Hate Speech protected by the 1st Amendment in the United States

[Anthraxinsoup]

This "slippery slope" idea seems to be very common with Americans when it comes to their precious freedom of speech, but seriously, in the UK we've had anti-discrimination laws for years and do you see us being arrested for "thought crimes"?

I disagree, in Poland you can get arrested for being proud of your nation, and in Germany it is illegal to say only 3.5 million Jewish People died during the holocaust, even though it's a proven fact. Germany also tries to enforce their "no-swastika" law on the rest of Europe, but the Swastika was found all over Europe, and our Origination in the middle east.

 

[Livewire]

I disagree, in Poland you can get arrested for being proud of your nation, and in Germany it is illegal to say only 3.5 million Jewish People died during the holocaust, even though it's a proven fact. Germany also tries to enforce their "no-swastika" law on the rest of Europe, but the Swastika was found all over Europe, and our Origination in the middle east.

I doubt that. If they get arrested for "fervent nationalism", it's probably because of illicit dealings, not because of that. Although I can why they'd be so uptight about it. We don't need to fight another World War over petty blood feuds and alliances.

 

[Esper]

That's not true at all. The KKK holds rallies all the time and they're allowed to do so under US law.

Yes, that's true, but the public is largely against racist ideology so you could say the debate on that topic has already been decided. I'm fine with rallies and expression in general, but when it's done at and timed to coincide with a funeral then that's getting too personal. I don't like that it's allowed to get that personal. And even though one could debate just how personal it really is, it does seem that the courts are a little more permissive of these kinds of demonstrations just because a lot of people are still not that comfortable with homosexuality.

 

[aruchan]

Ah, well, that's exactly wqhat I mean by staying at one point on the slope. Plenty of people would argue that we're going down the slippery slope by restricting their speech beyond the four situations which FreakyLocz quoted, but I would argue, and I think you're agreeing with, is that we should be willing to add on other situations, such as protesting at funerals.

Protesting at funerals is at least morally reprehensible. Certain actions should be banned--those which cause grievous emotional or physical harm to others. In addition, groups like the KKK should be banned not for their hateful speech--it's just a garden-variety white supremacy club--but for the actions they committed.

 

[Anthraxinsoup]

I doubt that. If they get arrested for "fervent nationalism", it's probably because of illicit dealings, not because of that. Although I can why they'd be so uptight about it. We don't need to fight another World War over petty blood feuds and alliances.

You can be arrested for Nationalism in many European countrys, even Poland, and Germany specially. Where are you from? Have you ever been thrown in the slammer for being in a Polish Pride March? I have. I was just up front holding a banner that said "Poland is my country, I love her, and I will die for her".

 

[Livewire]

You can be arrested for Nationalism in many European countrys, even Poland, and Germany specially. Where are you from? Have you ever been thrown in the slammer for being in a Polish Pride March? I have. I was just up front holding a banner that said "Poland is my country, I love her, and I will die for her".

Then you live in a backwards and oppressive country, if your government can legitimately do that to its people. But then again, fervent European nationalism is what sparked two World Wars that killed 150 Million or so people in that time frame, so it's easy to see why they would crack down on it in modern times.

But that bring us back to the main point. "Free" Speech is subjective and esoteric. You can't say or do whatever you please.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Protesting at funerals is at least morally reprehensible. Certain actions should be banned--those which cause grievous emotional or physical harm to others. In addition, groups like the KKK should be banned not for their hateful speech--it's just a garden-variety white supremacy club--but for the actions they committed.

Under what legal basis can we punish members of a group for action they themselves didn't commit, but other committed in the past? We cannot ban groups. The 1st Amendment has been interpreted by the Court to guarantee Freedom of Association. There is not Constitutional freedom to not be offended. People who think that they can rid the world of everything offensive are not living in reality. The same 1st Amendment that allows people to express views that you find offensive also allows you to express your disagreement. The case Hustler v. Falwell (485 U.S. 46) limited the scope of defamation and claims of emotional distress.

Then you live in a backwards and oppressive country, if your government can legitimately do that to its people. But then again, fervent European nationalism is what sparked two World Wars that killed 150 Million or so people in that time frame, so it's easy to see why they would crack down on it in modern times.

But that bring us back to the main point. "Free" Speech is subjective and esoteric. You can't say or do whatever you please.

I can guarantee that nationalistic speech would be protected in the States.

 

[.Fenris]

Since this topic doesn't seem to drop of the front page, I'll just casually let off a fraction of the animosity I have for them.

Frankly, I have a serious beef with this people. They don't have one family member in the military between them and they want to protest at military funerals?

Oh, but America is ******land... FIRST AMENDMENT!

Yeah?
We got something called respect for the dead that fought for that right and if the US is soooo flippin' bad with all the gay people, move to, say, Afghanistan, no gays there! And since you seem to be soooo highly enlightened harassing dead soldiers who fight for the country you hate upon but abuse it's constitutional rights 'cause they don't share your same beliefs, go get with the Taliban, they fit your lifestyle, if they don't cut your throat first. Kinda sucks now, huh? Sucks for youuuu....

HAVE FUN! HOPE YOU TRIP ON AN I.E.D.! HEY MARINES, I GOT A BETTER USE FOR THESE LOSERS, USE 'EM TO BAIT SNIPERS!


...Ok, that's out of my system...

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Since the First Amendment is gonna let haters be haters, then you can be hatin' on the haters just as much as they be hatin' on you!

Seriously, I don't understand why people take this grand opportunity to call that Church what it really is - a stinking piece of **** eating god fearing maniacs that are so goddammed crazy they should be just thrown into a hole and left to die.

 

[twocows]

Since this topic doesn't seem to drop of the front page, I'll just casually let off a fraction of the animosity I have for them.

Frankly, I have a serious beef with this people. They don't have one family member in the military between them and they want to protest at military funerals?

Oh, but America is ******land... FIRST AMENDMENT!

Yeah?
We got something called respect for the dead that fought for that right and if the US is soooo flippin' bad with all the gay people, move to, say, Afghanistan, no gays there! And since you seem to be soooo highly enlightened harassing dead soldiers who fight for the country you hate upon but abuse it's constitutional rights 'cause they don't share your same beliefs, go get with the Taliban, they fit your lifestyle, if they don't cut your throat first. Kinda sucks now, huh? Sucks for youuuu....

HAVE FUN! HOPE YOU TRIP ON AN I.E.D.! HEY MARINES, I GOT A BETTER USE FOR THESE LOSERS, USE 'EM TO BAIT SNIPERS!


...Ok, that's out of my system...

That's a dangerous thing to say. I understand where your disdain for them is coming from, but telling them to leave because they're exercising their freedoms is undermining those very freedoms itself. I've been told "why don't you go move to X if you don't like Y" a number of times just for saying rather minor things like "I'm not a fan of the way our government works" or "we need to fix the economy." The whole point of living in America is that we're free in all the ways that matter (supposedly). This whole argument of "if you don't like it, leave" that I've been hearing recently, I just don't like it, it seems like it undermines the freedom that we're supposed to be founded upon.

Since the First Amendment is gonna let haters be haters, then you can be hatin' on the haters just as much as they be hatin' on you!

Seriously, I don't understand why people take this grand opportunity to call that Church what it really is - a stinking piece of **** eating god fearing maniacs that are so goddammed crazy they should be just thrown into a hole and left to die.

We don't need to sink to their level. We have class.

 

[.Fenris]

That's a dangerous thing to say. I understand where your disdain for them is coming from, but telling them to leave because they're exercising their freedoms is undermining those very freedoms itself. I've been told "why don't you go move to X if you don't like Y" a number of times just for saying rather minor things like "I'm not a fan of the way our government works" or "we need to fix the economy." The whole point of living in America is that we're free in all the ways that matter (supposedly). This whole argument of "if you don't like it, leave" that I've been hearing recently, I just don't like it, it seems like it undermines the freedom that we're supposed to be founded upon.


We don't need to sink to their level. We have class.

I said 'get with the Taliban' and make them meet with the Taliban, realize that these are the guys the soldiers are trying to keep from killing them and every other American, all because of a 'religious' belief, that they shouldn't be saying this at military funerals. Make them realize that the two are drastically different.

I just needed to express my anger at these people considering most of my relatives from my grandparents and before have served and it just disgusts me they can do that to the dead. Why don't they harass an able-bodied marine is my question.

 

[NarutoActor]

This church gives religion in generally a bad name. I think everyone should ban together, and stick up for the poor families who lost their loved ones. :c

 

[Massacre.]

Fred Phelps... I hate that guy. If you ask me, the first amendment should NOT let you just insult anyone because "oh, its a law so I can say whatever I want." But unfortunately, that's what it means. It's just sick that Phelps's clan would sabotage a religious place. But then again, it's their place, so yeah. Didn't they sabotage Matthew Shepard's funeral too? It's all because of his anti-gay political system. So he just decides, as a pastor to say sick stuff such as "Fag troops" "You're burning in hell" or any of that BS. I am deeply disappointed that he gets away with hate speech by the first amendment.

Goodbye. I cannot express my hatred for this heartless man enough.

 

[Rainy Day]

Freedom of speech protects all speech. This makes sense. For one, eliminating that freedom when the speech is hateful doesn't eliminate hatred. If we banned freedom of speech, it'd be like if we banned consumption of liquor above a certain... Of wait, we did. Didn't work.

In the same way that prohibition doesn't stop people from wanting to drink liquor, banning hate speech doesn't eliminate hatred. Not only that, but if we give people the power to take legal action against speech they perceive to be hateful... Well, let's just say the line between what is and isn't hateful would begin to blur. That's my hypothesis as to the implications of it anyway.

As for Phelps, he's a repugnant moron, but he has every right to say what he wants to say. (Note that we also have the right to stand against him. 'tis the beauty of free speech)

 

[Livewire]

Freedom of speech protects all speech. This makes sense. For one, eliminating that freedom when the speech is hateful doesn't eliminate hatred. If we banned freedom of speech, it'd be like if we banned consumption of liquor above a certain... Of wait, we did. Didn't work.

In the same way that prohibition doesn't stop people from wanting to drink liquor, banning hate speech doesn't eliminate hatred. Not only that, but if we give people the power to take legal action against speech they perceive to be hateful... Well, let's just say the line between what is and isn't hateful would begin to blur. That's my hypothesis as to the implications of it anyway.

As for Phelps, he's a repugnant moron, but he has every right to say what he wants to say. (Note that we also have the right to stand against him. 'tis the beauty of free speech)

I agree with this. Phelps is a troll and a disgusting person, but our system much be impartial and logical, instead of relying on emotion, despite how horrible it is.

 

[Mös]

Disgusting. Is this the same group of people who protested that little girls funeral a while back?

 

[Dakotah]

Disgusting. Is this the same group of people who protested that little girls funeral a while back?

This is indeed the same group, however it was my understanding that they decided not to protest at her funeral. I am assuming, of course, that you are speaking of the 9 year old girl who was killed during the rampage in Tucson, Arizona.

This same group has been barred from entering Canada and the UK because Canada and UK have laws which prohibit speech that incites hatred or violence towards a protected group. In Canada and the UK, sexual orientation is a protected class, unlike in the U.S.