The US should probably consider banning hate speech like the rest of the free world.

[Nikolaz72]

I like the oxymoron in your title.

Quoted for truth.

Pick a side, everyone; freedom or none. Either absolute freedom or absolute government control. Pick one. Don't do this 'i believe in free speech but THIS IS OFFENSIVE BAN IT'

If you get offended... just get over it. Deal with it. Other people are different than you. They can have different opinions.

Why does their opinion matter?

Ah yes, the black and white arguement. Either you are an extreme or an extreme, there is no middle ground. Which is why all countries are either pure Communist or pure Capitalist or pure Liberalist. As there is no middle-ground there is no such thing as Social-Liberalism. Socialism, nor Social-Conservatism (no sir) Its either one end of the spectrum, or the other end. You cant make certain 'degrees' of stuff illigal. If you make one kind of icecream illigal, you gotta ban 'all' the icecream.

Your post consisted of this.

-Denial of Europe's existance (Or at least how several of their countries laws work)-
-Denial of several laws within America (Its not 100% free, arguing that it is would be retarded)-
-Trying to make himself sound good by making the post short and putting on a punchline-

Sadly it didnt work.

 

[templar1138a]

And it's completely legal. Go America.

Yes. Go America indeed. Because at the same time that the hateful and stupid can shout their ridiculous opinions, satirists and political activists can say what they like about politicians without fear of being decapitated in the town square, having their families held hostage, or "disappearing."

Putting up with some loud morons is a small price to pay.

 

[bloob]

Once you ban any type of speech it because very easy to ban anti-government speech, just like many first world countries have.

That just sounds alarmist and like a slippery slope fallacy. There's little reason to think that that is true. Speech is already partially restricted.

The UK does have speech limits (as far as I know), where criticism of the government is met with jail time even if the criticism is valid.

That last part is very wrong, i live in the UK and the newspapers, tv etc critise the government all the time and i haven't heard of a single case of someone going to prison for critising the government.

The hate speech laws in the UK are very rarely enforced strictly even in extreme cases, like the poppy burning which as already been mentioned, the people involved got away with a £50 fine.

Hate Speech law is hardly a slippery slope in the UK, but it is to do with how the legal systems are set up, the UK is much more flexible as it lacks a constitution and the law has developed over hundreds of years. The American constitution (which can be better as it leads to much less ambiguity) is much more rigid and i can see how changing something as fundamental as the the first amendment could lead to complications later on.

 

[Viptorian]

Absolutely not.

Outside of times when you incite people to do other things that are crimes, speech does no actual harm to people. If someone is offended by what another says, that is tough nuts for them. Does that mean you SHOULD go running around being offensive, not at all. I think have a duty not to be an ass to people, but they should still have the right to be. I find WBC to be the scum of the Earth and think they need to stop what they do, but they do have the right to do it. As much as I would enjoy them all being put in their place, they have a right to their beliefs - they're insane, but they have a right to be. Just because I find their stances and actions appalling, doesn't mean it should be banned.

 

[Heinrich843]

The issue is not that people will start to believe their bullshit. The issue is that thier bullshit is annoying and offensive.

As in most discussions about banning people for "hate speech" or something that is "offensive", one can simply be referred to this: http://youtu.be/C9HRLvfbauA

OT:

They can pretty much grab the WBC on any chalked up charge to get them away from a funeral.

The idea of letting people bury their family in peace, without the WBC shouting things at them is innocent enough, but what you're suggesting is too broad for US politics. For our particular government, a centimeter is a kilometer. Once you establish the premise that you can violate the constitution and it's oldest amendments, everything else is fair game.

At the same time, what's wrong with not following suit with everyone else? In a purely hypothetical situation, hate speech laws can be used by the government for any number of purposes, purposes that may or may not include your own. By nature, this seems self-destructive, and the proper function of these laws requires your government to be sensible and intelligent. It's fine if you trust your government enough for these sorts of laws, but we tend not to.

 

[quysspe]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10364954-anti-gay-westboro-baptist-church-to-protest-at-slain-powell-boys-funeral

If you're too lazy to read the article, there was an incident recently where a man killed himself and his two sons after losing custody of them. (This same man was under investigation for the disappearance of his wife two years ago). The Westboro Baptist Church is going to be holding an anti-gay protest at their funeral, because they claim that the boy's deaths were an act of vengeance from God because of Washington's recent support of homosexual rights.

And it's completely legal. Go America.

