General Discussion

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)

71. As Sec. of State Clinton JUST SAID, IN RESPONSE TO THE EMBASSY ATTACKS:

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 06:15 PM

Sep 2012

Clinton emphasized that “there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence.” Islam, she added, like many religions, respects the “fundamental dignity” of human beings, and violence goes against this principle.

“To attack an embassy,” she said, “is to attack the idea that we can build understanding and a better future.”

She also noted that, in conjunction with our commitment to freedom of religion, our country has a commitment to freedom of expression, and, as such, we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, “no matter how distasteful.”

“Violence in response to speech,” she said, “is not acceptable.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/secretary-of-state-clinton-violence-in-response-to-speech-is-not-acceptable/

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

132 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's settle this: Hate speech is protected in the U.S. [View all] cali Sep 2012 OP

No, ann--- Sep 2012 #1

Lame. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #3

Well, yelling Fire in a crowded theater isn't hate speech, MadHound Sep 2012 #4

You must have failed a lot of classes! Read more, react less! Logical Sep 2012 #5

Fire in a crowded theater had nothing to do with mayhem. JoeyT Sep 2012 #7

That aspect of the Schenck case has effectively been overruled onenote Sep 2012 #11

lol. wrong. and the cases cited make it clear that you're wrong. cali Sep 2012 #8

I had a boss yell, I hate you and you are fired! n/t DeadEyeDyck Sep 2012 #9

"Hate speech" is not like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Sorry, that's the law. Zalatix Sep 2012 #13

Your response to the OP is the COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #18

What is the difference between yelling and inciting? Hutzpa Sep 2012 #21

A clear and present danger to public order. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #83

Hate speech is protected. hrmjustin Sep 2012 #25

Of course you can SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #38

Not the same thing gollygee Sep 2012 #56

The point in the post you're responding to is...speech is in fact restricted. Not all speech is Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #98

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #126

Thanks Cali, and thanks to Madison and Jefferson longship Sep 2012 #2

Good post! Thanks for this! Logical Sep 2012 #6

What's your point Cali? 99Forever Sep 2012 #10

I think the point is that the best way to deal with hate speech is through speech that rebuts it onenote Sep 2012 #12

That isn't what I got from it. 99Forever Sep 2012 #15

I think reframing the words of others is a sort of hateful use of language... Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #19

Several points to make onenote Sep 2012 #46

The regulation of speech is limited to time, place and manner and cannot be based on political or JDPriestly Sep 2012 #89

no. my point is that "hate" speech is too subjective to be cali Sep 2012 #17

So "we" aren't capable of discerning the difference... 99Forever Sep 2012 #44

You seek a world in which powerful people hold all the cards and minorities get no Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #61

Hogwash. 99Forever Sep 2012 #75

Throughout history, laws protecting against specific kinds of religious ideas or speech JDPriestly Sep 2012 #90

Where have I ever said or implied... 99Forever Sep 2012 #91

Read my other posts on this thread. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #97

. Quantess Oct 2012 #119

Wow, the mental gymnastics necessary to come to THAT conclusion from the op... eqfan592 Sep 2012 #26

Hate speech laws are dangerous cpwm17 Sep 2012 #31

Hate speech is also "dangerous." 99Forever Sep 2012 #81

No... Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #107

"Strive for better"? Um, you're talking about the foundation of my country. Edweird Sep 2012 #70

Ahh yes... 99Forever Sep 2012 #79

It's not 'agree with me' - again, it's founding principles of this nation. Edweird Sep 2012 #86

Horsepucky. 99Forever Oct 2012 #113

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #127

WTF? 99Forever Oct 2012 #130

This is what wiki says about hate speech - TBF Sep 2012 #14

here's what wiki has to say about hate speech in the U.S. cali Sep 2012 #16

The eagerness with which so many on here were willing to give up their rights 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #20

Sadly, some RW stereotypes have a real basis in fact. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #24

It depends of the context of the criticism cpwm17 Sep 2012 #35

IMO Hitchens just tended to over-generalize. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #65

WARNING: This is a very dangerous path to walk on. Hutzpa Sep 2012 #22

what is a dangerous path? cali Sep 2012 #27

The way I see it Hutzpa Sep 2012 #30

Which is why there are no US laws against hate speech eallen Sep 2012 #23

Not the only misrulings by the SCOTUS... joycejnr Sep 2012 #28

I'd like to exercise my 1st ammendment right to declare that last statement unmitigated horseshit. Throd Sep 2012 #29

It's never hard, to reverse-paraphrase Ann Romney... joycejnr Oct 2012 #114

Wow, what a revealing post. eqfan592 Sep 2012 #32

I think I do... joycejnr Oct 2012 #115

fuck that. and fuck it hard. cali Sep 2012 #33

I find it difficult to see that mirror images are exactly the same... joycejnr Oct 2012 #116

See what I mean. Hutzpa Sep 2012 #34

Nope, no I don't. n/t joycejnr Oct 2012 #117

So we are free to only think like you? cpwm17 Sep 2012 #36

No, not at all...how in the world can you stop how people think... joycejnr Oct 2012 #118

