General Discussion

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

189. "Hate Speech" is not prohibited, or even defined, by the 1st Amendment.

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:30 PM

Sep 2012

Your argument is sort of like saying, "yeah, well, getting angry at someone is illegal when it leads to you punching them in the face". Right, because punching someone in the face is illegal. Not getting angry.

Of course it's illegal to paint a swastika on a Synagogue sign; it's NOT illegal to wear a swastika on a shirt, although it certainly might indicate that the person wearing it is an asshole.

A hate crime is when you have a crime that has an element of group-specific hate as a part of something that is ALREADY a crime, like, oh, making threats, vandalism, violence, etc. That's a hate CRIME, which is not the same as hate SPEECH. Do you understand the difference between a hate crime and hate speech? You said upthread that you believe "Hate Speech" is prohibited or restricted by the 1st Amendment. It's not.

It's not the bouncy ball I need to follow, it's the goalposts you keep trying to move on your argument, such as it is. All you need to do is say "you're right, hate speech is not prohibited by the 1st Amendment". Admit you were wrong. I do it all the time. It's not that hard.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

231 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If we're not supposed to condemn the jerks that made the anti-islam movie [View all] ehrnst Sep 2012 OP

Another one JustAnotherGen Sep 2012 #1

Don't you know the film represents American Values & Freedom of Speech???????????? Voice for Peace Sep 2012 #97

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #197

And I'll argue it again here leftynyc Sep 2012 #216

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #218

Giving in to the lunatics is never leftynyc Sep 2012 #224

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #225

That is simply not true leftynyc Sep 2012 #230

This message was self-deleted by its author bupkus Sep 2012 #231

No it isn't yelling fire, however after watching people in your country disintegrated and 2on2u Sep 2012 #226

I don't think that applies when you know 2pooped2pop Sep 2012 #227

What would have possessed him? The timing is interesting, for one thing. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #200

The Idea the Makers Of this Film Should Not Be Condemned, Sir, is Ludicrous The Magistrate Sep 2012 #2

We have a lot of DUers suggesting the contrary under their "FREE SPEECH" at all costs argument... hlthe2b Sep 2012 #4

The 'right' of 'free speech' has never been an absolute right. The SCOTUS has coalition_unwilling Sep 2012 #130

So now any DUer who strives to uphold the 1st Amendment is a bigot? Really? riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #139

No, but if your eyes have been open, you've seen those to whom I refer. hlthe2b Sep 2012 #144

Well, as I pointed out in another thread... Scootaloo Sep 2012 #153

Hateful bigots have a right to be bigots, and others have the right to criticize... Odin2005 Sep 2012 #211

No one said that treestar Sep 2012 #156

No, I don't believe anyone has said that Confusious Sep 2012 #228

There are real limits to free speech nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #6

hate speech is accurate here G_j Sep 2012 #25

There is no prohibition on hate speech in the United States SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #59

Hate speech is always written in BLOOD. :-/ n/t DeSwiss Sep 2012 #64

Where is "hate speech" outlawed in the United States? We are not the UK. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #84

Since I really do not feel like retyping nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #149

This film is not an obvious incitement to riot. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #213

Only in the fevered imaginations of some folks who don't understand the bill of Rights. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #163

It is depressing to see how many people don't understand the 1st Amendment. "Hate Speech" is NOT Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #107

What is prohibited is incitement to a riot nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #148

And if you think you can define "saying anything that might make people mad" as "incitement", you're Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #151

Excuse me, did we have a riot outside now at two embassies and one Consulate? nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #154

I was in Skokie when the Nazis marched, "Sparky". I take the 1st Amendment REAL fucking seriously. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #162

When exactly did I say shut them up? nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #167

Right, so the only reason no one has been prosecuted for inciting a riot lately, is because they're Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #170

The code was first used against organized labor by the by nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #171

I'm not sure why you are confusing, say, "blasphemy" or speech-that-someone-finds-offensive, with Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #172

When did I confuse them? FRACKING nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #176

Your own words, upthread: "There are limits to free speech- HATE SPEECH IS ONE OF THEM" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #181

Whatever, they do have a limit nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #187

"Hate Speech" is not prohibited, or even defined, by the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #189

Let me see the Ammendment is barely two sentences nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #191

You said there are "real limits" on "hate speech". Here. That is what YOU said. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #192

Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #193

What specific code prohibits "Hate Speech". The specific "code". The specific LAW. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #194

in this case pbrower2a Sep 2012 #221

Wouldn't incitement to riot be saying "come on guys! Let's RIOT!" ? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #175

