I agree it might contradict free speech but some people can't handle that freedom.
in Holland you can get a prison sentence if you hold a hate speech.
in Holland you can get a prison sentence if you hold a hate speech.
The US should probably consider banning hate speech like the rest of the free world.
- Thread starter Kopikatsu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think that you in Norway would be arrested by the police for disturbing the general public peace... and probably other things.Kopikatsu said:
I do think the Westboro Lunatic Family should have the right to protest whatever the hell they want, but not wherever they want.
What and Where are two important factors of free speech imo.
Better, I think, if hate speech were allowed. Someone saying hateful things doesn't directly restrict anyone else's freedom, but banning it does. Hate speech should be dealt with socially - we're largely an educated society which believes in equality and decency. So racists should be social outcasts and pariahs. You're free to make your Nazi speech if you want, but first understand that nobody will talk to you, that your friends and family will abandon you, that no one will employ you or rent you a house. That is how justice should be served against such people, not by gagging them and letting them fester. Free means free to be an asshole as well. But in turn, society is free to speak against them, by making them pariahs.
They protest on public property which is entirely their right. Just as it is the right of anyone who wants to to go and counter protest them (which has happened before I believe). Regardless, whatever they may say about another person, or what they preach about, the government shouldn't have the right to decide if such speech is appropriate or not.Abandon4093 said:
Common sense does not dictate that we allow government to forcibly silence those we don't agree with. Common sense would say we exercise our rights to speak out against what they are saying as any reasonable and rational person would do.
If someone wants to preach their religion in a public place they are well within their rights. Just as you would be well within your right to ignore them or walk away. They aren't shoving anything down your throat unless they force you to listen by restricting your ability to leave, or if they barge in through the front door of your home. And there are already laws to deal with both.
Some countries banning it but otherwise being pretty nice places to live isn't an argument for it. There are plenty of countries that ban various types of speech which are absolutely terrible places to live as well. Try harder next time.
Such arguments are hardly outdated when we're referring to a country who's government has made some previously unthinkable strides towards infringing on the rights and freedoms of it's citizens even within the last ten years or so, not to mention actually has tried to limit free speech with varying degrees of success in the past.
Americans absolutely should be worried about the idea of setting a precedent for allowing their government to limit free speech, because it's not just possible they'd abuse it, these days it's pretty damn likely.
Freedom of speech is a double edged sword really. You can reveal your knowledge of a topic and rationally expand on your side of the argument, or you can show how utterly moronic and disreputable you are by making radical statements and backing them up with absolutely nothing.
Free speech allows us to more easily identify the morons, not only do their words have little effect (except perhaps emotional) on the rest of us, but we can quickly discern who is and is not competent.
Think of it as Natural Selection for daily social interactions, we need them to slip up and kill their own argument so that the mentally healthy individuals can thrive. Limiting their abilities to screw up only makes them a victim, and a victim is more easily sympathized with than an outright hate monger.
Free speech allows us to more easily identify the morons, not only do their words have little effect (except perhaps emotional) on the rest of us, but we can quickly discern who is and is not competent.
Think of it as Natural Selection for daily social interactions, we need them to slip up and kill their own argument so that the mentally healthy individuals can thrive. Limiting their abilities to screw up only makes them a victim, and a victim is more easily sympathized with than an outright hate monger.
I despise the Westburough Baptist Church and the crap they spout. They are a disgrace to not only Christians, but to good, decent humans in general.
However, they do have the right to say what they want, so long as they are not physically harming someone or putting them in danger. That's how free speech works, everyone has it regardless of how stupid their speech is.
I do think there needs to be some limits on how much they can harass people though, because let's face it, that is why they are there. They want to harass people, they want media attention, their wet-dream is for people to lash out against them so they can feel persecuted and righteous. I fully support legal limits to how close they can get to funerals (I know some states have this already). They should not be allowed within ear-shot. Let them protest a block or two away where no one cares. If they forced the Occupy movement to protest away from Wall Street itself, then they can shove the Westburough Baptists down the road a ways to practice their free speech.
As sad as it is, free speech is one of the only rights the average American has left. Our government can spy in on our phone calls and emails without warrants. Our police can violently disperse protesters and face no repercussions so long as the people being protested are the government or rich people (and even arrest people for recording videos of them doing it). Hell, the US military has the right to indefinitely detain US citizens without due process of law, and even execute US citizens abroad without presenting any evidence other than saying "They were badguys/working with the bad guys".
Let's try to milk free speech for as long as we can before that inevitably becomes illegal too.
However, they do have the right to say what they want, so long as they are not physically harming someone or putting them in danger. That's how free speech works, everyone has it regardless of how stupid their speech is.
