Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.

more political correctness....

The author lost credibility when he cited Glenn Beck as a source and then repeated their party line about "WHITE HOUSE IS ATTACKING FOX".

GAT_00: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.

I disagree. Freedom of speech does mean freedom to hate. I don't want the government to act as the thought police on any level. Just so long as their speech does not directly lead to harm (e.g. "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or fighting words), no matter how much of a lying ass it makes them, they should be allowed to say it.

/dnrtfa

GAT_00: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.

Unless you're inciting "imminent lawless action," (that is, you're about to start a riot faster than the police can respond) the Supreme Court has said it means precisely that.

Talon: I don't want the government to act as the thought police on any level. Just so long as their speech does not directly lead to harm (e.g. "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or fighting words), no matter how much of a lying ass it makes them, they should be allowed to say it.

this. this is a slippery slope. you know corrupt police/judges, etc. will use this to imprison "trouble makers".

instead of convicting people of duis, or possessing MJ, they will just convict someone for saying something someone else deems "hateful" speech.

Talon: Just so long as their speech does not directly lead to harm (e.g. "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or fighting words)

Please define the difference between hate speech, "fighting words" and yelling fire in a theatre. Just how does hate speech not lead to harm, yet the other two do?

GAT_00: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.

Yes it does. If I want to say I hate certain groups, our Constitution protects my right to say to say it.

How many Farkers would be in jail right now if it were illegal to bad mouth Christianity? How many would be in jail for verbally bashing Fred Phelps' group? Just think, you and Fred could share a cell together.

Sorry, GAT_00, but you're dead wrong on this one.

GAT_00: Talon: Just so long as their speech does not directly lead to harm (e.g. "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or fighting words)

Please define the difference between hate speech, "fighting words" and yelling fire in a theatre. Just how does hate speech not lead to harm, yet the other two do?

Well... Fire in a crowded theater causes a panic; people get hurt. Fighting words cause a physical alteration; people get hurt. Calling someone a racial slur (which may or may not be considered fighting words); feelings get hurt.

That's your difference. And even then I personally don't think fighting words or "Fire!" in a crowded theater should be banned (you should face punishment for the injuries you cause, but not for the speech itself)... If I had the time and inclination I'd try to find the multiple court cases dealing with these issues for you to read (in addition to what mastertheif has found), but it's Halloween and I've got better things to do than reiterate what far more educated and qualified people have said on the issue.

I'm missing the part where Obama is Congress and is single-handedly making laws that are abridging free speech.

GAT_00: Please define the difference between hate speech, "fighting words" and yelling fire in a theatre. Just how does hate speech not lead to harm, yet the other two do?

Simple: I can say "I hate Group X". It's an opinion. No harm done except for maybe someone's feeling get hurt.

But if I say, "We should go out and kill some Group X people" and then someone acts on it, then it's a hate crime. Big difference.

GAT_00: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.

Wrong. It means precisely that.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

Barakku: I hate Illinois Nazis.

You're going to jail, pal!

Talon: Calling someone a racial slur (which may or may not be considered fighting words); feelings get hurt.

And so what if they are "fighting words?" Do you also think that higher sentences shouldn't be applied and treat it like any other crime? You're treating hate speech as any other speech and it isn't. You're also arbitrarily choosing what harm is. Hate speech causes violence, and it should be prevented in the same way keeping you from screaming fire should.

GAT_00: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.

actually - yeah, it does. you can't swing a punch or shoot anyone...but you can talk trash about [insert group here] all you want.

Freedom of Speech means freedom to hate.
It does not mean freedom to hurt others with that hate.

GAT_00: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.

I disagree too. At some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions - and this means that people that disagree with hat speech need to make it socially uncomfortable for people that do this type of thing.

Personally I want less laws governing me, not more. I think that makes it incumbent that people stop purposefully acting like dumbasses just because they can. The only reason we have laws are because people are either too stupid or willfully ignorant to the point that a law has to be made.

