Should hate speech be protected under first ammendment??

[Le Gaucher]

The courts have probably ruled for the case... But I really wonder whether the greater good is served by expressing such vitriol openly.

I think hate speech should be punishable not by jail or fine, but it should become a part of a persons criminal record that will allow employers to consider it before hiring the person.

[David__77]

1. What is hate speech?

...

[sarisataka]

5. Exactly why

it is protected, along with the right to peaceably assemble

[Dr. Strange]

13. Speech that I disagree with.

[NutmegYankee]

22. It is whatever those in power say it is.

A point that seem to be constantly lost among a tiny minority here. The Republican party isn't going to pass laws muzzling their own.

[snowybirdie]

2. Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment

(except for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). It's protected from government action, but not protected from the civil reaction to that speech. Sorry, but one man's hate speech is another man's rallying cry. Who decides?

[HeartachesNhangovers]

8. Well said. I will also say that using the power of

the government to make other people do what you want is a two-edged sword. The same sort of thinking has led to Republican abortion restrictions, fundamentalist takeovers of school boards, and other government misuse.

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. Of course it should

unless you want speech like support for trans right labelled hate speech by the Christian Right (for instance).

The proper response to hate speech is to shame the speakers. They know that this is the most potent weapon against them, which is why so many of them are also "anti-PC" crusaders.

[maryellen99]

4. I think that traitor rag needs to banned like the nazi flag is in Germany nt

[justhanginon]

6. The problem always arises as to who gets to define "hate speech".

I'm sure many on the right would probably not agree with my definition since it would include many of, what I consider, their vile utterances and of course, in their opinion, on their side, vice versa.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. The First Amendment protects all speech that isn't defamatory,

pornographic, or that directly incites violence. The problem with regulating or prohibiting hate speech is defining it. A lot of it is obvious (racial slurs, etc.), but there are some statements that are subject to interpretation, and might be categorized as hate speech by one court or administration and not by another. The law needs certainty and the definition of hate speech can't depend on the political slant of whoever is making the decision.

It would be absolutely unconstitutional to list "unpunished" (non-criminal) hate speech on a person's criminal record, because if it isn't defined as a crime it shouldn't be on a person's criminal record. That's effectively treating something as a crime, but without due process.

As far as having some sort of record for employers to review, a lot of people are doing it to themselves by posting racist or other hateful comments on their own Facebook pages or Twitter feeds or elsewhere on social media. The consequences of that are their own problem.

[mr_liberal]

17. Porn/"obscenity" should be protected too, but it isnt. nm

[WinkyDink]

33. Pornography is, too. Hello, Hustler?

[Warren DeMontague]

40. "obscenity" isn't protected, but despite the efforts of Andrea Dworkin and Ed Meese

the would-be smut censors haven't been able to get some consistent legal standard defining consenting adults naked or having sex as "obscene".

I believe it was Potter Stewart- in discussing what could be defined as "pornography"; "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"... that's not, actually, a legally actionable standard.

So what we have is "community standards", and tantrums from control freaks and authoritarians notwitstanding, it's patently obvious that the "community"- of, say, the internet, which is something like 50% porn- doesn't have a problem with pictures and videos of people fucking each other.

[WinkyDink]

54. De facto.

[mr_liberal]

49. Its really not. You should read what the supreme court has

said about it. Its called the miller test. Just about anything with nudity can be prosecuted but they just dont because they cant get convictions.

Hustler could be prosecuted in some conservative areas of the country but like I said they just don't try because it expensive and its hard to convince a jury.

[WinkyDink]

53. And you should read the follow-up to Miller:

American advocates for pornography often cite the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech; however, under the Miller test established by Miller v. California, anything lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" is generally not protected.

However, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coaltion (2002) Coalition that pornography which involves consenting adults is protected by the First Amendment, even if the models "appear to be" minors but are, in fact of lawful age, and thus has seen to protect the majority of, but Not All, pornography on the basis of first-amendment law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_States

[Warren DeMontague]

59. SCOTUS Precedent. That's gotta be even more distressing to the anti-masturbation league.

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/02/terry-crewss-anti-masturbation-facebook-crusade.html

[Warren DeMontague]

55. The fact that they can't get a conviction also proves that it's not "obscenity".

Basically, if the "community" doesn't have a problem with it, too bad so sad.... you can't keep your neighbor from watching redtube.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. I agree.

