an all wise, sensitive, liberal "Speech Czar" will deem what is "hateful" and what isn't. This is the new America Obama and his drones are trying to create. But it's not new, its merely the USSR-2.0
not sure who Jeff Dunham is, but a quick search says he is a actor, if he was acting, no I would not, if he was serious then yes just like I would not arrest a actor in a movie for acting like they were doing a crime, but it needs to be known they are acting up front by all parties involved common sense would still need to apply .
Jeff is a ventriloquist who has a character that constantly threatens to kill members of the audience. Then answer the question, how would you codify that in law.
people acting like they are committing a crime for an audience are not committing a crime , if they were making serious threats it would be a crime.. simple
No way. People have the right to speak their mind, even if it's something I disagree with or even find totally revolting. Like hate speech.
OK I've asked twice, you've dodged it twice, so a third and last time. HOW WOULD YOU CODIFY(WORD) THAT IN LEGAL TERMS?
Nope, we should never be afraid to speak our minds. It's not like anyone is forced to listen to a nut calling for violence anyway.
I think that when you start to forbid something you'll finish to forbid everything. Free words in a free country!
I think no! Because every person have a right to say everything he want and if he hate somebody - it's his right. The only speech that should be banned are the speeches of most of American officials, at least because they lie too much, ha.
Well said. The only point I'd make is sometimes we use speech to commit acts and the law can and should limit peoples actions, particularly when they harm others. Even if that action is accomplished with speech. Telling someone you hate him or everyone with his skin color is just voicing an opinion. It's ugly speech, short sighted thinking, but only an idea given voice. It should be tolerated in a society that believes we're all free to have our own opinions and share them. But calls for action, deceptions, harassment... these and other uses of speech can cross the line between voicing an idea and a harmful action. I'm not a fan of hate speech laws, I think most are not well conceived and poorly implemented. But it can be a grey area.
Before we chastise her; can we please see her topless? I forgive anything larger than a D cup. - - - Updated - - - Yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is not cool. Just sayin.....
I can't really vote in this, since it really depends on the scenario. "Calling for violence" can be vague. I don't think it should be illegal for someone to simply say "I wish I could kill _____". However, if you're gathering a mass of people and encouraging them to attack some person or other group, then yeah, that should be illegal. The problem is that a lot of countries very broadly define hate speech, which ultimately compromises free speech in whatever way the government sees fit to.
Only White conservative Christians can utter hate speech. You see, when disenfrachised Blacks and others say things like "Burn this ***** down"---and then they burn city down because one of their thugs was killed trying to murder an evil White cop---then this isn't hate speech. If this was hate speech, then our righteous Civil Rights Division of the Justice Dept would have charged them. The more you know, the more you can grow!
I think the bigger problem is that it is trying to "read minds" and punishing people for their thoughts. Someone made an excellent analogy (can't remember if it was here or somewhere else) where a man gets into a fight with a homosexual because the homosexual is behaving like an arse, but it was not because the person was a homosexual. This is a slippery slope IMO, where we try to punish a person for their "hatred." Punish them for the crime they committed and nothing more. I've actually heard people claim that it's charged a "hate crime" because it puts fear into a certain segment of the population. Well, the same thing goes for rape. It puts women in the community at risk and makes them feel fear as well, but rape isn't considered a "hate crime" against women. If we are going to go with hate crime legislation, then rape should be a hate crime against women, and child molestation should be a hate crime against children, etc., etc.
On this board, Free Speech supporters are vastly over-represented. At least 40% millennials are against Free Speech. Overall, 28% Americans 23% US men 33% US women 35% US Democrats 18% US Republicans 49% Europeans support censoring offensive speech. Very scary!
No, but gossip and invasion of privacy should be. Hate is the fish that swims through the medium of women. Men don't spread hate, so they should be allowed to express hate.
In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy said: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Does this mean that in earlier times, free speech did not exist to the same extent that it is now with the hateful Westbroro Baptist Church even getting the green light from Supreme Court?