/laws are nothing but a proxy for morality and what should be common sense

Weaver95: actually - yeah, it does. you can't swing a punch or shoot anyone...but you can talk trash about [insert group here] all you want.

And if the hate speech causes punching and shooting? You're differentiating where a difference doesn't exist, and you're ignoring consequences.

GAT_00: Talon: Calling someone a racial slur (which may or may not be considered fighting words); feelings get hurt.

And so what if they are "fighting words?" Do you also think that higher sentences shouldn't be applied and treat it like any other crime? You're treating hate speech as any other speech and it isn't. You're also arbitrarily choosing what harm is. Hate speech causes violence, and it should be prevented in the same way keeping you from screaming fire should.

"I may not approve of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

GAT_00: Weaver95: actually - yeah, it does. you can't swing a punch or shoot anyone...but you can talk trash about [insert group here] all you want.

And if the hate speech causes punching and shooting? You're differentiating where a difference doesn't exist, and you're ignoring consequences.

Everything you just said to me I consider hate speech. By your own definition, you must now censor your speech and no longer disagree with me.

hey! this is fun! oh, well for you its gonna suck...but I think this is great!

GAT_00: Weaver95: actually - yeah, it does. you can't swing a punch or shoot anyone...but you can talk trash about [insert group here] all you want.

And if the hate speech causes punching and shooting? You're differentiating where a difference doesn't exist, and you're ignoring consequences.

You mean there is no difference between saying "I hate N*ggers" and "lets go kill some N*ggers"?

crimsin23: GAT_00: Talon: Calling someone a racial slur (which may or may not be considered fighting words); feelings get hurt.

And so what if they are "fighting words?" Do you also think that higher sentences shouldn't be applied and treat it like any other crime? You're treating hate speech as any other speech and it isn't. You're also arbitrarily choosing what harm is. Hate speech causes violence, and it should be prevented in the same way keeping you from screaming fire should.

"I may not approve of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I think congress unanimously agreed to change that to "I don't approve of what you say, and I will legislate to the death against your right to say it"

Weaver95: Everything you just said to me I consider hate speech. By your own definition, you must now censor your speech and no longer disagree with me.

hey! this is fun! oh, well for you its gonna suck...but I think this is great!

See, I expect more from you. You're just being obtuse now instead of debating.

I'm ignoring the rest of you "freedom-loving" people because I remember who didn't have a problem with the Patriot Act.

crimsin23: GAT_00: Weaver95: actually - yeah, it does. you can't swing a punch or shoot anyone...but you can talk trash about [insert group here] all you want.

And if the hate speech causes punching and shooting? You're differentiating where a difference doesn't exist, and you're ignoring consequences.

You mean there is no difference between saying "I hate N*ggers" and "lets go kill some N*ggers"?

Thought and deed are one and the same to GAT_00. Orwell called that 'thoughtcrime' - the thought is considered just as illegal as the action itself.

Weaver95: Thought and deed are one and the same to GAT_00. Orwell called that 'thoughtcrime' - the thought is considered just as illegal as the action itself.

Oh come on.

GAT_00: See, I expect more from you. You're just being obtuse now instead of debating.

No, i'm using absurdity to illustrate your position.

I'm ignoring the rest of you "freedom-loving" people because I remember who didn't have a problem with the Patriot Act.

oh, right - I forgot you were a big time supporter of the Patriot act. thoughtcrime is entirely consistant with your worldview.

GAT_00: And so what if they are "fighting words?" Do you also think that higher sentences shouldn't be applied and treat it like any other crime? You're treating hate speech as any other speech and it isn't. You're also arbitrarily choosing what harm is. Hate speech causes violence, and it should be prevented in the same way keeping you from screaming fire should.

People like you are scary. You think you can legislate morality(or what you call morality). You want to force people to think exactly like you do. You want to pass legislation to force people to like you or accept you. It'll work about as well as passing laws making drugs and alcohol illegal.

