General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

22. Have you actually seen the movie in question?

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:47 AM

Sep 2012

I haven't. Frankly, I don't want to see it. I don't see how anyone can determine whether it is hate speech or maybe just parody (which is protected speech).

Are you familiar with the decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

in which the S.C. ruled that parody is not libel and that therefore parody is protected by the First Amendment. I'm oversimplifying, but sometimes it is hard to distinguish between hate speech and parody or satire.

Also, think about the decision by Scalia in R.A.V. v. St. Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

How would you define hate speech?

If you have seen the film, does it exhort people to hate or be violent? Or does it just depict a revered religious figure, a prophet of the Muslim religion as a creep?

Just because people react violently to speech does not mean that it is hate speech.

People can react violently to things that subjectively disturb them but that are not hateful.

What are you basing your post on? A viewing of the film or just the fact that people are rioting?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

210 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech." [View all] cthulu2016 Sep 2012 OP

"some speech comes at a cost" nt. Snotcicles Sep 2012 #1

Slander, libel, intimidation, incitement... Scootaloo Sep 2012 #2

Jury results (I am #4) Sirveri Sep 2012 #8

Having a post hidden is not curtailing anyone's free speech. This is a private website. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #11

I've started a thread in Meta-Discussion on this muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #17

Some people don't get it. Some people have an agenda, and some don't want to get it IMHO. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #18

Exactly DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #67

Spam deleted by Warren DeMontague (MIR Team) parazito86 Sep 2012 #122

This message was self-deleted by its author DEMTough Sep 2012 #23

You may well not support the OP's position, but that shouldn't be what the jury is about muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #44

This message was self-deleted by its author DEMTough Sep 2012 #49

The ACLU Attorney Who Argued On Behalf Of The National Socialist Party In Said Case Was Jewish DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #97

I come from a Jewish family and I had Jewish friends in Skokie in 1977. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #123

This message was self-deleted by its author DEMTough Sep 2012 #50

Remember muriel dogday Sep 2012 #180

I would be embarrassed to admit that Confusious Sep 2012 #34

I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the alerter. Sirveri Sep 2012 #112

How do you get all that from the alerter's comments? JonLP24 Sep 2012 #116

Except it wasn't targeted at the OP, but at the concept of unrestricted free speech. Sirveri Sep 2012 #124

That's a seperate issue JonLP24 Sep 2012 #146

Are they going to alert on a post that they agree with? Sirveri Sep 2012 #156

It wasn't about disagreeing, Confusious Sep 2012 #117

No it's passionate language used to make a point. Sirveri Sep 2012 #120

Repeat. Confusious Sep 2012 #129

Well I guess it's too bad it wasn't your call to make then. Sirveri Sep 2012 #131

so-called "hate speech" is PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment. Sorry, it is. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #10

Oh, I'm aware. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #24

And you should of course be able to distinguish between defending the right to say something Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #81

The "Ron Paul Logic"... Scootaloo Sep 2012 #89

The actors could have a legal case, yes, but that's not the same thing as censoring the speech. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #95

And you, like many others, fail to miss the point. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #118

Did you see the entire film? 'Cuz all I saw was a 14 min. "trailer" that was real fuckin' incoherent Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #121

Only because it is not a defined exception jberryhill Sep 2012 #128

Cyberstalking? In what way? if you're talking about intimidation, threats, harassment, slander or Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #132

That's a simplistic answer jberryhill Sep 2012 #148

I'm not categorically ruling it out if it falls under a different category (i.e. it's a threat) ALSO Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #152

There are scores of films/videos that mock Jews, gays, and other groups oberliner Sep 2012 #19

Yes there are. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #29

Have you actually seen the movie in question? JDPriestly Sep 2012 #22

I've watched the clips, yes. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #33

Sorry Scootaloo, but this has revealed a flaw in Muslim culture that can't be downplayed. napoleon_in_rags Sep 2012 #126

Correction, the movie has revealed a flaw in a bunch of rioting violent fundie maniacs Zalatix Sep 2012 #179

I've been laying off the DU lately... napoleon_in_rags Sep 2012 #209

He is a horrible guy, but he does have First Amendent rights. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #133

