|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 05 2015 02:34 phil.ipp wrote:why do people think everything that comes out of your mouth falls under the freedom of speech. if i say to my friend: hey lets kill this guy over there. i dont use my constitutional right to freedom of speech. its a murder plot. its the same for a hate speech. of course the line is more blurry and at some point the decision has to be made - but its not a discussion with different opinions. they dont discuss something in a hate speech. there is no, and probably never will be a law that allows you to say everything in every situation. its like the https://xkcd.com/1357/ comic. freedom of speech just should guarantee you, that you dont get thrown into jail for speaking out on political ideas. but only if these ideas respect the human rights. so if you tell 1000 people they should kill all jews, you dont exercise your right to freedom of speech.
You can say to your friend "lets kill this guy over there". If you actually have no intent to kill that guy you're just talking shit. You have to make a credible threat.
Hate speech is protected speech in the USA. If you don't protect all speech, including hate speech then you have to make rules. Who gets to make those rules? What is considered hate speech? Can I say fuck X group and its fine but if I say fuck Y group its hate speech? What's the difference between X and Y? Why does Y have protections that group X doesn't have?
The KKK have been around forever, neo-nazis, the westboro baptist church, etc. They all say certain groups of people should be killed or dead. That is the thrust of their message. All those groups are allowed to exist and say what they want freely and legally as they should be.
There is a difference between saying all jews should die, and actually going out and killing jews. I'm sure you recognize that.
Your comic is correct. I can say all blonde haired people should be burned alive. I can scream it on a street corner in the middle of New York City into a loud speaker and no one can stop me. But no one has to respect me, no one has to agree. Everyone has the First Amendment right to RIDICULE ME MERCILESSLY. Thats because freedom of speech works both ways. I have the right and you have the right. Once you have the right to say anything you like but I don't we have a massive problem.
|
What does that mean respect human rights? If you mean advocating violence is not protected speech then we agree. No one is arguing that murder plots are a protected form of free speech. But beyond advocating violence, speech should not be restricted.
|
Yeah there is line somewhere between "kill all jews"(which is not constitutionally protected) and "jews are good with money and bad at sports"(which is fine to say).
|
On May 05 2015 02:48 Wolfstan wrote:
Yeah there is line somewhere between "kill all jews"(which is not constitutionally protected) and "jews are good with money and bad at sports"(which is fine to say).
Saying "Kill all jews" is constitutionally protected in the US. Crazy people literally say that shit all the fucking time all over the country every day and no one gives a shit because no one takes them seriously. It's just a nutbar ranting.
|
So we are now basically at:
Hitler did nothing wrong, it is not his fault that other people took him seriously.
Which obviously ends the topic.
|
On May 05 2015 02:49 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 02:48 Wolfstan wrote:
Yeah there is line somewhere between "kill all jews"(which is not constitutionally protected) and "jews are good with money and bad at sports"(which is fine to say). Saying "Kill all jews" is constitutionally protected in the US. Crazy people literally say that shit all the fucking time all over the country every day and no one gives a shit because no one takes them seriously. It's just a nutbar ranting.
really? i didnt know that.
i know its definitely not protected here in austria.
and no, freedom of speech doesnt have to go all the way in every direction, and of course the government decides whats a hate speech and whats not. i know this is a very hard concept for americans to grasp, that a government decides which rights you have and which not.
|
On May 05 2015 02:51 puerk wrote:
So we are now basically at:
Hitler did nothing wrong, it is not his fault that other people took him seriously.
Which obviously ends the topic.
Its the debate where people try to talk about hate speech and divorce it from the intent of the speaker. You can say "Kill all the Jews" in your house. But if you say it to a mob of 5000 like minded people while you also happen to name off a large number of Jews in the local area, that is a different story.
|
The people that held the event are basically the Westboro Baptist church for Muslims instead of gays (and there's a hell of a lot more of them).
What their event really showed was how necessary the Muslim event that preceded it was.
The same type of people that went to that event were the same types who protested the Muslim event saying they essentially shouldn't have freedom of speech.
|
On May 05 2015 02:53 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 02:49 OuchyDathurts wrote:On May 05 2015 02:48 Wolfstan wrote:
Yeah there is line somewhere between "kill all jews"(which is not constitutionally protected) and "jews are good with money and bad at sports"(which is fine to say). Saying "Kill all jews" is constitutionally protected in the US. Crazy people literally say that shit all the fucking time all over the country every day and no one gives a shit because no one takes them seriously. It's just a nutbar ranting. really? i didnt know that. i know its definitely not protected here in austria. and no, freedom of speech doesnt have to go all the way in every direction, and of course the government decides whats a hate speech and whats not. i know this is a very hard concept for americans to grasp, that a government decides which rights you have and which not.
