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

Landorus said:
How can screaming, "HE DIED BECAUSE HE'S A ******" and "GOD HATES HIM" be anything other than slander?

Have you ever seen video of their protests? Have you actually heard what they said?
Click to expand...
God is an opinion though.
 
First rule of revolutions, politics, and opinions:

If it's not our revolution/ideology/opinion, it's terrorism/evil/hate speech.

I don't condone the WBC, but the hypocrisy of this is laughable. The media has no right to slam anyone for "hate speech." Least of all, anti-war groups.
 
Landorus said:
How can screaming, "HE DIED BECAUSE HE'S A ******" and "GOD HATES HIM" be anything other than slander?

Have you ever seen video of their protests? Have you actually heard what they said?
Click to expand...
Slander is a very specific legal concept in US law. In general (and I am not a lawyer), a statement has to be both false and harmful to be considered slander. If you can't prove both of these, it isn't slander. In this case, the statements may be harmful, but they can't be proven false, so it isn't slander.
 
Ahh, another fundie religious group out trolling again to stir up controversy and get their name out in the media. An attention grabber.

What the WBC said is morally repugnant, ignorant, disgusting and homophobic. Jesus, should he catch wind of this, would be absolutely mortified by how they have perverted and twisted his religion to justify their own bigotry. However, they can still voice their viewpoints via our First Amendment. Sometimes this means the bad guys win, that's just how things work sometimes.
 
Also, everyone's overlooking a basic point:
Some people in the WBC believe they are, in fact, right.

So, is our definition of 'right' superior to theirs?

Now, you could argue that, according to religion, yes. In fact, as a Christian, I would enjoy that argument.

However, if God doesn't exist, then what defines morality?

How is there a 'good guy' or 'bad guy' in this situation?

We all believe we're right, after all. Hate speech is only hateful when it's targeted at you, or something you support.
 
Well, they are allowed to voice their beliefs no matter how asinine and offensive those beliefs may be.
Just wait for it. One day they'll show up at the wrong person's funeral and get the beating of their lives.
They are, quite literally, bringing on their on end.
 
Yukimi said:
Well, they are allowed to voice their beliefs no matter how asinine and offensive those beliefs may be.
Just wait for it. One day they'll show up at the wrong person's funeral and get the beating of their lives.
They are, quite literally, bringing on their on end.
Click to expand...
That'd be assault, which is blatantly illegal. For now, they're only skirting the line, so upping the ante against them is a black-and-white crime.

Eh, I tend to walk down the middle line of issues like these, but still...

I wonder if there's a way to remove their tax-exempt status, if they still have it. That should send a clear enough message.

You can't massacre the members, for fear of another Waco Siege. But still, there are other ways to take these groups down.
 
Shanghai Alice said:
Also, everyone's overlooking a basic point:
Some people in the WBC believe they are, in fact, right.

So, is our definition of 'right' superior to theirs?

Now, you could argue that, according to religion, yes. In fact, as a Christian, I would enjoy that argument.

However, if God doesn't exist, then what defines morality?

How is there a 'good guy' or 'bad guy' in this situation?

We all believe we're right, after all. Hate speech is only hateful when it's targeted at you, or something you support.
Click to expand...

Because, Society as a whole has these things called morals, and a collective sense of what is right and wrong. So, according to normal human beings, who aren't ignorant or hateful, the statements made my the WBC are wrong, which, they are. Every other sensible human being 's sense of right v. wrong > WBC's sense of right v. wrong. Like i mentioned earlier, this is just an example of an extremist outlying group abusing and hiding behind the guise of free speech.

Hate speech is always hateful, otherwise it wouldn't be called, <drumroll please> hate speech. It's pretty obvious that this is a textbook example of such.
 
Last edited:
A lot of them are lawyers however, you can guarantee they will fight anything and everything.

When protesting in a town, an unknown assailant slashed their tires. When trying to get their tires fixed in town, they were refused service (for good reason). I'm not too sure if they tried to sue the mechanic, but the mechanic has every right to refuse service. That might have to be debated in court too sometimes, but in this case it is plainly obvious. No one wants to help some psychos with their psycho ideas...

Of course it's difficult to recognize them, but even if they were to stay at a hotel, if I were the manager, I'd tell them to leave. I mean they're supposed to hate everyone so this should be no skin off their back.
 
Landorus said:
How can screaming, "HE DIED BECAUSE HE'S A ******" and "GOD HATES HIM" be anything other than slander?