Excellent post, thank you. Some bigotry is more equal than other bigotry. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #90

Who Said It's OK To Mock Some Groups But Not Others? DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #99

You mean the way the KKK mocked African Americans and Far Right bigots mock Gays? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #106

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." nt Romulox Sep 2012 #141

The argument isn't whether people have a right to say something, the point is sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #144

There is a clear, legally established standard for dividing incitement from free speech. Romulox Sep 2012 #162

Read the last part again: sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #167

"Imminent lawless action" is a legal term of art. The research trail all begins with Brandenburg, Romulox Sep 2012 #168

The concept of a "verbal action" may help you conceptualize the difference. nt Romulox Sep 2012 #140

Watching the "trailer" online, it seems far more like satire. moriah Sep 2012 #159

A Catholic priest, an Orthodox priest, a Protestant minister, a Reform rabbi, a Buddhist monk, snooper2 Sep 2012 #174

"Garl Glittergold?" Scootaloo Sep 2012 #203

Our constitutionally guarenteed right... PoliticalBiker Sep 2012 #207

"money" eShirl Sep 2012 #3

This should've been the end of the thread right here. Winner! Efilroft Sul Sep 2012 #136

As the saying goes Confusious Sep 2012 #4

There are many precedents about the restriction of free speech in the US. moriah Sep 2012 #5

The speech itself is not prohibited, that's one important distinction. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #15

In the example I gave, I was referring more toward the usual idea of "fighting words"..... moriah Sep 2012 #21

In the case of the Arkansas law, the speech isn't protected even if it wasn't designed to provoke onenote Sep 2012 #30

Mens rea must still be established. moriah Sep 2012 #48

Yes, but my point is that even with mens rea, the provision cited only applies onenote Sep 2012 #70

Yeah, they did, read the law again, though for non-obscene langugage it must be "repeatedly": moriah Sep 2012 #73

This message was self-deleted by its author onenote Sep 2012 #74

Has this statute been applied any time recently? I'd be interested to see the real-world Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #75

Well, the statute is meant to apply to those who are harassing individuals, not public speech. moriah Sep 2012 #79

Again, a markedly different situation than making a statement, or a film, that angers other people. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #83

And on that note, as I've said a few times, I defer to the Onion: moriah Sep 2012 #84

The people in the crowded theatre are forced to hear the shout of "Fire!" oberliner Sep 2012 #20

I think the "fire" thing is misused JonLP24 Sep 2012 #111

The danger, though, is extreme and understimated. moriah Sep 2012 #155

Death threats. Curtland1015 Sep 2012 #6

I have long agreed. This whole credible, actionable threat thing - jsmirman Sep 2012 #7

EXCELLENT. Applies to freedom of religion as well. Zax2me Sep 2012 #9

That's why we have libel laws and defamation statutes. WCGreen Sep 2012 #12

America and its states also have laws against certain kinds of speech. ALL speech is not allowed. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #14

define "speech that interferes with someone else's rights" Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #16

Well with fox it is also the freedom of the press that they bastardize. WCGreen Sep 2012 #28

This is about the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #76

Yes, there are laws in America against certain kinds of speech, although not called hate speech. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #43

Wrong and a half. There are no federal laws against 'certain words' which 'can not be Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #60

There aren't any federal laws, but there are city/municipality ones. JoeyT Sep 2012 #63

The other poster said 'certain words can not be said in public' and that is bullshit Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #69

You know, for all the talk about "yelling fire in a theater", one, I don't think there are actually Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #78

So if I say "fuck, I dropped a hammer on my toe", that's interfering with your rights? Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #86

Incidental impingment vs. attack. Big difference. TheMadMonk Sep 2012 #107

I don't really care what the psychological or physiological mechanism involved is, although it is Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #108

That is grammatically incorrect and thus erroneous in meaning. It is "NOT ALL speech is allowed." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #184

Reasonable people can differ on the opinion of what is free speech. You know that. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #13

+1 jberryhill Sep 2012 #176

US courts have spoken on this issue, and---because let's be honest here---MOVIES ARE FREE SPEECH. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #185