Not everyone is going to see eye to eye. People have differing opinions about other groups of people. That's just how the world is. If they want to dislike each other and they want to publicly say they dislike each other, then that's their civil right.

How is that any worse than someone making laws that criminalize thoughts and opinions?

Sorry, GAT_00, but this is something I disagree with.

A very robust freedom of speech, including even hate speech is one of the things the U.S. gets right and other nations do not.

I'd much rather have that nastiness out in the open so it can be recognized, called out, and rebutted point by point.

============================

Not only that, but I like being able to criticize and even ridicule some of the more idiotic beliefs of most religions without having to worry about government interference.

There are over a billion people on this planet who bow down to a freaking meteorite five times a day! Any society who doesn't allow a guy to openly call that out as stupid has something seriously wrong with it.

GAT_00: Oh come on.

that's your position - you stated that the thought (or speech, in this case) is just the same as the act itself. In your view, if I say 'that GAT_00 guy is an idiot, I wish he'd get shot.' it's just the same as if I actually pulled out a gun and shot you.

I like the Glenn Beck source. Makes the article credible.

Weaver95: it's just the same as if I actually pulled out a gun and shot you.

That's not what I've said at all and you know it.

Whatever, I don't see the point in repeating what I've already said. I've made my point, apparantly my words are just going to be taken out of context to prove a point that doesn't exist in this thread.

GAT_00: Whatever, I don't see the point in repeating what I've already said. I've made my point, apparantly my words are just going to be taken out of context to prove a point that doesn't exist in this thread.

...or maybe your views on the subject of 'freedom of speech' are incorrect.

But hey, it's still a semi-free country. so your allowed to disagree.

For now.

From teh wikis:

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

It's not just threatening an immediate breach of the peace, it also includes words that inflict injury. So if that is the case, wouldn't it be preferential to have clear legislation that defines what these "fighting words" are as opposed to leaving it solely to the discretion of an arresting officer or an individual jurist?

By the way - Chaplinsky was arrested for shouting "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist" to a police officer. The Supreme court unanimously upheld this arrest.

Soumac: By the way - Chaplinsky was arrested for shouting "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist" to a police officer. The Supreme court unanimously upheld this arrest.

And SCOTUS was wrong to do so....but then again, we're not really living in a free country anymore. I merely find it ironic that the only way we can actually speak our minds is online. Technology has outpaced the ability of various powerful groups to effectively silence the opposition.

I wonder what will happen once we lose our ability to discuss our ideas freely anymore?

Weaver95: I merely find it ironic that the only way we can actually speak our minds is online

That's bullshiat.

You can do so in an anonymous environment free from being ostracized by society while online. That's why people say completely idiotic things. They don't have to worry about people yelling back or ostracizing them in their daily life.

You are more than able to go down to the street corner and yell the same things people yell online.

SilentStrider: Freedom of Speech means freedom to hate.
It does not mean freedom to hurt others with that hate.

This.

No one will be arrested for hate speech. Glenn Beck will still be free to be a douche, Bill O'Reilly will still be free to promote violence, Rush Limbaugh will still be free to be a racist dick, and Fred Phelps will still be free to picket soldiers funerals.

No one is taking away the Right's ability to preach hate, just to act on it.

bulldg4life: You are more than able to go down to the street corner and yell the same things people yell online.

not without a permit. the harrisburg cops take a dim view of spontanious political demonstrations. So does our legislature for that matter. And Rendell is worried someone is gonna pop his cork with a sniper shot after crapping on the state workers for so long.

Saying that hate crimes legislation infringes on free speech is like saying murder for hire statutes infringe upon freedom of contract.

Weaver95: not without a permit

What's stopping you personally from going outside and yelling things? You don't have to get a permit for that.

It's a UN resolution that "expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human-rights law, to address and combat such incidents".

Congress didn't pass any laws.