However, the reality is, that despite the fantasies of Right Wing Culture Warriors like Rick Santorum and Gail Dines, smut isn't going anywhere.

[grantcart]

18. There is lots of speech besides defamatory, pornographic or incites violence that is not protected

You can't go into a bingo hall and randomly call out "bingo". You can't yell "fire" in a theatre.

http://www.business2community.com/social-media/7-things-the-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-0129234#b5gkpHXY8VJ4vLw8.97

There is no absolutes in any of the freedoms in the constitution, for the simple reason they overlap.

People have the right to associate and play bingo and yelling bingo as a joke makes it impossible.

American Nazis may have the right to assemble but they don't have the right to assemble in front of a Synagogue as that would impinge on the freedom to practice your religion without intimidation.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. You *can* yell fire in a theatre, if there really is a fire.

In fact, it's highly recommended. What Justice Holmes said in Schenck v. US was that free speech doesn't protect "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

The Nazis do have a protected right to assemble in front of a synagogue as long as they are on public property and they don't do anything that could be construed as a clear and present danger of violence. In National Socialist Party v. Skokie the Supreme Court held that the Nazi Party could hold a march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie and display the swastika in doing so.

[grantcart]

21. Are you really so obtuse as to think I was referrring to yelling fire in a theatre where no fire

existed.

Your original statement that "The First Amendment protects all speech that isn't defamatory, pornographic, or that directly incites violence" is a ridiculously narrow understanding of how rights work. There is no absolute right and no list of narrow exceptions. All rights live in a matrix of other rights. You can say "Adolph Hitler was right" in your home, in the park, or in a meeting of neo Nazis. If you stand up and say it in a Synagogue prior to a religious service you will be arrested and your speech is not protected.

And yes even if you think its funny to disrupt a bunch of old folks by yelling bingo during their game the constitution will not protect you.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/man-yells-bingo-austin-whaley_n_2909806.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. It's not very nice to accuse somebody of being obtuse.

In fact, it might even be a violation of DU's TOS, so please don't do it.

And I used to teach constitutional law, so I'm pretty familiar with the Supreme Court cases and statutes relating to the First Amendment. Under the law, yelling "Bingo" isn't speech for constitutional purposes because it's not an expression of an idea (flag waving, for example, is protected as symbolic speech because it expresses an idea), so charging the guy with disorderly conduct was perfectly appropriate and his free speech rights were not violated. He was just being a dick. The "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" concept is often misapplied - Holmes meant it as an example of what is a clear and present danger. Falsely shouting fire creates unnecessary danger, which was his point - not that the word "fire" is an example of free speech.

I'd argue with you on the other points but it's probably not worth the effort because you really don't seem to know this topic very well.

[grantcart]

28. You have difficulty with language

I didn't accuse you of being obtuse I was asking if you are obtuse. I don't think you are obtuse, because I don't think you really thought that anybody at DU was so stupid as to not understand that yelling fire in a theatre that was burning to the ground was not really the issue.

The point being is whether or not you are so obtuse as to think when something uses the shorthand "fire in a crowded theatre" they didn't know that the context had to mean that they were using it when there was no fire and yelling fire when there was fire was OK. No I just think you have a habit of using language carelessly and going off point and are not obtuse.

So either your comment was meant to go off point because you thought that a sophomoric response would divert from your original comment or you are aggressively defensive.

Your comment was "The First Amendment protects ALL speech that isn't defamatory, pornographic, or that directly incites violence." You then respond by giving lots of examples that don't fit "ALL" which is my point.

I didn't teach constitutional law but I did take classes in it. I can assure you that in my undergraduate class if someone had proffered that answer on a question about protected speech they would have gotten it wrong, and probably called on to defend it in class.

Again your comment is "protects all speech" and your follow up comments support my argument that your original statement was tripe. Yelling fire in a theatre, or bingo in a bingo hall, are some of the many examples of speech that is not protected, which is MY point, and AGAINST your point that "The First Amendment protects ALL speech that isn't . . ." You could have clarified that you didn't actually mean ALL speech but narrowly protected speech but instead you tried to be clever by the "it is legal to yell fire if there is fire" which is so off point as to be suspect, but you are correct, not obtuse.