Actually, the US's legal approach to free speech is not as avant-garde as you seem to think is. That is to say, Westboro Baptist Church can show up and be inbred, bigoted pigs at this man's funeral, but in a lot of contexts there are repercussions for spewing hate speech. Private-sector employers are legally obligated to take punitive measures against people who say things like this, as are public institutions like schools, or government offices, or what have you.

Basically, I think it boils down to a practice of "least-interference." People go to school and work every day, usually spending 8 hours or more there. Such an environment should by necessity be free of hate speech or outright violence against people who have to be there. By contrast, a given area of public land is rarely occupied for the same people for the same amount of time, even one outside a funeral. Certainly we could intervene and break up the demonstration, but it's not as big a deal as spending a 40-hour work week getting slurs hurled at you.

We don't like hate speech any more than any other nation, and there are situations where we suppress it, like any other first-world nation. We just choose to draw the line in a different place.

 

[senordesol]

Many laughs on this thread. It's also fascinating to see how many times people will 'make up' rights in order to undermine the rights of others. Like the 'right to not be offended.'

I like American speech laws where they are, thanks. You cannot incite to violence, and you cannot threaten anyone or otherwise entreat or proposition the commission of a crime.

But if you're just on a street corner, expressing an opinion; then no one should be able to touch you. That opinion may frustrate and offend the Hell out of you; but it still remains an opinion that -at the end of the day- you can agree with, argue with, or ignore. And that's the thing, isn't it? WBC has to remain on public property in order to do their demonstrations, so ignoring them is a viable option. So just *do* that. Ignore them. You'll have a lot less stress and the police won't have to worry about making an arrest every time someone in America mentions the curious correlation between acts of global terror and a certain religion.

For those saying 'they're forcing it down people's throats.' Sorry, no. Unless they are chasing you down, keeping you from leaving, or breaking into your home; they're not. Stating an opinion and stating it loudly is not -itself- 'forcing it down your throat'.

The WBC are scum. And I'm glad I live in a country that gives me every legal right to say that. That's why I'm against banning such speech. I don't want to be arrested for calling scum 'scum'.

 

[FamoFunk]

Tell you what is sad about the story...

A 5 and 7 year old's funeral could be ruined by people wanting to protest over homosexuality. I mean, who the fuck does that?

 

[senordesol]

Theres a differnce between using your freedoms and abusing them.

hate=/=critism

I mean, I can understand how people would abuse it if it were a law to stop people citizing them but thats equally as bad as people getting to insult others publicly just because they can.


If you cant understand why banning hate speech is a good thing then a your a bloody idiot or an asshole who regulary abuses his freedom of speech to be an asshole.

^Hate speech or criticism?

 

[senordesol]

^Hate speech or criticism?

thats hate but youd have to be a real pussy to take me to court over that.

again, thats nothing compared to what those church protesters were doing and the fact your arguing with me makes it look like your in support of them.

Right. Well there is no 'pussy factor' in the American justice system. It's either illegal or it's not.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Theres a differnce between using your freedoms and abusing them.

hate=/=critism

I mean, I can understand how people would abuse it if it were a law to stop people citizing them but thats equally as bad as people getting to insult others publicly just because they can.


If you cant understand why banning hate speech is a good thing then a your a bloody idiot or an asshole who regulary abuses his freedom of speech to be an asshole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Look up "fighting words" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words] to see why speech already has restrictions.

Also, SCOTUS has ruled on this issue, many a time. You have no legal right not to be offended.

 

[senordesol]

so your telling me people are allowed to desecrate a persons funeral because of their beliefs?

are you telling me thats right?

So long as they stay 1000 feet away as the law requires, yep.

Make no mistake, I -in NO way- agree with or endorse their message. But they've got every right to it.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

If you cant understand why banning hate speech is a good thing then a your a bloody idiot or an asshole who regulary abuses his freedom of speech to be an asshole.

I don't agree with what you have to say sir, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Ad Hominems don't make your side right by the way.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I feel like I should point out that the Bill of Rights is actually meant to be a counter to government. Freedom of speech doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, it gives you the right to speak out against the government only. Similar to how the second amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms for any reason you please, but so that you can form a militia if need be.

On the second part, as per the Heller and McDonald ruling, that's incorrect. But that's neither here nor there. You can bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes, which include self defense in the home, unconnected with service in a militia.

Also, you really should read some case law on the matter. You have an... odd view on the first amendment.