Obama didn't sign any executive orders.

It's stupid, feel-good horseshiat. That even if made into a law wouldn't survive it's first test.

Weaver95: Soumac: By the way - Chaplinsky was arrested for shouting "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist" to a police officer. The Supreme court unanimously upheld this arrest.

And SCOTUS was wrong to do so....but then again, we're not really living in a free country anymore. I merely find it ironic that the only way we can actually speak our minds is online. Technology has outpaced the ability of various powerful groups to effectively silence the opposition.

I wonder what will happen once we lose our ability to discuss our ideas freely anymore?

Weaver95: crimsin23: GAT_00: Weaver95: actually - yeah, it does. you can't swing a punch or shoot anyone...but you can talk trash about [insert group here] all you want.

And if the hate speech causes punching and shooting? You're differentiating where a difference doesn't exist, and you're ignoring consequences.

You mean there is no difference between saying "I hate N*ggers" and "lets go kill some N*ggers"?

Thought and deed are one and the same to GAT_00. Orwell called that 'thoughtcrime' - the thought is considered just as illegal as the action itself.

Wow, it's like an animal farm in here.

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: not without a permit

What's stopping you personally from going outside and yelling things? You don't have to get a permit for that.

In this town, that'd get you arrested. Of course, you can get arrested even IF you had a permit. Basically, anything you do that could upset someone gets you arrested. Being black in Lemonye, for example. Or being white in Alison Hill.

you fail to understand just how corrupt our local government is these days.

Weaver95: And SCOTUS was wrong to do so....but then again, we're not really living in a free country anymore. I merely find it ironic that the only way we can actually speak our minds is online. Technology has outpaced the ability of various powerful groups to effectively silence the opposition.

I wonder what will happen once we lose our ability to discuss our ideas freely anymore?

um
SCOTUS is NEVER WRONG
they JUDGE
they DECIDE what the words in the constitution MEAN when there are questions about said words.
they DECIDE
that is their job
by definition, they are always right

we dont agree with their opinion
we might make a different decision

but by definition, they are the FINAL COURT
they are always right

plus, you forgot the part about PUBLIC speech

no one thinks that public speech is 100% protected
(except for extreme crazy farks)

you are arguing either that there should be no line, that EVERYTHING should be allowed speech in public (including shouting FIRE in a crowded area)

or you are arguing that you dont like where they are drawing the line. well, sliding scales suck but without them, whewwwwwwwwwwww

things would REALLY suck

/off to shout at pigs in public. brb

namatad: Weaver95: And SCOTUS was wrong to do so....but then again, we're not really living in a free country anymore. I merely find it ironic that the only way we can actually speak our minds is online. Technology has outpaced the ability of various powerful groups to effectively silence the opposition.

I wonder what will happen once we lose our ability to discuss our ideas freely anymore?

um
SCOTUS is NEVER WRONG
they JUDGE
they DECIDE what the words in the constitution MEAN when there are questions about said words.
they DECIDE
that is their job
by definition, they are always right

we dont agree with their opinion
we might make a different decision

but by definition, they are the FINAL COURT
they are always right

2/10. Would've given a higher grade if not for the excess carriage returns.

cameroncrazy1984: What's stopping you personally from going outside and yelling things? You don't have to get a permit for that.

disturbing the peace is illegal
you do not have the right to disturb everyone else

/your rights end at the tip of my nose (or in this case, my ears)

RminusQ: 2/10. Would've given a higher grade if not for the excess carriage returns

dammit
I hate when people run on without using proper whitespace.
Now I am being punished for excess. (poor vision, leads to wanting things to be easier to read)

The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping." This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.

um, no.
the UN can not pass a resolution which changes the US constitution. period.

we might ratify some UN treaty/resolution. but it would be struck down by scotus as violating the 1st ammendment

PANIC!
the UN did something which wont effect us, but we will pretend it does!!!
PANIC!!