I will answer this nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #180

There actually IS a global war on free speech MNBrewer Sep 2012 #184

But we are talking of INTERNATIONAL AGREMENTS nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #185

I understand that MNBrewer Sep 2012 #186

As long as we are clear nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #188

And the pro-Censorship contingent here supports it, I bet. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #220

I think just saying "Come on, Feel The Noise" might qualify. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #183

Hate speech is not prohibited. Read Virgina v. Black, Snyder v. Phelps, etc...nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #116

What about "fighting words?" The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #124

With fighting words, you have to prove that provocation/call to violence msanthrope Sep 2012 #135

Cool. Thanks. The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #146

I would imagine there are plenty of Muslims in the US who are incensed by that "film" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #165

Apparently, if someone believes that, they're a member of "The Federalist Society" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #195

Don't let them look at the dissents, then...heads can explode from too much irony. nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #196

I have seen posts on DU that say "there is no excuse to riot over a low budget movie" ehrnst Sep 2012 #11

Is Theo Van Gogh responsible for his own murder? n/t cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #26

Can you expound - give some reference to your question? ehrnst Sep 2012 #28

He made a movie critical of the Muslim treatment of women. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #32

So why do you ask me if he was responsible for his own murder? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #37

Seriously? cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #58

*Crickets* *crickets* Zalatix Sep 2012 #60

?? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #81

I don't agree with the premise of your question, so there is no "Yes/No answer. ehrnst Sep 2012 #79

Making a movie that is a critical evaluation of a real-world issue BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #212

Here's where your theory falls flat... cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #222

Even Roger Ebert called this film akin to yelling "fire" in a theater BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #229

if you're clever enough to operate a computer, then you probably know the answer frylock Sep 2012 #55

Not about the insinuations made about my position. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #121

You can criticize the dumb-ass deliberate provocation that was this "film" and still say that, too. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #67

Would you say the same about, say, "The Last Temptation of Christ"? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #87

Why don't you ask the people who are "giving them a pass"? Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #105

Who is giving the rioters a "pass"? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #122

They don't get a pass, certainly not for this treestar Sep 2012 #157

YOU don't have to agree; the law will do that for and without you. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #86

"pin the due portion of responsibility for those consequences to your utterance." It is a rare U.S. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #101

The riots didn't take place in the US under US law. The world doesn't belong to the US. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #160

Hm... so what's the legal definition of imminent? BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #214

+1 Gold Metal Flake Sep 2012 #173

"That you have a right to do something does not make it the right thing to do." M_M Sep 2012 #219

Fully disidoro01 Sep 2012 #3

Sorry, the YOUTUBE promotion is clearly ugly incitement and they do have blood on their hand. hlthe2b Sep 2012 #5

Yes- there is blood on the hands of both the filmakers and the rioters. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #20

They have responsibility on a moral level, yes. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #166

The people who did kill have to be held accountable nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #8

Thank you! You understand my post. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #19

I never wished death on him or anyone. Who here has demanded the death of the filmmaker? ehrnst Sep 2012 #21

knowing the sensitivity of the muslim world, this was nothing less than inciting violence spanone Sep 2012 #7

Someone else in the koran burning incident had made the point jp11 Sep 2012 #52

Conjecture much? 99Forever Sep 2012 #104

I think that suing crazy hateful people for the consequences of their actions ehrnst Sep 2012 #110

Maybe if ignorant slime stopped baiting them BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #217

Oooh, the "sensitivity"!! So do American Evangelicals get to have the same "sensitivity"? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #90

How about American homosexuals? Do we get to burn down megachurches and kill the preachers MNBrewer Sep 2012 #169

Condemn the makers of the film, certainly. MadHound Sep 2012 #9

Yes they have the right - but they can also be held accountable. ehrnst Sep 2012 #17

Held accountable how? Which part of the First Amendment do you want to do away with? Zalatix Sep 2012 #61

Hate speech and inciting violence can be subject to civil suit when damage or death occurs. ehrnst Sep 2012 #76

Inciting violence, eh? So if I pay 2000 people to go riot over your pro-theocracy arguments Zalatix Sep 2012 #91

No. Not at all. ehrnst Sep 2012 #95

So if the military warns you not to post these opinions THEN you are liable. Zalatix Sep 2012 #99

I doubt that the military would have that opinion ehrnst Sep 2012 #112

Your argument is downright silly. Zalatix Sep 2012 #125

Because, I want a theocracy, right? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #133

