- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,248
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Did the person in question fire?
You think putting a gun to someone's head is allowed as long as they don't fire?
Did the person in question fire?
The poll choices do not reflect my opinion, so I will give it here.
Freedom of speech protects all speech. That is why there is no true sedition law in the US as there are in other countries. The laws that do exist are more in line with libel and defamation.
All speech is protected. The potential effects of that speech are not.
In other words, you can yell fire in a theater if you wish, but if a fire is not in fact present in the theater, and there is harm caused to people by them attempting to flee the theater, you can be held liable for the harm by your action.
So your speech (yelling fire) is protected, but any results of your words are not.
You can yell 'Kill Him' during a fight between two other people. But if one kills the other and it can be proven that your instruction was a causation of the death, you can be held liable for the death.
If you stand on a corner in a big city and decry the actions of banks and the 1%, your speech is protected, but if you insight a riot by doing so, or block traffic with the crowd you attract, or insight mayhem by the breaking of windows in adjacent buildings, you can be held liable for the results of your speech.
You can take pictures of anything you wish and publish them. But if a picture you take is of a child that has been placed into a sexual act, then you can be held liable for the act of placing the child into the sexual act. The picture is just the proof of the crime, and anyone that accepts the picture is as liable for the initial act as the person that took the picture by providing a market that aids and abets the original criminal act.
There are a plethora of examples, so to summarize, your speech is protected no matter what you say, but you can be held liable for the results of that speech.
We cannot restrict speech for any reason. There would be no end to the restriction if we do. What is offensive to one is acceptable to another. The definition of offensive is defined by those that have the power to do so, and would only end in the restriction of all speech that is not approved by the powerful. There are hundreds of examples of this occurring all throughout history.
We in the US cannot take the chance by allowing speech to be restricted for any reason or by any means, no matter how apparently altruistic, even and especially for political correctness, because political correctness is just another name for tyranny of free speech.
You think putting a gun to someone's head is allowed as long as they don't fire?
Was anyone harmed by the placing of the gun to the head?
Henrin said:Every example listed is protected under the first amendment
Lets review it again..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There you go.
You really don't see the harm that could be caused by this?
No, I can't. Who was harmed? I can see what "could" happen if a bullet is fired, but I sure can't if a bullet is not.
The act of running people over is responsible for the deaths. The speech itself is incapable of being responsible for deaths of people. Its also NOT reasonable to panic in such a situation and everyone knows you are supposed to stay orderly in that situation. People that fail to do so and kill people are responsible for the deaths, no one else.
In short, their premise is faulty and they are blatantly violating what is actually written even by pondering it.
That isn't protecting speech at all. Many of those are barely suggestion. The argument is basically suggestion drives people to do crimes and as a result we are holding suggestion as a crime itself. While I know this is a Godwin moment, this is the exact argument made by Europeans today about restricting speech. That Hitlers speech is responsible for killing millions of peoples when in fact his speech didn't kill a soul. Actions kill people, not words. How much more obvious does it need to be?
Of course mere speech can kill. If I hire a hitter to take out my business rival, I did so by speaking.
That's why US hate speech legislation requires a real, probable, specific and direct provocation to violence. "I don't like Jews" doesn't count, just like you saying "I don't like him" is not the same as hiring a hitman.
There is no "US hate speech legislation", eco. There never could be, as a matter of constitutional law.
The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[60] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[61] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[62]
Many people -- including myself -- are uncomfortable even with hate crime laws. But no one in the US would succeed at criminalizing the white man screaming "I hate Niggers!" when he was otherwise behaving in a legal fashion.
Henrin, your premise is flawed. Of course mere speech can kill. If I hire a hitter to take out my business rival, I did so by speaking.
I think putting a gun to someones head could certainly cause mental harm.
How is speech killing in your example? Is it not the person you hired for the killing that did the act?
To be prosecuted for a hate crime (in the US), one must have (1) no other motive and (2) possession of paraphrenalia or memebership in a hate group. Screaming "I hate black people" while beating someone senseless and stealing their wallet DOES NOT qualify. Even if the attacker does not steal the wallet, it DOES NOT qualify unless the attacker possesses paraphrenalia or membership to a hate group.
Most people have no idea the requirements for hate crime prosecution in the US.
There are a variety of hate crime and hate crime enhancement laws, eco.
Hate crime laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Membership in a hate group would be some evidence of the killer's bias, but it isn't the only type of proof allowed. As you likely know, the feds just convicted a group of extremists here in Ohio for hate crimes against the Amish -- even though they were Amish as well.
The race/gender/etc of the attacker and the race/gender/etc of the attacked bears no relevance to the charges unless the attacker had (1) no other motive and (2) paraphrenalia or membership to a hate group.
There is no protected race or gender. There have been hate crime convictions (of minorities) committed against white men. It does not vary. It's a federal charge. Thems the law.
I disagree that, absent membership in a hate group, no conviction can be obtained under any hate crime or hate crime enhancement law in the US. I don't think you are correct as to the federal law, and you are ignoring all state laws of this kind.