Have you ever seen video of their protests? Have you actually heard what they said?
Click to expand...

Also, the church never claimed he was a homosexual. They said he's in Hell because he died fighting for a country that is tolerant of homosexuality.
 
aruchan said:
So despite the despicable nature of these people, the freedom of speech is invaluable. I do think, however, that they should not be allowed to protest at funerals. That's just disrespectful.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sad thing is, this is a very thing that lacks in most countries. In Poland it's hard for us to even march. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV7DPmidCLU&feature=related

It makes me miss home so much, I wish I was there. I had many family and friends in that march. But I hope to make a new life in America, least for now, and return when I get slightly older. One of my old friends got attacked and beat by some Anti-Fascist for simply carrying our National Flag and Marching for being proud of his Nation. Makes me very sad you can't do that in my home country. I don't like the rap that the group I posted has though. I am more into Oi and Black metal.
 
Last edited:
twocows said:
At what point is it no longer part significant? There are still people who protest racial integration, but they are an insignificant minority. At what point do we draw the line, though?
Click to expand...
Wherever that line should be it should be the same for everyone. What I don't like about this court decision is the double standard you get when public opinion is included in determining whether what someone does is expressing their views or causing undue harm/attempting to cause harm/inciting violence/trolling/etc.

The public is by far okay with racial integration and so there is no debate on it and based on how the court ruled (where "public debate" trumps many other arguments) I can only assume that if the church were protesting because of racial integration the court would have ruled against them since their is no public discourse on racial integration. The courts should be above easily-manipulated public discourse and should stick to law.

But what Netto said before is the best solution for cases like this: "Time-Place-Manner" laws for private things like funerals.
 
Scarf said:
Wherever that line should be it should be the same for everyone. What I don't like about this court decision is the double standard you get when public opinion is included in determining whether what someone does is expressing their views or causing undue harm/attempting to cause harm/inciting violence/trolling/etc.

The public is by far okay with racial integration and so there is no debate on it and based on how the court ruled (where "public debate" trumps many other arguments) I can only assume that if the church were protesting because of racial integration the court would have ruled against them since their is no public discourse on racial integration. The courts should be above easily-manipulated public discourse and should stick to law.

But what Netto said before is the best solution for cases like this: "Time-Place-Manner" laws for private things like funerals.
Click to expand...
That's not true at all. The KKK holds rallies all the time and they're allowed to do so under US law.
 
If people feel they should control and censor this, they might as well censor everything. Sooner or later we'll be making THOUGHTCRIMES if they think this is wrong. Thing is, people will always have something to say that you feel is wrong and don't agree with, but others do agree with it. People need to learn to ignore stuff and not turn it into such a big deal. When it's turned into a big deal, that's when things get ugly.
Just look what happened with Hitler when the Germans chose to side with their own culture. Stop choosing "sides" rights are in place for a reason.

You know the saying "Haters gonna hate." Deal with it.
 
Shanghai Alice said:
That'd be assault, which is blatantly illegal. For now, they're only skirting the line, so upping the ante against them is a black-and-white crime.

Eh, I tend to walk down the middle line of issues like these, but still...

I wonder if there's a way to remove their tax-exempt status, if they still have it. That should send a clear enough message.

You can't massacre the members, for fear of another Waco Siege. But still, there are other ways to take these groups down.
Click to expand...

I don't think the legality of it matters. They're picketing outside the funeral of someone's dead child, brother, friend...eventually someone is going to become very violent toward them. It's only a matter of time.
Will they end up in prison for becoming violent? Yes. Will that stop them? No, probably not. You don't mess with a family that just lost a child.
 
Kura said:
If people feel they should control and censor this, they might as well censor everything. Sooner or later we'll be making THOUGHTCRIMES if they think this is wrong. Thing is, people will always have something to say that you feel is wrong and don't agree with, but others do agree with it. People need to learn to ignore stuff and not turn it into such a big deal. When it's turned into a big deal, that's when things get ugly.
Just look what happened with Hitler when the Germans chose to side with their own culture. Stop choosing "sides" rights are in place for a reason.

You know the saying "Haters gonna hate." Deal with it.
Click to expand...

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"?
 
Even though those people were jerks and deserved a beating (Really? Protest at somebody's funeral and say he deserved to die for whatever reason?), Freedom of speech is one thing I really admire about the US. Censoring is completely unacceptable, and should be treated as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top