident could be used to convince a federal court that a similar show in another area with a significant Muslim population should be banned?

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by CapnTrips

So do you think this incident could be used to convince a federal court that a similar show in another area with a significant Muslim population should be banned?

I think if someone wanted to push it in the courts or local lawmakers could very well do just that and probably win in the courts on the grounds of public safety.

[Ih2puo]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

I think if someone wanted to push it in the courts or local lawmakers could very well do just that and probably win in the courts on the grounds of public safety.

Just another example of why America is a lie and filed with weak people who have let their nation become just like every other ****hole nation in the world.

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

HUH, you asked for me to back up my point, then you say you dont want to read it ?????

by the way, its only 4 lines.... I mean, its longer, but the meat that matters is only 4 lines and a quoted it and posted it for you to read.

The 4 lines quoted in the Wiki article actually back up my original point that where the court has held that there are some circumstances where speech may be restricted it is when such speech incites violence. That isn't at all the same thing as hate speech. The bolded phrase below is the key issue in the case you cited. That isn't about hate speech, it's speech that creates an imminent risk of physical harm to those nearby. As an aside, it is for this same reason that the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is so often cited as an example of speech that may be restricted.

"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

And BTW, my experience is that you need to read the entire opinion to really get a sense of the issues at question and the rationale for the decision. Four lines may make a nice sound bite but rarely captures the full complexity of the issue or the decision.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

the link I gave you said that those cases did not meet the requirement of hate speech

that was my point in posting them. The first quote I gave you was from the one that did and set precedence

Actually, no. Here is the title of the page you linked:

Hate Speech Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued six major landmark rulings on hate speech law since 1949.

When you look at the six cases, based on the commentary on the page most were decided on the basis that the only permissible rationale for restricting speech is when it is likely to incite violence.

A few quotes from the notes:

...protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience. Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)

...the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm. Virginia v. Black (2003)

So the court has actually never defined "hate speech" and never issued an opinion that "hate speech" may be restricted. What they have done is said that there are cases where speech that incites violence, that is likely to produce imminent lawless action, or substantive evil may be restricted. None of those things are hate speech in and of themselves, even though some instances of speech that you might characterize as hate speech might also be speech that incites violence etc.

The key question is not whether a particular instance of speech is so-called hate speech, it is whether it is speech that creates an imminent physical danger to those nearby.


Dave

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

the supreme court has affirmed multiple times that hate speech is not protected under the constitution

Whether or not this meets that requirement is the question.

Wrong. Please provide a link.