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.
I know that they value freedom of speech but if these speeches incite for violence and racial hate against a good chunk of Americans why don't they modify the First Amendment in a way that this freedom of speech could be denied in extreme cases such as this one?
I don't know if this question fits the General USA Forum or the World Forum, i have decided to post it in the latter but if the mods want to they can move it
It then becomes a slippery slope in determining one person's right to freedom of speech over another's. As much as I dislike the messages hate groups spread, in America, it is a protected right.
I know that they value freedom of speech but if these speeches incite for violence and racial hate against a good chunk of Americans why don't they modify the First Amendment in a way that this freedom of speech could be denied in extreme cases such as this one?
I don't know if this question fits the General USA Forum or the World Forum, i have decided to post it in the latter but if the mods want to they can move it
In spite of their thinking they have unlimited freedom of speech, they do not. Hate speech in the U.S. has seen prosecutions and even a couple of teens jailed for basically saying no worse than the stupid man with the dead cat on his head has said in front of thousands of people and the press.
It's more about who your are and how much you're worth as to how your freedom of speech is a right versus a privilege in the U.S.
You cannot claim to have real freedom of speech when your freedom of the press ranks below that of El Salvador, as rated by an independent agency of "reporters without borders".
I would place a far higher value on the ability of the press to perform accurate and informative reportage without being stifled by editorial policy as dictated by it's owners with a dog in the political hunt (vis-Ã -vis Faux News), than the value placed upon some meatheads ability to slang another meathead over his religious or sexual orientation.
I know that they value freedom of speech but if these speeches incite for violence and racial hate against a good chunk of Americans why don't they modify the First Amendment in a way that this freedom of speech could be denied in extreme cases such as this one?
Actually, any speech that incites violence is unlawful in the U.S. However, It has to be an imminent threat of violence.
If you ask me, Donald Trump's speeches do qualify as hate speech. I am not sure why he hasn't been stopped yet. It is rather troubling.
I know that they value freedom of speech but if these speeches incite for violence and racial hate against a good chunk of Americans why don't they modify the First Amendment in a way that this freedom of speech could be denied in extreme cases such as this one?
I don't know if this question fits the General USA Forum or the World Forum, i have decided to post it in the latter but if the mods want to they can move it
The moment you give the power of speech over to someone other than the individual, it will always end up being abused.
I guess...as long as they only hold speeches...did they burn someone at the stakes recently ? I don't think so.
The problem is that such speeches fuel racial discrimination and therefore violence
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Actually, any speech that incites violence is unlawful in the U.S. However, It has to be an imminent threat of violence.
If you ask me, Donald Trump's speeches do qualify as hate speech. I am not sure why he hasn't been stopped yet. It is rather troubling.
The problem is that you can't easily determine how imminent a threat of violence is, if KKK is still an active organization with a membership of around 8000 people, i don't think Trump will ever break this law with his already inflammatory (although not nearly to the same extent) speeches
I would rather the racists expose themselves for who they are than have them walking among us spreading their filthy message through less transparent, insidious means.
I would rather the racists expose themselves for who they are than have them walking among us spreading their filthy message through less transparent, insidious means.
America in general is probably less racist than most other countries. We just wear it on our sleeves and there is no stigma against talking about it.
It is best for all if it remains in the public eye.
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.