I suggest you review American law, to wit: WinkyDink Sep 2012 #93

Wrongful Death, to wit: ehrnst Sep 2012 #100

What was your LSAT score again? Zalatix Sep 2012 #136

Libyans were told this was a Hollywood movie tjdee Sep 2012 #10

Do you know who was involved in the promoting of this film? ehrnst Sep 2012 #13

And Egyptian TV! MNBrewer Sep 2012 #202

It should've been obvious upon observation this was no blockbuster ButterflyBlood Sep 2012 #66

Idiocy per se is not illegal here. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #96

Condemn? yes Lucy Goosey Sep 2012 #12

This was deliberate propaganda - this isn't about censoring normal speech ehrnst Sep 2012 #14

I'm curious what the "most basic definition" of propaganda is onenote Sep 2012 #80

I think that covers it - I personally think that it fits a basic definition of porn ehrnst Sep 2012 #123

Incitement To Violence is a crime in the US. closeupready Sep 2012 #15

THis film told muslims to riot and kill people? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #177

So are you going to tell John Kerry you think he is wrong? bighart Sep 2012 #16

No, why does implicating the propaganda makers diminish the crime of people who acted on it? ehrnst Sep 2012 #18

Those who participate in actions of violence are responsible for it. bighart Sep 2012 #22

Yes - I agree. I would like to see a wrongful death suit filed. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #29

A wrongful death suit against who? Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #63

Terry Jones and the producers. The US. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #120

I oppose that, and it will get exactly nowhere MNBrewer Sep 2012 #178

Julius Streicher, Froduald Karamira... pbrower2a Sep 2012 #223

i will call it like i see it. isreal and rw joint in creating this mess. mob rule wrong. obama, seabeyond Sep 2012 #23

Interesting piece of flawed logic slackmaster Sep 2012 #24

Who is holding the rioters 'blameless'? ehrnst Sep 2012 #27

Here's some "shit" that they did ehrnst Sep 2012 #39

It's not hard for me. Both film-maker and his ilk and the rioters should be condemned. randome Sep 2012 #30

Yes - there are some here that think you can't see the wrong on both sides. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #31

one act is criminal, one isnt. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #33

They could be held liable in civil court for wrongful death. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #34

Inciting a riot is against the law in most places. randome Sep 2012 #35

inciting a riot is a huge stretch. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #54

He was warned this could happen, and was asked to stop ehrnst Sep 2012 #114

Incitement is a very narrowly defined offense onenote Sep 2012 #82

He was warned that continuing could result in violence, and he continued. ehrnst Sep 2012 #117

WE can attack the propagandists, but the Prez doesn't have that luxury - yet. reformist2 Sep 2012 #36

Here's Exhibit One in a wrongful death suit against the filmmakers: ehrnst Sep 2012 #38

What's the burden of proof here? That Mohammed IS a true prophet MNBrewer Sep 2012 #41

That they were inciting violence - Jones has a history of it. ehrnst Sep 2012 #48

So fucking sick of worrying about the delicate sensibilities of Muslims. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #57

I'm fucking sick of the danger of drunk drivers. But I still stay off the roads on new year's eve. ehrnst Sep 2012 #118

Yes, you're so Realpolitik I can smell it from here. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #147

It appears that you misunderstand the legal concept of incitement onenote Sep 2012 #88

In a wrongful death suit: ehrnst Sep 2012 #126

I'm not sure who "he" is in this instance or exactly what "he" did. onenote Sep 2012 #190

This country is filled with preachers who call for war on gay people, who say 'take off the gloves Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #44

I never said jailed - sued for wrongful death. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #45

And what of the rest of those preachers mongering hate? Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #50

If they deliberately plan to incite a riot, and someone gets killed as a result ehrnst Sep 2012 #72

But it comes down to your inability to prove intent to do so. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #201

ANY statement criticizing Islam can cause riots. Zalatix Sep 2012 #62

That could also go for any statement criticizing Christianity ehrnst Sep 2012 #70

If criticizing Christianity caused riots I'd be saying the same thing. Zalatix Sep 2012 #89

I have no idea where your line of thought goes. Theocracy? ehrnst Sep 2012 #131

And if two gay people kiss in front of a chick-fil-a and it starts a violent riot Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #69

If this CFLwas in a country that outlawed Gays, ehrnst Sep 2012 #71

Good luck on the lawsuit. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #103

I don't have a case. The families of the dead, I believe, do. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #128

Check your watch, it's silly hour. Zalatix Sep 2012 #134

And who did that shirt kill, exactly? Nevernose Sep 2012 #65

Really? That's what you take from this? He had been warned by the military ehrnst Sep 2012 #92

