Hate Speech and the First Amendment

[Frodo]

Virtually every western country outside the United States sees banning hate speech (and regulating free speech in general) as acceptable for the sake of promoting societal harmony in an increasingly pluralistic society.

Do you think the United States should join with the rest of the world, and adopt greater restrictions on the First Amendment, including a ban on hate speech?   
----------------------------------------------------

Inspired by the International Herald Tribune article,  'Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.'

[Albus Dumbledore]

Absolutely not.

[angus]

Virtually every western country outside the United States sees banning hate speech (and regulating free speech in general) as acceptable for the sake of promoting societal harmony in an increasingly pluralistic society.

Do you think the United States should join with the rest of the world, and adopt greater restrictions on the First Amendment, including a ban on hate speech?   
----------------------------------------------------

Inspired by the International Herald Tribune article,  'Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.'

Hey Honeybrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt.

I forgot mybrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt.

whabrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt.

Iforgot mybrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt.

whobrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt.

I frlkggbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrty.  brrt.  y.  brrrt.

I forbbbbbbbbbbbr.  Really?

I FORGOT MY FLIPFLOPS.

brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt.

It's gonna be a great week.

Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt.

Travelocity.  Never travel alone.


It's a bizarre turn of events.  Reactionary policies are the norm among progressives.  I reckon it seems paradoxical when you say it out loud.  But you see so many examples every day.  Of course it's harmful.  Hate crimes legislation.  No child left behind.  No pass/No play policies wrt extracurricular activities.  political correctness.  Hate speech crimes.  Anti-religious bigotry so strong that we allow ourselves to stop teaching the mythology of the bible in our public schools, even as we teach the Iliad and the Odyssey, simply because of misinterpretations of the intent therein.  Of course, some of those policies came from politicians we don't usually label "progressive" (Bush's minions were the architechts of NCLB) but they were all progressive overreactions to some problem.

Of course it's a bad idea.  Most progressive ideas are very bad ideas, but by their very nature they have mass appeal.  And that mass appeal quality isn't limited to Menses Americana.  The more progressive the society, the more progressive some of the ideas.  Every once in a while, though, a progressive idea comes along that is good and it sticks.  And that's not a bad thing.  I just hope this progressive idea is one that is seen for what it is:  paranoid overreaction with no great societal benefit and great potential harm.

[Beet]

No, and this is what distinguishes the United States, in a positive way in a way worth keeping, from most developed countries. And yeah... there's nothing wrong with teaching Genesis in English class.

[dead0man]

Of course not.  Nobody with any power has enough balls to push the point though.  As proof I give you The Daily Show during the Denmark Mohammed cartoon idiocy.

..or the entire American news media for that matter.  The Euro's, with their restricted Free Speech laws seem to be much more likely to exercise those more limited rights.  The press here self censored themselves out of cowardice.  It saddened and embarrassed me.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Absolutely not.

[J. J.]

Absolutely not.

^^^^^^^^

There is no way to distinguish "hate speech" from anything else.

[John Dibble]

Hell no.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No hate speech can be restricted at all.  The reason being, if you restrict incredibly offensive things (protest funerals, etc.), then people look to ban less offensive things (Nazi rallies), until you have banned everything imaginable.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No way (R)

[Bogart]

No hate speech can be restricted at all.  The reason being, if you restrict incredibly offensive things (protest funerals, etc.), then people look to ban less offensive things (Nazi rallies), until you have banned everything imaginable.

Except when said speech will incite imminent violence.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No hate speech can be restricted at all.  The reason being, if you restrict incredibly offensive things (protest funerals, etc.), then people look to ban less offensive things (Nazi rallies), until you have banned everything imaginable.

Except when said speech will incite imminent violence.

No, that's still not a good reason to ban it.  You see then the level of what causes "imminent violence" will become less and less and less and less and less and less, etc., etc.

[Bogart]

No hate speech can be restricted at all.  The reason being, if you restrict incredibly offensive things (protest funerals, etc.), then people look to ban less offensive things (Nazi rallies), until you have banned everything imaginable.

Except when said speech will incite imminent violence.

No, that's still not a good reason to ban it.  You see then the level of what causes "imminent violence" will become less and less and less and less and less and less, etc., etc.

I'm simply saying that is the standard. Hate speech can be banned in situations where it will incite "imminent" violence. Moreover, the courts have been pretty good at maintaining this standard so far. The "slippery slope" argument hasn't proven to be applicable here.

[Emsworth]

I'm simply saying that is the standard. Hate speech can be banned in situations where it will incite "imminent" violence. Moreover, the courts have been pretty good at maintaining this standard so far. The "slippery slope" argument hasn't proven to be applicable here.

Strictly speaking, the government cannot just ban hate speech that incites violence. It must prohibit either all speech producing violence, or none. In other words, the First Amendment forbids the government from discriminating between hate speech and other speech.

[Bogart]

I'm simply saying that is the standard. Hate speech can be banned in situations where it will incite "imminent" violence. Moreover, the courts have been pretty good at maintaining this standard so far. The "slippery slope" argument hasn't proven to be applicable here.

Strictly speaking, the government cannot just ban hate speech that incites violence. It must prohibit either all speech producing violence, or none. In other words, the First Amendment forbids the government from discriminating between hate speech and other speech.

That's not exactly correct. The courts have held that hate speech that is not likely to incite imminent violence to be protected by the First Amendment, whereas the very same words, in a situation where imminent violence is likely to be the result of such speech, are not protected. The likelihood of "imminent violence" is the differentiating factor, not the words themselves. Consider that a transcript of a speech in a magazine is not likely to incite an immediately violent response and, therefore, would be allowed; while the same speech given at a rally, perhaps, may and, therefore, might not be.

Of course with many judicial litmus test, it is often left to what a "reasonable" person might believe to be the likelihood of imminent violence. I'm not sure in this case. Anyone?

[Emsworth]

That's not exactly correct. The courts have held that hate speech that is not likely to incite imminent violence to be protected by the First Amendment, whereas the very same words, in a situation where imminent violence is likely to be the result of such speech, are not protected.

I will restate the position I expressed in my earlier post: The government may not distinguish between hate speech that causes violence and other speech that causes violence. This is not merely my view, but the law of the land, according to the Supreme Court's decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. You are correct that the same words may cause violence in one context, and fail to do so in another context, but I do not see how this fact is in any way responsive to my claim that hateful and non-hateful speech must be treated identically.

[nclib]

While I strongly detest racism, homophobia, etc., it is not the governement's role to restrict it. Banning it will not eliminate hate.

[Stranger in a strange land]

While I strongly detest racism, homophobia, etc., it is not the governement's role to restrict it. Banning it will not eliminate hate.