There are rules regarding speech depending on the context. If you're on broadcast radio you can't swear. If you are in a crowded room you can't start yelling 'fire'. Private forums can set their own rules regarding speech as well. Political speech is given the widest freedom, in part so that the government can't use censorship to secure its own position.
|
but where is the difference in calling "fire" in a theater
and saying to a crowd "they took all your money, go kill them"
in both cases someone says something, to get people to do something specific.
in the theater case, to run out in panic
in the other case, to kill someone i dont like.
where is the difference?
in both cases i have bad intentions that could harm people.
and thats what you should get punished for. not that you said a word or a sentence.
you should get punished cause you deliberately manipulate people to do harm.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On May 05 2015 01:52 Plansix wrote:
I think we can all agree there would be a good chance of some sort of violence if someone threw a Bible burning party in the bible belt. Just because fundamentalist Christians focus their violence on people working at abortion clinics doesn't mean they won't rise to the bait. Islam is not unique in this regard.
I would certainly hope not. I would hope to see some livid Fox commenters raging about culture war and protests and nothing more.
|
On May 05 2015 03:06 phil.ipp wrote:
but where is the difference in calling "fire" in a theater
and saying to a crowd "they took all your money, go kill them"
in both cases someone says something, to get people to do something specific.
in the theater case, to run out in panic
in the other case, to kill someone i dont like.
where is the difference?
in both cases i have bad intentions that could harm people.
It you look up hate speech in the US, the Supreme Court rules that speech that promotes an "imminent danger of unlawful action" is prohibited. Trying to get a crowd of people to maul or assault someone is not protected speech.
|
The current limit to freedom of speech is "Imminent Lawless Action".
On May 05 2015 02:51 puerk wrote:
So we are now basically at:
Hitler did nothing wrong, it is not his fault that other people took him seriously.
Which obviously ends the topic.
Sick strawman. Maybe if all Hitler did was talk some shit. But I'm fairly sure he made rules, ordered the invasion of countries, ordered the extermination of people. But I mean if you just overlook all that and boil it down to some asinine argument no one made, sure.
At the end of the day it all comes down to the old quote "I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Some people, like myself, actually agree and take that to heart.
|
On May 05 2015 03:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:The current limit to freedom of speech is "Imminent Lawless Action". Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 02:51 puerk wrote:
So we are now basically at:
Hitler did nothing wrong, it is not his fault that other people took him seriously.
Which obviously ends the topic. Sick strawman. Maybe if all Hitler did was talk some shit. But I'm fairly sure he made rules, ordered the invasion of countries, ordered the extermination of people. But I mean if you just overlook all that and boil it down to some asinine argument no one made, sure.
Everything you enumerate is only words being spoken or written by him.
|
On May 05 2015 03:14 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 03:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:The current limit to freedom of speech is "Imminent Lawless Action". On May 05 2015 02:51 puerk wrote:
So we are now basically at:
Hitler did nothing wrong, it is not his fault that other people took him seriously.
Which obviously ends the topic. Sick strawman. Maybe if all Hitler did was talk some shit. But I'm fairly sure he made rules, ordered the invasion of countries, ordered the extermination of people. But I mean if you just overlook all that and boil it down to some asinine argument no one made, sure. Everything you enumerate is only words being spoken or written by him.
We're truly done here.
|
From a quick google search:
Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:
Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (includes libel, slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.
Source
I'm sure the reality is quite a bit more complicated if you get into it. "go kill him" wouldn't be protected (incitement to imminent harm) provided you could draw a strong link between the words and the action.
|
On May 05 2015 03:09 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 01:52 Plansix wrote:
I think we can all agree there would be a good chance of some sort of violence if someone threw a Bible burning party in the bible belt. Just because fundamentalist Christians focus their violence on people working at abortion clinics doesn't mean they won't rise to the bait. Islam is not unique in this regard. I would certainly hope not. I would hope to see some livid Fox commenters raging about culture war and protests and nothing more.
Me too, but there is also the chance of a couple crazy people decided all the people burning the good book needed to die. Just think what the response would be if the people burning the bibles were also Muslim.
|
United States44286 Posts
I think there is a fairly clear line that can be drawn between being an asshole and shooting people. Neither is okay but this isn't a case of "he started it". They shouldn't be shooting people, even if the people they shot at were being assholes.
|
On May 05 2015 03:32 KwarK wrote:
I think there is a fairly clear line that can be drawn between being an asshole and shooting people. Neither is okay but this isn't a case of "he started it". They shouldn't be shooting people, even if the people they shot at were being assholes.
Well we don't really know they shot anyone? Or that they did whatever they did in response to the event do we?
|
On May 05 2015 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 03:32 KwarK wrote:
I think there is a fairly clear line that can be drawn between being an asshole and shooting people. Neither is okay but this isn't a case of "he started it". They shouldn't be shooting people, even if the people they shot at were being assholes. Well we don't really know they shot anyone? Or that they did whatever they did in response to the event do we?
Who are you talking about and which event?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