Your analogy might work, had Jews rioted and killed Nazi officials MNBrewer Sep 2012 #40

Jews weren't the target audience, Christian Germans were. ehrnst Sep 2012 #47

Were they? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #56

Yes. The film was dubbed into Egyptian Arabic. ehrnst Sep 2012 #78

Condemn them, yes. Hold them accountable? For what? cleanhippie Sep 2012 #42

Wrongful death. In civil court - they can be sued. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #46

Perhaps. But that will be very tough to prove. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #49

I think that their "promotion" of it after they were asked to desist by the military ehrnst Sep 2012 #83

Slippery slope, there. I understand where you're coming from. randome Sep 2012 #115

it goes to Jones knowing what the consequences could likely be ehrnst Sep 2012 #119

Ah so the military should decide what speech is acceptable? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #132

Never said that - in this case the Military had an understanding of local conditions ehrnst Sep 2012 #137

Requesting is one thing. You asked that it be used as evidence 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #138

Warned - he was warned that it could result in violence. ehrnst Sep 2012 #142

Explain how this couldn't be applied to the scenario I described 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #145

Americans seem not to gasp the fact that outsideworld Sep 2012 #43

Some of the rest of the world needs to grow a thicker skin when it comes to things like religion slackmaster Sep 2012 #51

Not gonna hold my breath for that. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #74

I think Americans are well aware of the lack of freedoms elsewhere. How should that affect OUR WinkyDink Sep 2012 #75

Ummmm ....... so what? If the Libyans want to put him on trial in abstentia, go ahead. nt kelly1mm Sep 2012 #168

people who stir up hatred against entire religions, races, etc. are responsible for the consequences HiPointDem Sep 2012 #53

Really? The reactors have no Free Will NOT to riot, kill, bomb, attack, ....??? By this standard, WinkyDink Sep 2012 #77

Who said they had no free will? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #85

FGS! READ your own previous post! WinkyDink Sep 2012 #102

Maybe you're confusing me with another poster? ehrnst Sep 2012 #109

who said anything like that? i said those who stir up hate are responsible for the consequences HiPointDem Sep 2012 #155

Hate like this? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #203

not sure what your point is. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #204

My point is that it doesn't necessarily take provocation MNBrewer Sep 2012 #205

i assume that 'thugs' of any kind don't need provocation, as they're 'thugs'. why are you so HiPointDem Sep 2012 #206

I've done plenty of Christianity bashing on DU, so don't try to make me out as focused on Islam MNBrewer Sep 2012 #208

They could always try to claim that it's "Brilliant Swiftian Satire" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #68

However, Swift was not warned by authorities that his work ehrnst Sep 2012 #108

Govt propaganda is a different level of "movie." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #73

This was shown on state TV in Libya. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #94

uh...I am referring to the film-MAKERS. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #98

Uh, yes I know. But the Government in Libya ehrnst Sep 2012 #106

but ann--- Sep 2012 #111

Absolutely - I'm referencing others that ehrnst Sep 2012 #113

Who said we cannot condemn the filmaker? nt. NCTraveler Sep 2012 #127

See this post ehrnst Sep 2012 #129

Doesn't even come close to answering the question. nt. NCTraveler Sep 2012 #140

We can condemn hate without censoring it. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #210

We can defend a person's JoeyT Sep 2012 #141

He was warned that promoting it like he did would cause violence. ehrnst Sep 2012 #143

I don't think there's much chance of JoeyT Sep 2012 #150

We must avoid provoking criminally insane people into committing crime MNBrewer Sep 2012 #159

You know, Terry Jones did not make that thing. This fact is muddling much of what you are Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #161

There is a massive and fundamental difference between this movie and the ones you cited. Xithras Sep 2012 #152

Terrific Points ProfessorGAC Sep 2012 #182

+1 for both your post and the Professor's post. Great points. nt riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #198

if MrDiaz Sep 2012 #158

So long as you don't seek to have the government punish or stop the asshats that made kelly1mm Sep 2012 #164

I think it was financed by the Romney campaign. 6000eliot Sep 2012 #174

If you get to have Terry Jones prosecuted for his "incitement to riot" MNBrewer Sep 2012 #179

Egyptian Television to blame for current unrest MNBrewer Sep 2012 #199

When the US starts sending Muslims to concentration camps your point may work. CBGLuthier Sep 2012 #207

The fact of the matter is, by not condemning the film maker, we are sending a message that jillan Sep 2012 #209

Except no one was ordered to see this movie oberliner Sep 2012 #215