Hate Speech and the First Amendment

Harshaw said:

Color-coded for contradiction.

Click to expand...

Where exactly is the contradiction?

Lutherf said:

I don't know who started flinging things but there are definitely videos out there showing the counter protesters spitting and throwing projectiles. As I've said all along, both sides came loaded for bear.

Click to expand...

Okay...but please note that in my previous posts that I didn't identify any specific haters. It could be the Boy Scouts against the Gay Republican Organization of America that wind up at the same rally - both to express some protest against each other's beliefs. I don't condone violence between these groups anymore than the violence that just happened in Charlottesville.

You really believe that these groups protest rally was about statues being taken down?

Question:

Knowing what the legacy and ideology is of the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, and the White Nationalist groups who attended the protest, do you support their organization's ideology - or would you be a member of any of those groups?

Out of curiosity, would you want to attend any of their rallies?

Was there any true legitimacy in their protests? Each of those group are adamant that America belongs to whites...period. Isn't that really what their protest is about? How could these groups really expect that there wouldn't be an outbreak of violence? They clearly don't stand for anything that American values and civil rights laws represent.

I opine that the outcome was their intent all along.

Ikari said:

Tis a true statement. Hate speech is free speech, violence is not. Any individual should be allowed to run their mouth about whatever so long as they keep it to running one's mouth, not one's fist.

Click to expand...

You are of course correct. It's a shame that violence is now seen by some as free speech. Shades of the '60's.

But we survived the '60's. Hopefully we'll survive this.

NO1 said:

Why is that tyranny? Why we should allow people to spread their hatred in public and call for death of other people?

Click to expand...

Are you talking about BLM? Calling for the death of other people crosses the line and is no longer free speech.

ForeignRightist said:

To be honest I am surprised I haven't seen any other posts about this.

Brandenbyrg V. Ohio set the precedent that hate speech is indeed still considered an exercise of freedom of speech assuming it does not result in violence.


So what do you, the people of DP think?

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?

Click to expand...

It all comes down to this:

Speech that is popular and the majority agrees with, doesn't need protecting. That's why the 1st Amendment exists, not to protect popular speech, but to protect unpopular speech.

jimbo said:

Are you talking about BLM? Calling for the death of other people crosses the line and is no longer free speech.

Click to expand...

Are you claiming that BLM, as a whole, calls for the death of other people?

Removable Mind said:

Is that what happened? Have you got all of the facts in yet? Trump says that he hasn't.

Click to expand...

Myself, I believe that the statue was the excuse for the protest, but I don't kid myself that this was the intent. By either side.

Both sides knew what they were getting into.

Kobie said:

Are you claiming that BLM, as a whole, calls for the death of other people?

Click to expand...

I'm claiming that walking down a public street representing yourself as BLM and crying for frying cops, or pigs in a blanket is you prefer, like bacon, is calling for the death of other people. Take from it what you will.

NO1 said:

Where exactly is the contradiction?

Click to expand...

In red, you spoke of protecting liberty.

In blue, you explained how you wish to restrict liberty.

"We need to tramp down on liberty in order to protect it!" <--- That's the basis of many bad things.

jimbo said:

Myself, I believe that the statue was the excuse for the protest, but I don't kid myself that this was the intent. By either side.

Both sides knew what they were getting into.

Click to expand...

I adamantly believe that the statue was an excuse for the rally. Given the legacies and ideologies of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and White Nationalists groups, it would be beyond ignorant to believe that they believed that they could engage in a peaceful protest over the statues being removed - without their being a violent outcome.

I'm not making excuses for, or apologizing for the opposition to these the racist, bigoted ****ers, they too played a role in the violence. That too is inexcusable. But in a rally such as this...violence will be inevitable at some level. So it would be completely naive to believe that the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and White Nationalists groups didn't expect an outbreak.

NO1 said:

Any group or organization which his people calling for death and support terror should not be allowed to protest and spread hatred.

Click to expand...

Look at it this way, the US was founded on a certain set of ideals, ideals that many many many Americans will defend. One of those ideals is the right to freely express your opinion on any topic regardless of what it is. That is Freedom, That is American.

Look at you right now, using freedom of speech to express your opinion that others should lose theirs.

Look at it like this - censorship is Authoritarian, it is the first step down a long ladder ending in many different historical counts of pain and suffering because a government had the ability to censor ideas. Censoring anyone, even Nazis, sets a terrible and un-american precedent.

Look at it in a much grander viewpoint. Our society as a whole deems Nazism to be disgusting, these Nazis will suffer. They will be rejected by society, they will be unable to find work for private firms have the right to deny them employment, they are ruining their own lives with hate. Is that not enough of a punishment without having to take a step further and allow the Federal Government to police what kind of ideas we can and cannot have? What if tomorrow whatever set of ideals you hold will be determined hateful and evil, should you be censored because the society believes you are wrong? Left-wingers cannot look past their narrow viewed scope centered around their political agenda... The question of freedom of speech is as philosophical as it is political.

Looking at my final point. The very request for censorship is inherently contradictory, for I deem your request for censorship as hateful because it is the antithesis of everything America was founded on. Therefor, using your logic, you should be censored. No, because in America it does not matter what you believe in as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others you cannot be silenced. Brandenburg V. Ohio 1969 ruled quite simply that all speech is indeed protected under the first amendment as long as it does not incite violence against another.

Removable Mind said:

Okay...but please note that in my previous posts that I didn't identify any specific haters. It could be the Boy Scouts against the Gay Republican Organization of America that wind up at the same rally - both to express some protest against each other's beliefs. I don't condone violence between these groups anymore than the violence that just happened in Charlottesville.

You really believe that these groups protest rally was about statues being taken down?

Question:

Knowing what the legacy and ideology is of the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, and the White Nationalist groups who attended the protest, do you support their organization's ideology - or would you be a member of any of those groups?

Out of curiosity, would you want to attend any of their rallies?

Was there any true legitimacy in their protests? Each of those group are adamant that America belongs to whites...period. Isn't that really what their protest is about? How could these groups really expect that there wouldn't be an outbreak of violence? They clearly don't stand for anything that American values and civil rights laws represent.

I opine that the outcome was their intent all along.

Click to expand...

In no way, shape or form do I support the ideology of Nazis or any other group espousing supremacy of a race, a religion or some other singular factor. I don't support any ideology that endorses exclusionary practices based on race, religion or another singular factor. However, if I am going to embrace the principles of individual liberty then I also need to understand that such ideologies exist. I don't need to tolerate those ideologies in my house or in my business but in the public sphere I need to respect the fact that they do exist and that they have a right to exist. Unless and until such ideologies have a material negative impact on my ability to exercise my liberties I MUST tolerate them in the public sphere.

Removable Mind said:

I adamantly believe that the statue was an excuse for the rally. Given the legacies and ideologies of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and White Nationalists groups, it would be beyond ignorant to believe that they believed that they could engage in a peaceful protest over the statues being removed - without their being a violent outcome.

I'm not making excuses for, or apologizing for the opposition to these the racist, bigoted ****ers, they too played a role in the violence. That too is inexcusable. But in a rally such as this...violence will be inevitable at some level. So it would be completely naive to believe that the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and White Nationalists groups didn't expect an outbreak.

Click to expand...

Methinks you are correct. I'm sure both sides expected a physical war. Otherwise you bring flowers, not clubs and bottles of urine, and masks. Which, BTW are illegal.

I fault the government for this one. It takes a special kind of stupid to get broadsided by two armed groups being held apart by a bike rack and a 2 x 6 barrier and thinking nothing bad will happen.

Harshaw said:

In red, you spoke of protecting liberty.

In blue, you explained how you wish to restrict liberty.

"We need to tramp down on liberty in order to protect it!" <--- That's the basis of many bad things.

Click to expand...

There is clash between rights and in this case the right to security is winning.
It's not contradiction.

NO1 said:

There is clash between rights and in this case the right to security is winning.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Free speech is not being restricted. And other than the right to be secure in your home and possessions against unreasonable search and seizure, there is no "right to security," anyway.

There certainly is no right not to have your "feelings" hurt, as you called it.

It's not contradiction.

Click to expand...

It very much is, and when you say there's a "clash," you admit it.

NO1 said:

I didn’t say I am supporting totalitarian regime, don’t distort my words.

I don’t live in the US but I think any democratic regime that protect the liberty of its people, should protect it’s people not just from physical harm but also from mental harm, and in this case the harm in the public feelings is way to much and therefore its overpower the free speech.

Click to expand...

We protect ourselves from mental harm by insuring that we are educated and practiced in evaluating the validity of opposing points of view. This isn't something we can pull off a shelf and immediately put to use. This isn't something government can provide for us without taking something away from others. Our "protection" comes from making ourselves better and setting an example for others to better themselves.

Lutherf said:

We protect ourselves from mental harm by insuring that we are educated and practiced in evaluating the validity of opposing points of view. This isn't something we can pull off a shelf and immediately put to use. This isn't something government can provide for us without taking something away from others. Our "protection" comes from making ourselves better and setting an example for others to better themselves.

Click to expand...

Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:

Great post! Brief, but well explained, Sir! :thumbs:

Harshaw said:

No, it isn't. Free speech is not being restricted. And other than the right to be secure in your home and possessions against unreasonable search and seizure, there is no "right to security," anyway.

There certainly is no right not to have your "feelings" hurt, as you called it.

Click to expand...

I think otherwise, I dont think there are absolute rights, I think every right can be restricted according to the situation, time and place. Also free speech should be restricted, I dont think Nazis should be allowed to protest and calling to death because as I said not only violence hurt and leave scar but also words, you can dismiss that but it's true. Just see how people react to this rallys and you can see the harm it cause.

It very much is, and when you say there's a "clash," you admit it.

Click to expand...

There are many cases there are clashes between rights and usually the court decide which one is overpower the other, it's not new thing.

LowDown said:

Of course it does. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that people don't like.

Click to expand...

The speech of white supremacists may be stopped. Then the speech of conservatives on college campuses may be stopped. Then the speech of GOP or dems may be stopped. Where does it end? It never starts. No one has the intelligence, not even me, nor the ideological restraint, not even me, to make that decision, so the first amendment is absolute to any American.

NO1 said:

I think otherwise,

Click to expand...

Obviously. But that's because you don't understand or cherish freedom. You protect it for everyone, or it doesn't mean anything.

Freedom isn't good feelings. Freedom is freedom. I'm sorry that you don't respect it.

Harshaw said:

Obviously. But that's because you don't understand or cherish freedom. You protect it for everyone, or it doesn't mean anything.

Freedom isn't good feelings. Freedom is freedom. I'm sorry that you don't respect it.

Click to expand...

Life isn't black or white, and I'm sorry but i don't support the freedom of Nazis to call for death to other people.

NO1 said:

Life isn't black or white, and I'm sorry but i don't support the freedom of Nazis to call for death to other people.

Click to expand...

I know you don't. You don't respect freedom of speech. You don't understand or cherish freedom.

Harshaw said:

I know you don't. You don't respect freedom of speech. You don't understand or cherish freedom.

Click to expand...

Again I respect freedom of speech but in some cases like this I won't support it because in my opinion it cause a bigger harm in other's rights.

NO1 said:

Again I respect freedom of speech but in some cases like this I won't support it because in my opinion it cause a bigger harm in other's rights.

Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself again.

You. Do. Not. Respect. Freedom. Of. Speech.

Lutherf said:

In no way, shape or form do I support the ideology of Nazis or any other group espousing supremacy of a race, a religion or some other singular factor. I don't support any ideology that endorses exclusionary practices based on race, religion or another singular factor. However, if I am going to embrace the principles of individual liberty then I also need to understand that such ideologies exist. I don't need to tolerate those ideologies in my house or in my business but in the public sphere I need to respect the fact that they do exist and that they have a right to exist. Unless and until such ideologies have a material negative impact on my ability to exercise my liberties I MUST tolerate them in the public sphere.

Click to expand...

Luther, I wouldn't believe in a million years that you subscribed to those groups ideologies.

But what I don't get is conflating the "suppression of free speech" with the outbreak of violence that occurred. Do you believe for a moment that the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, and White Nationalists groups believe in Freedom of Speech?

In a public setting, there is absolutely no way for you to know if you or anybody else won't wind up being a bystander victim of those types of ideologies. Look at the number of unexpected victims who were were plowed down by a person, who in the heat of a so-called protest over slavery icon statue removal, used a car to kill and hurt a lot of people.

But let's not allow this "one person's racism and bigotry" to distract us from the greater truth. The greater truth is that these groups are hostile to our government, our civil rights, our laws that protect people of all races, religious beliefs, etc.

These groups didn't intend for this rally to be like a candlelight vigil where everybody stood around the statue singing Kumbaya My Lord in remembrance to Robert E. Lee. Collectively, in any sizeable gathering of these groups, they are a danger to everyone within their vicinity - regardless of what they claim that the purpose of their gathering is.