Your comment on NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE is equally off point because the Supreme Court never ruled on the question of demonstrating in front of a synagoge. The question was whether or not they could have demonstration in the center of town where there is a long standing tradition of having political speech. Demonstrating in the center of the city and creating a demonstration specifically in front of a synagogue are not the same issues and were not an issue in the case that you refer.

My point, which your comments have supported, is that your statement "The First Amendment protects all speech that isn't defamatory, pornographic, or that directly incites violence" is not based on how speech has been interpreted. Yelling "fire" in a theatre (where there is no fire) or "bingo" to harass does in fact fit the parameters of the word "ALL". Your argument that it is not protected because the SC only protects speech that has symbolic meaning (your words) confirms that not ALL speech is protected.

Your condescending last paragraph is the most laughable of all. You condescend and yet you have argued against your original sloppy and all inclusive use of the word "ALL".

You have a choice

1) Continue to go off point
2) Agree that your original statement "The First Amendment protects all speech that isn't defamatory,
pornographic, or that directly incites violence" is clearly not accurate because, as you have already argued, non-symbolic speech (among others) is not protected even though it is included in your word "ALL"
3) Cite your teaching credentials and other elements that have nothing to do with the issue and pretend that the discussion is so beneath someone that has had such universal recognition as a legal scholar although I have to tell you that if anyone used the word "all" in my simple little pre law class they would have been up front defending it under heavy ridicule on the next class.

By the way there is a fairly simple answer to the question in the thread: Hate speech cannot be protected if it is in conflict with other rights. If someone goes into a Synagogue and says in a normal speaking voice during a religious ceremony that "Hitler was right" they could be arrested for disturbing the peace and their speech, clearly symbolic and protected in political rally elsewhere, would not succeed as a defense.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Atlantic: It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

[WinkyDink]

37. You can't be arrested for yelling "Bingo!" GET REAL. The 1st Amendment protects citizens from govt

intrusion and curtailment of their thoughts as expressed.

Employers are not the government. Other citizens are not the government. Family and friends are not the government. All these entities and more can shun a person for their speech, though it be allowed by the government.

[ProgressiveValue]

9. Who gets to define what falls under hate speech?

Does just on side on the political spectrum get to define it or would both sides get a crack at adding to the list of things they want deemed hate speech?

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Me. I'm going to start with everyone who ever said "The Grateful Dead Sucks"

In fact, if you tell that joke about "what did the Deadhead say when the drugs wore off", you're going to the Gulag.

[DashOneBravo]

10. Yes

Who gets to set the definitIon?

There are people who think gay rights marches, black lives matter and the pipeline protestors should be stopped. That be another tool for some politician or police force to use against it.

[samnsara]

11. IF its used to deliberately incite a riot then i say no

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. That's already the law. Speech that directly incites violence isn't protected.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Unfortunately, some people seem to think "anything that might make someone mad" is "incitement"

That's how you get arguments that drawing a "blasphemous" cartoon is not protected speech, because it might "force" someone to freak out and get violent.

Because fire in a crowded theater, derp.

[David__77]

14. I don't want judges determining that.

I could see things like "no gay rights protests in conservative neighborhoods" in this scenario.

[peggysue2]

15. Slippery Slope

We either have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly or we don't. As soon as we prohibit the expression of one group, regardless of how distasteful, we narrow the expression of all. That's the 'slippery slope' we wrestle with in a free society.

I think the better response is refusing to engage, refusing to give the nutwads the attention they crave. There was a KKK march several years ago, can't remember the city/town. But the citizenry banded together, stayed in their homes, drew their curtains and refused to acknowledge the offensive display. They denied the racists legitimacy and attention. For the KKK it was a bust. They marched with their costumes and signs and clenched fists but they marched in empty, silent streets.

Confrontation only fuels this fire and ultimately gives the haters exactly what they want. That's not to say we should ignore the groundswell of racist behavior or attitudes; it's real and a serious threat. Refusing to give the public haters a platform or spotlight (which is exactly what's going on today) is one way to ostracize and condemn the movement for what it is: grossly unAmerican.