I do think there needs to be some limits on how much they can harass people though, because let's face it, that is why they are there. They want to harass people, they want media attention, their wet-dream is for people to lash out against them so they can feel persecuted and righteous. I fully support legal limits to how close they can get to funerals (I know some states have this already). They should not be allowed within ear-shot. Let them protest a block or two away where no one cares. If they forced the Occupy movement to protest away from Wall Street itself, then they can shove the Westburough Baptists down the road a ways to practice their free speech.
As sad as it is, free speech is one of the only rights the average American has left. Our government can spy in on our phone calls and emails without warrants. Our police can violently disperse protesters and face no repercussions so long as the people being protested are the government or rich people (and even arrest people for recording videos of them doing it). Hell, the US military has the right to indefinitely detain US citizens without due process of law, and even execute US citizens abroad without presenting any evidence other than saying "They were badguys/working with the bad guys".
Let's try to milk free speech for as long as we can before that inevitably becomes illegal too.
This is very true. And I do agree with you - It is less free, by definition. But I have never come across any restriction on myself or others I know (mostly because we're all nice cowards XD). I read a blog called Nanny Knows Best which airs the stupidity of local government; it has been running without censor for years. I like to think that - in principle, yes I can be a right muppet of an idealist sometimes - 'they' can stop actual violence or hatred, instead of having their hands tied.ph0b0s123 said:
I don't know how much the Interweb censorship is going to fly over here, either. You ever seen the commentors on the BBC News website? The bile makes my screen melt. The Daily Mail could be a lot worse than it is. Us Brits want a friendly internet too.
Freedom of speech doesnt have to mean freedom to do anything. afaik the law here in England says you have freedom of speech but are not allowed to incite hate or violence. your allowed to have and speak racist sexist anti gay or whatever you want your not just not allowed to call for attacks on those groups.
I think if you could go back in time to the drawing up of the American constitution and ask them what sort of things this whole freedom of speech is meant to protect and allow they might be pretty horrified at how its now being used as an excuse to attempt to remove all the rights from some people.
I think if you could go back in time to the drawing up of the American constitution and ask them what sort of things this whole freedom of speech is meant to protect and allow they might be pretty horrified at how its now being used as an excuse to attempt to remove all the rights from some people.
Yes freedom of speech should not be absolute. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
If they come to anything involving me and mine? I'm gonna exercise my right to punch foo's in the face. And then when I get pulled up by their lawyer ***** daughters, I'm gonna punch them in the face too. And that crotchety old man who runs the show, and the little kids parading outside.
Fuck those guys. I hope they get burnt to death in their own homes.
Fuck those guys. I hope they get burnt to death in their own homes.
People should be able to say what they want (and this is an opinion that has gradually formed), although in cases such as that I would suggest that where they say it (and I believe they have to hold their tard-fest a certain distance away from the funeral) be restricted.
There is an inherent problem of ideology vs. practicality, and simply saying "hate speech should be banned" is practically useless.
There is an inherent problem of ideology vs. practicality, and simply saying "hate speech should be banned" is practically useless.
Such as?Darknacht said:
To put it in internet terms:
1. You ban something.
2. It gets extended a little bit because there are things the language doesn't directly cover.
3. It gets expanded a little more because there are things it definitely should cover, but aren't technically "hate speech".
4. ????
5. Absolute censorship.
To put it in words:
Free speech has to remain entirely free or its not free speech at all. Once we start drawing broad, arbitrary lines around things you can't say, we lose the entire concept of free speech.
1. You ban something.
2. It gets extended a little bit because there are things the language doesn't directly cover.
3. It gets expanded a little more because there are things it definitely should cover, but aren't technically "hate speech".
4. ????
5. Absolute censorship.
To put it in words:
Free speech has to remain entirely free or its not free speech at all. Once we start drawing broad, arbitrary lines around things you can't say, we lose the entire concept of free speech.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with being responsible for what comes out of your mouth. They are two different concepts.tobyornottoby said:
This isn't a case of censoring speech because of some subjective judgement of the value of the thought being expressed, but rather holding people responsible for their speech based on the danger it poses to public safety.tobyornottoby said:
Hate speech would not fall under the latter description unless it begins to tread into the realm of actually inciting violence and calling on people to commit acts of violence or something similar.
US law is based on English common law. The constitution is mostly a generalized framework for how the government it structured and functions with restrictions on what the government is allowed to do. Much of the wording and content of the constitution was actually written with the assumption that one would understand it so long as one understood english common law (most of the authors had been english lawyers).SongsOfDragons said:
In the US you can be charged with all manner of crimes, or sued, regarding speech. The law is required to have a reasonable basis for restricting speech and must show that there is no better way to remedy the issue than to create the restriction. When the WBC was taken to court and the Supreme Court decided in their favour it was for no other reason than that the plaintiffs could not show damages. They actually had no idea that the WBC was protesting outside the funeral and only saw a story about it on the news when they got home.