General Discussion

grantcart

(53,061 posts)

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

Reply to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Sat Aug 12, 2017, 01:22 PM

Aug 2017

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should hate speech be protected under first ammendment?? [View all] Le Gaucher Aug 2017 OP

What is hate speech? David__77 Aug 2017 #1

Exactly why sarisataka Aug 2017 #5

Speech that I disagree with. Dr. Strange Aug 2017 #13

It is whatever those in power say it is. NutmegYankee Aug 2017 #22

Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment snowybirdie Aug 2017 #2

Well said. I will also say that using the power of HeartachesNhangovers Aug 2017 #8

Of course it should Pale Blue Dot Aug 2017 #3

I think that traitor rag needs to banned like the nazi flag is in Germany nt maryellen99 Aug 2017 #4

The problem always arises as to who gets to define "hate speech". justhanginon Aug 2017 #6

The First Amendment protects all speech that isn't defamatory, The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2017 #7

Porn/"obscenity" should be protected too, but it isnt. nm mr_liberal Aug 2017 #17

Pornography is, too. Hello, Hustler? WinkyDink Aug 2017 #33

"obscenity" isn't protected, but despite the efforts of Andrea Dworkin and Ed Meese Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #40

De facto. WinkyDink Aug 2017 #54

Its really not. You should read what the supreme court has mr_liberal Aug 2017 #49

And you should read the follow-up to Miller: WinkyDink Aug 2017 #53

SCOTUS Precedent. That's gotta be even more distressing to the anti-masturbation league. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #59

The fact that they can't get a conviction also proves that it's not "obscenity". Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #55

I agree. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #43

There is lots of speech besides defamatory, pornographic or incites violence that is not protected grantcart Aug 2017 #18

You *can* yell fire in a theatre, if there really is a fire. The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2017 #19

Are you really so obtuse as to think I was referrring to yelling fire in a theatre where no fire grantcart Aug 2017 #21

It's not very nice to accuse somebody of being obtuse. The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2017 #24

You have difficulty with language grantcart Aug 2017 #28

Atlantic: It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #38

You can't be arrested for yelling "Bingo!" GET REAL. The 1st Amendment protects citizens from govt WinkyDink Aug 2017 #37

Who gets to define what falls under hate speech? ProgressiveValue Aug 2017 #9

Me. I'm going to start with everyone who ever said "The Grateful Dead Sucks" Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #47

Yes DashOneBravo Aug 2017 #10

IF its used to deliberately incite a riot then i say no samnsara Aug 2017 #11

That's already the law. Speech that directly incites violence isn't protected. The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2017 #12

Unfortunately, some people seem to think "anything that might make someone mad" is "incitement" Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #36

I don't want judges determining that. David__77 Aug 2017 #14

Slippery Slope peggysue2 Aug 2017 #15

"Nice" speech doesn't need protection cyclonefence Aug 2017 #16

It's a fine line most judges and even the ACLU are reluctant to cross DFW Aug 2017 #20

Yes it should. Agschmid Aug 2017 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author smirkymonkey Aug 2017 #25

Yes unless it breaks another law. aikoaiko Aug 2017 #26

Yes, sunlight is the best disinfectant DeminPennswoods Aug 2017 #27

Yes it should lunatica Aug 2017 #29

Then you should move somewhere else's. Codeine Aug 2017 #30

Who gets to decide what hate speech is? NT Adrahil Aug 2017 #31

N.T.S. AGAIN. STUDY THE GODDAMN U.S. CONSTITUTION. WinkyDink Aug 2017 #32

It's not "should" it be protected. It is. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #34

Yes, all those Liberal Democrat employers**. Perhaps DU ought think about what might be "offensive" WinkyDink Aug 2017 #39

People say stupid and offensive shit on the internet, it can affect their employment/job prospects Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #42

I'm just sayin' that some employers might not take too kindly to DU POSTS. Be careful what you wish WinkyDink Aug 2017 #46

Well, anyone who knows me knows where I stand on things, so personally, whatever. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #50

Not referring to you personally. WinkyDink Aug 2017 #56

The Alt Right would use it on us. DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2017 #35

Exactly. We have a president who is attacking the free press and our democratic institutions. Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #44

Hit and run. WinkyDink Aug 2017 #41

Hate Speech that invites violence is not protected ismnotwasm Aug 2017 #45

However, when was the last time there was an actual succesful prosecution for "incitement"? Warren DeMontague Aug 2017 #51

"Incites" is the verb. WinkyDink Aug 2017 #57

Answer--YES! brooklynite Aug 2017 #48

The law makes no distinction. Keefer Aug 2017 #52

People who raise this query often imagine that the Arbiters of Legal Speech will be of a mind like WinkyDink Aug 2017 #58

Yes, also protected are efforts to reveal the identities geek tragedy Aug 2017 #60

Please read the 1st amendment GulfCoast66 Aug 2017 #61