I support free speech but I do not consider child pornography to be free speech Douglas Carpenter Sep 2012 #25

What about mocking other people's religions? oberliner Sep 2012 #26

under the U.S. Constitution - it is legal. Just as Nazis marching though Skokie is legal Douglas Carpenter Sep 2012 #32

In "less explosive" situations the standard should be different? oberliner Sep 2012 #42

What do you refuse to grasp about US law? Seriously. WHY do you keep nattering on, trying to WinkyDink Sep 2012 #188

Quite a lot - seems like there is a good deal of grey area oberliner Sep 2012 #200

Totally acceptable 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #57

Mockery is not illegal. The US Courts have spoken. Don't like it? TS, Eliot. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #187

When does mockery become incitement? oberliner Sep 2012 #202

You don't have to have any opinion on it; the COURTS have declared child porn illegal. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #186

That poster does not live in the United States oberliner Sep 2012 #201

Not a free speech issue- let's talk about the Saudi-supported radical clerics and groups JCMach1 Sep 2012 #27

Ahh... 99Forever Sep 2012 #51

Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. baldguy Sep 2012 #31

+1000 renie408 Sep 2012 #36

So, to your mind, Blasphemy is not protected by the 1st Amendment? Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #85

The crime isn't blasphemy. The crime is incitment to riot. baldguy Sep 2012 #94

There are? What SPECIFIC law do you think was violated, and how would it be prosecuted? Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #96

Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #135

So how do you prove that magical words 'caused' others to act against their own Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #142

Words cannot 'cause' anybody to do anything. To believe so is to believe in word magic. friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #150

You are wrong. period. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #192

It's been done before JonLP24 Sep 2012 #113

Ha! Leave it to Hitch. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #115

As the US courts long ago ruled. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #189

I support free speech. But being a grown up, I also support consequences. renie408 Sep 2012 #35

So, if some group of reactionaries vow to riot unless women in our media are covered TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #59

Expect zero response.... Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #61

Remember that thought when a coworker queues up "Thank Heaven for Little Girls"... TheMadMonk Sep 2012 #110

A gun can fire a bullet which if put into motion by a user presents not only a threat but a TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #154

Not if they're pre-conditioned and on a hair trigger. TheMadMonk Sep 2012 #163

"Offering graphic harm" is the legal definition of "assault." There are laws to cover this. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #191

Which is why you've got so many "postal" events. TheMadMonk Sep 2012 #208

Goofy, now making a movie that offends someone is pretty much the same as TheKentuckian Oct 2012 #210

Your entire argument has been invalidated by the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #190

Do you support what Rush Limbaugh does every day? That is free speech as well and it 2on2u Sep 2012 #37

I don't support it, but I support his right to say it (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #46

Fair enough. n/t 2on2u Sep 2012 #47

I support his right to say it Marrah_G Sep 2012 #53

Since Rush is paid for what he says, I call it commerical speech. And we should look at whose paying freshwest Sep 2012 #100

Many other Americans think he's the cat's pj's. Ain't the Constitution grand? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #194

"anything posted at DU"... SidDithers Sep 2012 #38

Would people be so eager to defend a hate film against Jewish or gay people based on free speech? limpyhobbler Sep 2012 #39

Free Speech is most importantly about speech we do not like Marrah_G Sep 2012 #54

They Sell "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" On Amazon DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #65

Where do you live? Such hate films and books are common, and religious haters Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #66

ohio. limpyhobbler Sep 2012 #103

We also do NOT attack the principle of free speech we counter Chick fil A with more Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #139

OK cousin I think you are confusing me with somebody else. limpyhobbler Sep 2012 #161

Do you understand the difference between the principle and the thing itself? Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #114

Um... yeah. I understand the difference. limpyhobbler Sep 2012 #160

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I've done both. Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #165

I completely agree. limpyhobbler Sep 2012 #166

I do not consider buying politicians free speech flobee1 Sep 2012 #40

I'm getting sick of the free speech threads davidpdx Sep 2012 #41

Then you have the freedom to not post on them. renie408 Sep 2012 #45

And I have the freedom to complain about how silly they are davidpdx Sep 2012 #109

just hide thread then Marrah_G Sep 2012 #55

No, I don't click on the topic or reply davidpdx Sep 2012 #58

We have a lot of this going on here etherealtruth Sep 2012 #52

I support free speech unless I don't like it 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #56

