• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hate speech

The shouting down of speakers at colleges says volumes for free speech because it does not matter what the content of your speech is if the students in the auditorium don't agree with you, you are not allowed to voice your opinion.
 
The constitutionality of laws regulating "hate speech" is not nearly as simple as some people here seem to think. In 1942, the Supreme Court held in Chaplinsky that "fighting words"--words "which by their very utterance inflict injury"--are not protected by the First Amendment. But in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell in 1988, the Court reversed an award of money damages to Jerry Falwell for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claimed source of this distress was a parody Hustler had published which claimed Falwell had lost his virginity to his mother while drunk in an outhouse. The Court distinguished this sort of bare-knuckle character assassination from the fighting words in Chaplinsky.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul in 1992, the Court held unconstitutional a city ordinance under which a teenager had been punished for burning a cross in the yard of a black family. Justice Scalia's reasoning was that the ordinance criminalized hurtful speech aimed at racial or religious minorities, while allowing the same sort of speech if aimed at other unprotected groups. The opinion makes clear that some fighting words are not outside the protection of the First Amendment.

In 1993, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Court upheld a statute that imposed longer sentences for assaults that were motivated by the victim's race. The reasoning was that the statute mostly targeted conduct, rather than speech.

There have been a few more cases since then that I don't have time to get into right now, but just the ones I've mentioned should make clear this issue can't be reduced to some simplistic formula.

I wouldn't call slander/ libel the same thing as so called "hate speech."
 
I wouldn't call slander/ libel the same thing as so called "hate speech."

Nor would I. Nor has the Supreme Court. The cases I cited all involved hate speech and/or fighting words, not defamation. So did two more recent cases I did not mention, Virginia v. Black and Snyder v. Phelps. In both Hustler Magazine and Snyder, the claim was that the speakers had committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
 
Last edited:
The line for me is when hate speech crosses over into incitement to violence. I have a major issue with allowing that.

He's not American but Anjem Choudary springs to mind here. I support his incarceration.

I believe inciting violence is not peacable. Such an act can even be considered seditious.
 
I disagree. State of mind is an aggravating factor when committing crimes.

If someone kills their wife for a large insurance payout, it's usually punished more severely than if he put a bullet in her head when catching her in bed with a neighbor. Same applies to hate. If a person kills someone or beats them up due to ideological idealism, it's punished more severely than if they did it because they were just having a bad day.

Intent is already taken into account and does not need a separate charge.
 
I believe inciting violence is not peacable. Such an act can even be considered seditious.

You are free to consider it whatever you want. But in this country, the legal standard is not so simple or broad. Not all speech which incites violence may be banned by law without violating the First Amendment.
 
I disagree. State of mind is an aggravating factor when committing crimes.

If someone kills their wife for a large insurance payout, it's usually punished more severely than if he put a bullet in her head when catching her in bed with a neighbor. Same applies to hate. If a person kills someone or beats them up due to ideological idealism, it's punished more severely than if they did it because they were just having a bad day.

So you believe one person's life is worth more than another person's life? So noted.
 
It seemed to regard slander which is a form of hatespeech.

You may think slander is a form of hate speech, but the Supreme Court has treated the two separately. Slander and libel are forms of the tort of defamation. Defamatory speech has never been protected by the First Amendment. That is why I pointed out that both the Hustler and Snyder cases involved a different tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
 
Intent is already taken into account and does not need a separate charge.

Intent due to ideological motivation does.
 
Yes, that's really what I said but more direct.

The problem with the First Amendment arises when people--many of whom, ironically, claim to be "liberal"--try to use government to suppress views they personally dislike.
 
The problem with the First Amendment arises when people--many of whom, ironically, claim to be "liberal"--try to use government to suppress views they personally dislike.

Indeed. That is the only time I ever hear the phrase "hate speech" being used. And that is also why I contend that people that want to curtail liberties aren't lubed liberal.
 
Intent due to ideological motivation does.

Ideological motivation?

Does this mean that some ideology is approved while others might not be?
 
Ideological motivation?

Does this mean that some ideology is approved while others might not be?

In my mind, no. Any crime that is ideologically motivated is ever so slightly more egregious than one simply committed by rage or greed.
 
In my mind, no. Any crime that is ideologically motivated is ever so slightly more egregious than one simply committed by rage or greed.

Hmm...does this mean that Snowden's crime, possibly motivated by the ideology that government crimes should be made public, is more egregious than if he had merely been paid by some foreign country to do what he did?
 
Not in my opinion. I can kill someone and get out in less than 10 years, if I play my cards right. That's not exactly "a very tough top level murder law."

Maybe in what ever blue **** hooey you live in but if you commit premeditated cold-blooded murder in Texas you're getting the death penalty.
 
Maybe in what ever blue **** hooey you live in but if you commit premeditated cold-blooded murder in Texas you're getting the death penalty.

If someone is stupid enough to make it look premeditated, sure. But, that's not "playing your cards right" like I described. THere are ways to kill someone and make it look spontaneous, even if you thought about it for years.
 
If someone is stupid enough to make it look premeditated, sure. But, that's not "playing your cards right" like I described. THere are ways to kill someone and make it look spontaneous, even if you thought about it for years.

Yes racist murders are well known for thier high IQs.....
 
Yes racist murders are well known for thier high IQs.....

Which is why I think using their words against them, to sniff out the real motive, is perfectly legit.
 
I believe inciting violence is not peacable. Such an act can even be considered seditious.

Except for violent fiction and movies and songs -- they are legal.
 
If someone is stupid enough to make it look premeditated, sure. But, that's not "playing your cards right" like I described. THere are ways to kill someone and make it look spontaneous, even if you thought about it for years.

It would not be easy to commit murder that was in fact premeditated, and yet successfully hide the premeditation. It takes very little forethought to make an intentional homicide first-degree murder--even a few seconds' worth of purposeful intent may be enough to defeat a "heat of the moment" defense.
 
Back
Top Bottom