[cyclonefence]

16. "Nice" speech doesn't need protection

[DFW]

20. It's a fine line most judges and even the ACLU are reluctant to cross

There is a "Truth In Advertising" law on the books, but Fox "News" went to court to sue for the right to lie outright and still call themselves "News" and they won.

In Germany and Austria, neo-Nazi movements that don't get too flagrant are allowed a small amount of latitude, but gatherings with swastikas and Fascist salutes are prohibited, and anything resembling Nazi propaganda is forbidden by law (Fox "News" looked into a German-language arm, but it got nowhere).

Most democratically oriented countries are loathe to forbid any kind of speech, as that is usually the first step of a dictatorship. However, if a movement that is blatantly against free speech (and for violence) takes advantage of freedom of speech and uses it as a cover to gain enough power to inhibit free speech (e.g, present-day Turkey, and Putin is more than half-way there, too), was it a good idea to let them get that far? Who decides when such a movement has gone "far enough?" I know what's too far for me, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to say I always know what's too far for the whole country.

[Agschmid]

23. Yes it should.

[aikoaiko]

26. Yes unless it breaks another law.

[DeminPennswoods]

27. Yes, sunlight is the best disinfectant

nt

[lunatica]

29. Yes it should

Whereas hate crimes are not protected. But everyone has the right to say what they think.

[Codeine]

30. Then you should move somewhere else's.

Speech is speech; odious or otherwise, it's free expression.

[Adrahil]

31. Who gets to decide what hate speech is? NT

[WinkyDink]

32. N.T.S. AGAIN. STUDY THE GODDAMN U.S. CONSTITUTION.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. It's not "should" it be protected. It is.

I don't understand how anyone can look at the authoritarian shitstorm we're in the midst of, and go "oh, obviously the 1st Amendment is the problem".

In terms of what people say and do, actually, the internet does a much better job of recording and tracking and making available to potential employers a person's past offensive statements, than a criminal record would, anyway.

[WinkyDink]

39. Yes, all those Liberal Democrat employers**. Perhaps DU ought think about what might be "offensive"

to employers, then, eh?

**sarcasm

[Warren DeMontague]

42. People say stupid and offensive shit on the internet, it can affect their employment/job prospects

That's a simple, objective fact.


Case in point:

http://time.com/4833445/katherine-dettwyler-university-of-delaware-job/

[WinkyDink]

46. I'm just sayin' that some employers might not take too kindly to DU POSTS. Be careful what you wish

for, and all that.

Me, I'm retired. I'm a Honey Badger about most things.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Well, anyone who knows me knows where I stand on things, so personally, whatever.

I mean, if someone was gonna hire me and then all of a sudden went "but he supports abortion rights/single payer health care/marijuana legalization/etc"... they haven't been paying much attention.

I'm not known for shutting up, lol.

but it's not about what I wish for, again, it's more a statement of reality. When you say something on the internet, it's out there. People should be aware of that fact.

[WinkyDink]

56. Not referring to you personally.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. The Alt Right would use it on us.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Exactly. We have a president who is attacking the free press and our democratic institutions.

What better time to get rid of that annoying 1st Amendment, huh?

[WinkyDink]

41. Hit and run.

[ismnotwasm]

45. Hate Speech that invites violence is not protected

Hate speech is.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. However, when was the last time there was an actual succesful prosecution for "incitement"?

As in, standing in front of a crowd and inviting/inciting violence.

It's a fairly difficult legal standard to prosecute. Sort of like "treason"- the law exists, but it's doubtful that, say, Trump would be prosecuted under it. Obstruction of Justice is a far clearer and precedented legal standard.

[WinkyDink]

57. "Incites" is the verb.

[brooklynite]

48. Answer--YES!

...because as soon as the answer becomes NO, then we get into a debate about what constitues hate speech, and everyone may not agree with your definition.

[Keefer]

52. The law makes no distinction.

Speech is speech.

[WinkyDink]

58. People who raise this query often imagine that the Arbiters of Legal Speech will be of a mind like

unto them, the inquisitors.

Reality doesn't work that way.

[geek tragedy]

60. Yes, also protected are efforts to reveal the identities

of Nazi activists and street thugs so their employers, schools and families can reject ten and cast them out.

[GulfCoast66]

61. Please read the 1st amendment

Get back to me when the freedom is categorized.