I hope you forgot your sarcasm tag... Nolimit Sep 2012 #62

Then it becomes almost impossible to discuss anything. Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #77

Welcome to DU. Vincardog Sep 2012 #80

Thank you. Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #82

Wouldn't authoritarianism be preferable? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #137

This is sarcasm, right? Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #143

Yes, although I've seen a lot of people 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #153

Exactly! The Dept of No Mockery, headed by Sec. Alfred E. Newman. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #193

I may hate what one says, but I will defend their right to say it. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #64

Money. Zorra Sep 2012 #68

Incorrect on both, but the concepts are not absolute cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #87

No; sorry, you are wrong. Those are simply your opinions. Zorra Sep 2012 #92

Okay, so, if your employer refuses to pay you.... jberryhill Sep 2012 #204

Usually, everything that comes after the "but" is what the person really means to say. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #71

"Some of my best friends are free speech." Love it. n/t porphyrian Sep 2012 #72

farts rurallib Sep 2012 #88

kiddie porn, terroristic threats arely staircase Sep 2012 #91

Acts already declared illegal should be beyond "opinion"! WinkyDink Sep 2012 #195

Think about this. Cleita Sep 2012 #93

this is dumb. There actually ARE limits to "free speech" this is flame bait. nt progressivebydesign Sep 2012 #98

Do you consider Citizens' United free speech? Why not? nt patrice Sep 2012 #101

I don't. I don't consider money speech. cali Sep 2012 #119

So if you want to make a documentary jberryhill Sep 2012 #130

I should have said I don't consider money in political campaigns to be speecch cali Sep 2012 #134

That was not the actual issue in CU jberryhill Sep 2012 #149

You all are aware, of course, that the ACLU defends Citizens' United? link patrice Sep 2012 #102

Yeah, fight the power! cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #125

Your noting is noted. Is there somekind of politically correct test that makes DUers patrice Sep 2012 #151

not only that, they have doubled and tripled down since then... Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #170

Someone needs to point out to a few people around here that that's IN. SUPPORT. OF. CITIZENS'. patrice Sep 2012 #171

LOL. I'm sure people will support PLUTOCRACY if you only explain it a little better. Romulox Sep 2012 #173

How. very. PLUTOCRATIC. of. you., but then, perhaps you're just a scared little CONFORMIST bully. nt patrice Sep 2012 #177

I'm guessing you don't know what several of those words mean, as your comment makes Romulox Sep 2012 #182

That tends to make me think much more poorly of the ACLU, rather than better about CU. Romulox Sep 2012 #172

??? So now you have your "friendly" hat on. What gives? patrice Sep 2012 #178

Word salad much? nt Romulox Sep 2012 #183

You couldn't be more obvious. nt patrice Sep 2012 #198

Right. I'm someone AGAINST corporate dollar funded "free speech". You're FOR it. Obvious, indeed. Romulox Sep 2012 #199

Democracy has hairy armpits. Buzz Clik Sep 2012 #104

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.-Voltaire n/t EX500rider Sep 2012 #105

Forgery jberryhill Sep 2012 #127

This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Sep 2012 #138

Yelling "fire!!" in a crowded theater. retread Sep 2012 #145

Or "Theater!" in a crowded fire. H2O Man Sep 2012 #157

Yes, and that's no joke jberryhill Sep 2012 #205

Do you consider white supremacy free speech? Initech Sep 2012 #147

I don't have to "consider" anything; I go by the LAW. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #196

You do realize that 40 other countries have both free and hate speech laws in effect right? Initech Sep 2012 #197

So, when laws change, your principles do? jberryhill Sep 2012 #206

Nobody supports hate speech, hughee99 Sep 2012 #158

I support freedom of speech, but I do not consider Time for change Sep 2012 #164

$ mmonk Sep 2012 #169

I support nuanced dialog on free speech LanternWaste Sep 2012 #175

"disagreeing with me" Bucky Sep 2012 #181