Time to take another look at the 1st Amendment? gollygee Sep 2012 #57

The key in Douglas's opinion is "clear and present danger" Jim Lane Sep 2012 #78

I'm not sure how hating the LDS enters the subject because I think I meant something else... joycejnr Oct 2012 #120

I mentioned hating the LDS because that speech DID cause violence. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #125

I fantasize often about how it *would* "cut it"... joycejnr Oct 2012 #132

The First Amendment and rulings that uphold it aren't usually termed "misrulings." WinkyDink Sep 2012 #84

Not sure I understand what you mean.... joycejnr Oct 2012 #122

I hate you. (just testing) L0oniX Sep 2012 #37

I'm alerting! (not really) cali Sep 2012 #40

Thanks for this post SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #39

It's an effect of the fact that we have the First Amendment Hippo_Tron Sep 2012 #41

Money = free speech only because hifiguy Sep 2012 #50

A far far more liberal SCOTUS said that in 1975 in Buckley v Valeo Hippo_Tron Sep 2012 #74

In 1934 the Nazis simply could not understand why the US Government could not prevent Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #42

I believe you have misconstrued that "trial" AND the Nazi response (though ITA with your last WinkyDink Sep 2012 #85

. n/t porphyrian Sep 2012 #43

I agree that hate speech is protected free speech in America - but let us still be mindful of just Douglas Carpenter Sep 2012 #45

Yes, it can be dangerous. More dangerous is curtailing speech. cali Sep 2012 #48

There are more than a few DUers who need to hifiguy Sep 2012 #47

And more than a few who need to stop misusing the "fire in a crowded theater" meme 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #51

The actual Holmes quote was hifiguy Sep 2012 #52

As it SHOULD be! coldwaterintheface Sep 2012 #49

I think the important part of you sentence is: IN THE US loyalsister Sep 2012 #53

no, we don't have that right. Who is saying we do? cali Sep 2012 #54

Most of the discussion has been on whether we should allow such speech here 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #55

My point is why is it so ridiculous to handle a situation like this loyalsister Sep 2012 #67

They have the problem, they need to find a way to cope with it. Edweird Sep 2012 #103

They have the problem loyalsister Oct 2012 #123

No, they don't have to be anything like us. No one (but you) is saying that. Edweird Oct 2012 #131

And when they decide that international gay rights is an affront, what then? hack89 Sep 2012 #104

We should be respectful 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #110

Respect is a two-way street 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #109

Their biggest problem is not free speech loyalsister Oct 2012 #124

Too bad that peaceful citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights by protesting sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #58

+1000. Geller is destructive in her medieval Inquisition-style bigotry, yet closeupready Sep 2012 #60

disgusting. I have nothing but the utmost contempt cali Sep 2012 #64

Is that what you read into my post? My post was a general statement about the laughable sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #69

You're free to say whatever you want. closeupready Sep 2012 #102

Of course there should be better protection for those exercising their cali Sep 2012 #66

Do you really not remember the outrage over what was done to the Occupy protesters? MNBrewer Sep 2012 #68

I don't remember any court rulings forbidding the brutality against protesters and sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #72

Are you talking about THIS? MNBrewer Oct 2012 #108

Amen. Thank you. woo me with science Sep 2012 #101

You're trying to talk about something you haven't defined. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #59

Take, as an example, the hate speech laws in Canada eallen Sep 2012 #62

uh. the examples are right there in the cases cited. cali Sep 2012 #63

There's no definition in your post...the first half, anyway. I didn't read further when I didn't Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #96

As Sec. of State Clinton JUST SAID, IN RESPONSE TO THE EMBASSY ATTACKS: WinkyDink Sep 2012 #71

Let her tell this to OWS, both protesters and journalists who were beaten and sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #106

How about this? MNBrewer Oct 2012 #121

Remember, the 1st only applys to government, not private citizens like us Great Caesars Ghost Sep 2012 #73

But it should not be protected and endorsed on DU n/t Scootaloo Sep 2012 #76

HATE SPEECH IS PROTECTED....HATE SPEECH & COMMITTING CRIME IS NOT. fightthegoodfightnow Sep 2012 #77

Yes, it is. The homicide, however, is not. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #82

In a way it's not glacierbay Sep 2012 #93

Absolutely correct glacierbay Sep 2012 #94

Not only that, but publicly espousing hate speech does not prohibit you from legally owning firearms ellisonz Sep 2012 #80

Just out of curiousity glacierbay Sep 2012 #95

Why should it? nt hack89 Sep 2012 #105

You mean you can't lose your rights without committing an actual crime? 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #111

Or from voting. Or drinking alcohol. Or attending college. Dr. Strange Oct 2012 #112

I think we've drawn the lines we have pretty well. DirkGently Sep 2012 #87

Thank you. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #88

The difference Gal Friday Sep 2012 #92

I hate Illinois Nazis! PD Turk Sep 2012 #99

Definition of hate speech Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #100

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #128

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #129