The US should probably consider banning hate speech like the rest of the free world.
- Thread starter Kopikatsu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And they're the only first world country actually doing what they should be doing: zealously defending free speech as though it were the most important thing in the world, which incidentally, I believe it is.Kopikatsu said:
No government should ever have the power to determine what sort of speech is and isn't appropriate. To allow them to have that power is to undermine the single most fundamental right every human being has, and to give them a level of power which seems utterly benign at first, but is in fact so insidious that it must never be allowed to happen. I hate to get all slippery slope here, but there are already enough countries out there who censor a lot more than hate speech, and as soon as you give a government the power to censor one form of speech, you've given it the power to one day take that farther and apply it to other forms such as government protest and dissent.
I hate a lot of things about how the US government operates but if there's one thing they got right from the beginning it was making free speech the first amendment and refusing to budge on letting government have such power. Sure they may try, but thankfully the supreme court is generally willing yo slap their hand away from the cookie jar every time.
If some form of speech or protest is considered hateful and detestable by society, then exercise that same damn right to speak out, to counter protest, and to make your side heard, and hopefully, heard much more clearly. But absolutely nothing ever gives someone the right to take that away from anyone else.
Everyone has a right to be offended, but certainly not a right to never be offended.
Wow, I'm from the U.S (and I am a Christian) and I find this to be very appalling. Isn't hate speech a hate crime? Don't people go to jail for stuff like this!? What the hell America!? And the Westboro Baptist Church is just.. UGH! They should all be in jail! We seriously need to reconsider allowing people to hatefully attack others and ridicule them at their funeral and make that into a crime. I just don't even know what else to say to this, this is just so messed up. Kind of gives us some insight as to why so many other countries hate us too.
War on Terrorism: "Hey, let's invade everybody's land against their consent and kill everyone who we think is a terrorist!"
Westboro Baptist Church mocks and ridicules two deceased boys at their funeral: "Um, well technically, they are entitled to freedom of speech, so, our hands are tied.."
I wish I didn't live in the U.S anymore..
War on Terrorism: "Hey, let's invade everybody's land against their consent and kill everyone who we think is a terrorist!"
Westboro Baptist Church mocks and ridicules two deceased boys at their funeral: "Um, well technically, they are entitled to freedom of speech, so, our hands are tied.."
I wish I didn't live in the U.S anymore..
They protest from the sidewalk. As bad as it is, you can't stop a person from protesting something from public property. You can however, counter troll them, like so many people already do.Killertje said:
You act like the US are the only one who defend them when it comes to Free Speech, even Anonymous doesn't believe they're doing anything wrong and for good reason, they're not. To put it bluntly, what I think they're doing is terrible and wrong, however, they have every right to say it. Just as we have every right to insult them left and right from here or on the streets or anywhere else. So long as they stay within the parameters of their rights, they're free to protest whatever they damn well please.DeltaEdge said:
In Britain you're only banned from saying hateful speech if you're British. Our government is so scared of offending minorities(Like those charming fellas who chant "British soldiers burn in hell" and burn poppies)that they've taken away the peoples rights to offend aswell. If you're not British though go right ahead say what you like, put some girls in hospital then get off completely free because you're not used to drinking. Times two if you're a Muslim. Aint freedom great?
OT: My inner scumbag nationalist is hurt that i'm saying this but the American system is bet...
gggffgdgfgfdgf
No let go of me i don't want to be a nationalistkjhdgjhfddfkjgf
RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES! ENGLAND NEVER NEVER NEVER GOD SAVE OUR GRACIOUS QUEEN!
OT: My inner scumbag nationalist is hurt that i'm saying this but the American system is bet...
gggffgdgfgfdgf
No let go of me i don't want to be a nationalistkjhdgjhfddfkjgf
RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES! ENGLAND NEVER NEVER NEVER GOD SAVE OUR GRACIOUS QUEEN!
Although I really don't like that, you are probably right. I wasn't really considering freedom of speech when I commented. But we do have a right to free speech, and if we let people pick and choose what is okay and what isn't, then it isn't really free speech anymore.maddawg IAJI said:
I am actually glad that here in the UK one cannot claim freedom of speech. The exceptions to the common law and European Convention on freedom of expression mean that we don't have to tolerate some of these examples, nor our teachers the whining in the classroom. Incitement to Religious and Racial Hatred also help muchly - though I will admit that it seems to be political correctness that stops our top brass from acting as they should most of the time!
Does the US have common law? As far as I know - I'm not a law or history study - common law is something that's developed over centuries to fit the attitudes of the country and is flexible to suit situations. The amendments seem...unable to match the attitude or the flexibility. Freedom of speech is all well and good but it seems much too broad, and I've only ever heard of it being cited in situations where a fair argument would have sufficed over here, where some...individuals...use it to breach the peace (a crime here) or in schools.
Does the US have common law? As far as I know - I'm not a law or history study - common law is something that's developed over centuries to fit the attitudes of the country and is flexible to suit situations. The amendments seem...unable to match the attitude or the flexibility. Freedom of speech is all well and good but it seems much too broad, and I've only ever heard of it being cited in situations where a fair argument would have sufficed over here, where some...individuals...use it to breach the peace (a crime here) or in schools.
XD Scandinavia is expensive!! My parents lived in Norway for 8 months before I was conceived and my friend visited Finland recently, and both made their bank accounts cry! But I agree, I do love their savvyness whe it comes to some of their laws.
I hate the concept of hate speech. It shouldn't matter what emotions motivates my words. the same I hate the concept of hate crimes, thingsd are crimes because they are against the laws not because I really hate X group. So I have no problem against for instance havinglaws agaisnt incitment to violence i.e if a neo nazi group was talking in public about how we should all kill jews and then discusssed the best ways to do so, that would be a crime. But for them to somply say something along the lines that they hate Jews that that is perfectly fine.
to me, a right is something you are free from the government to do, not soemthing to government choses to give as a present to you. That mentality is very dangerous in my mind as it makes the whole idea of free speech become something that you can only do as along as it is in the narrow confines of a set opinion.
to me, a right is something you are free from the government to do, not soemthing to government choses to give as a present to you. That mentality is very dangerous in my mind as it makes the whole idea of free speech become something that you can only do as along as it is in the narrow confines of a set opinion.
Bull-fucking-shit. This is the most ridiculous argument I could possibly imagine because it could be used to ban anything from hate speech to homosexuals kissing in public.Abandon4093 said:
If someone's words bother you so much then speak out against them. Make YOUR voice heard. But you don't get to censor someone because your feelings are hurt.
When your physical safety is at risk, or they are threatening you with a crime then it's something entirely different, but if someone's saying gays are evil then guess what; you can either speak out or shut your mouth and move on. In either case, you either you have to suck it up and deal, not infringe on the rights of others because you disagree.
Like all rights, the right to free speech has limitations. In particular, when it infringes on the rights of others.
It seems that the American attitude is that all rights are absolute and unlimited. What is forgotten is that with rights come responsibilities i.e. not to abuse rights to hurt others.
For example in Ireland I have the right to a good name. Therefore no one can write in a newspaper baseless assertions about me that could damage my reputation, regardless of their right to free speech. They can write any assertions about me that are proven or provable. One right has limitations imposed on it by other rights! One right is not more powerful than another - they coalesce together (or at least they should!)
The Westboro Baptist Church not only mocks the dead, they mock the very freedoms upon which the United States was founded. They are abhorrent and disgusting and truly a representation of something that has gone awfully wrong in the USA. If I were an American I would not be jumping to defend their right to free speech - I would be jumping to defend all those Americans and their rights, who the Westboro Baptist Church mocks and abuses.
It seems that the American attitude is that all rights are absolute and unlimited. What is forgotten is that with rights come responsibilities i.e. not to abuse rights to hurt others.
For example in Ireland I have the right to a good name. Therefore no one can write in a newspaper baseless assertions about me that could damage my reputation, regardless of their right to free speech. They can write any assertions about me that are proven or provable. One right has limitations imposed on it by other rights! One right is not more powerful than another - they coalesce together (or at least they should!)
The Westboro Baptist Church not only mocks the dead, they mock the very freedoms upon which the United States was founded. They are abhorrent and disgusting and truly a representation of something that has gone awfully wrong in the USA. If I were an American I would not be jumping to defend their right to free speech - I would be jumping to defend all those Americans and their rights, who the Westboro Baptist Church mocks and abuses.
Actually I disagree. The restrictions the UK has put around speech makes the country less free. The only speech that I have any support in criminalizing is incitement to violence where violence has taken place that can be directly liked to that speech. But even that is a hard sell to me as it sounds to vague. Free speech is free speech and if you have limits on it, then it is no longer free speech. The UK does not have free speech full stop.SongsOfDragons said:
Now UK politenesses are want to put in place Internet block for websites that might have extremist views. What constitutes an 'extremist view' is of course vague. Some would argue the Daily Mail (UK version of Fox News in paper form) aught to be first on the block. Enough already, this is not freedom.
O/T The supreme court already ruled on these guy's that their antics are supported by the constitution. Free speech is a double edged sword. And as a double edged sword any restriction you make to it will have as many bad results as well as good (stopping those muppets). Still don't know why people don't go and picket their church, fight fire with fire so to speak.
Free speech is a two way street, can't ban people from saying something just because you personally don't agree.
Now I'm not saying I agree with these nutjobs, but banning particular speech is a slippery slope. Besides, what's socially acceptable to say changes from generation to generation. I'm personally of the camp that people should be free to say what they want, so long as it's not encouraging, inciting, or threatening violence against someone else.
If it's socially unacceptable (Such as this incident), they'll be shunned and boo'd by people exercising -their- right to free speech, which will act as a deterrent on it's own, without needing to place undue restrictions on what one can say. People do not have the right to demand silence just because they don't agree, which is just plain toxic to legitimate public discourse.
Now I'm not saying I agree with these nutjobs, but banning particular speech is a slippery slope. Besides, what's socially acceptable to say changes from generation to generation. I'm personally of the camp that people should be free to say what they want, so long as it's not encouraging, inciting, or threatening violence against someone else.
If it's socially unacceptable (Such as this incident), they'll be shunned and boo'd by people exercising -their- right to free speech, which will act as a deterrent on it's own, without needing to place undue restrictions on what one can say. People do not have the right to demand silence just because they don't agree, which is just plain toxic to legitimate public discourse.