Why aren't Americans actually concerned about an overtly racist group such as KKK holding speeches? (law, activity)

[Ariete]

Originally Posted by bg7

You can say "I hate white people". You can't say "Go and kill that cracker standing over there"

This is how the legislation works in most countries in Europe too.

[albion]

Freedom of speech is a right in the US, just not at a Donald Trump rally.

[EuroTrashed]

Originally Posted by improb

That's true, although it's turning more and more into an approach that's similar to the USA one now that immigrant communities have been settled for decades. Actually, the far right has this approach with anyone who isn't an etherosexual man or woman (and in some cases, even woman are discriminated against)



Freedom of speech is absolute freedom to express opinion and ideas, even ones that could harm society or large chunks of it. That's why absolute freedom could be harmful, there should be limited restrictions that stop groups such as KKK maybe not from existing but at least from holding inflammatory speeches.

What is harmful to society or large chunks of it is vague and incredibly subjective. In Europe many people say that any criticism about the European Union is harmful because it could cause the breakup of the Union and that could lead again to wars like we saw in previous centuries. Your laws can and will be used to squelch criticism towards those in power to keep them in power. Luther's criticism of the catholic church was incredibly harmful to society like it was at that point, would you really have stepped in and silenced Luther? But let me guess, my points are moot?

[Ariete]

Originally Posted by EuroTrashed

In Europe many people say that any criticism about the European Union is harmful because it could cause the breakup of the Union and that could lead again to wars like we saw in previous centuries.

Whaaaaaat? I've never heard anything like this. On the contrary, the European Union hardly gets anything but criticism.

This is something you just made up, right?

[BigCityDreamer]

Racism and racial issues are wildly overrated in the U.S. They are basically cheese for the politicians, media and unsuspecting people to chew on.

The reality is 180 degrees different from what is talked about in the news.

[North Beach Person]

I think that Improb shouldn't have been allowed to start this inflammatory and hurtful thread. He has insulted millions of Americans hiding behind anonymity of the internet and caused division and bruised feelings through his written micro-aggressions.

[Ariete]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

I think that Improb shouldn't have been allowed to start this inflammatory and hurtful thread. He has insulted millions of Americans hiding behind anonymity of the internet and caused division and bruised feelings through his written micro-aggressions.

I don't know if this warrants:



OR:

[stan4]

I hate what KKK says.
And I hate what Occupy Wall St says.
And I hate what socialists say.
I hate what fundies say.

But I feel strongly that as long as someone isn't slanderous, they have the right to talk.
No matter how disgusting,hateful, and moronic.

[Ariete]

I've come to notice that most what could be classified as hate speech or warrant a fine, is usually not anything worth saying. And definitely not worth listening to.

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by BruSan

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.

Check this one out:

https://index.rsf.org/#!/

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-à-vis Faux News), than the value placed upon some meatheads ability to slang another meathead over his religious or sexual orientation.

The age old argument of form versus function.

That's fine but freedom of speech has nothing to do with how a media outlet edits itself. It's about not allowing the government to edit the press.

Freedom of the press in the US would be usurped by the government in the cases of national security and criminal cases.