It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is 'Hate Speech' protected by the Constitution ?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

All of this is theoretically true. In practice, everyone has a right to hate speech except white males. For some reason, white males do not have the same civil rights as everyone else. You are allowed to discriminate against them for jobs, college admissions, and nearly everything else.

Also, while hate speech is legal, this only protects you from federal and maybe state charges. It does not protect you from being fired from your job or any other action by a private company and probably school also.




posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AlienView

Firstly speech is protected by the constitution.

Second SCotUS says. Speech is free unless it will cause Imminent Lawless action. This is where you can't say "Fire in a Theater".

So you can go out and say whatever you wish up until the point someone is going to get hurt or a riot happens.

You can google all this up if you want to.


I think that sums it up well enough.

Ah yes, young grasshoppers, let me tell you a story.

Long ago in olden times, when I was young, my people were a race of Great Sorcerers who wielded many great Magiks that seem to have fallen into myth and legend in these Dark Days.

The most powerful of these Magiks we called "Common Sense".

Because of this, most silly questions like the OP never had to be asked.

The fact that this ability has fallen into disuse in this Dark Time fills my heart with a great sadness...

Here endeth the lesson.
edit on 5-8-2018 by MteWamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Paragraph three in this article explains our laws, the first amendment is not our only law. Many policies are in place with freedom of speech to protect the public. en.wikipedia.org...

Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to incite an act of violence, that has been straightened out already, clarified by earlier courts. Our freedom of assembly does not give a person rights on private lands either, just public lands.



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
All laws are not covered under the Constitution
The Constitution was a framework
Any conflicts are adjudicated by the Supreme Court
Done
Over
Next



Well said.

Then there's the issue of interpretation when it comes to actual law. Just because the constitution protects free speech doesn't mean all speech is legal.

Just because I say "I could murder a Mexican" doesn't mean I want to kill a Mexican, I might just want Taco's.

The law throughout the western world has never been black and white, it's murky. Hence why we have courts.



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:33 PM
link   
What a double edged sword we wave around.
edit on 5-8-2018 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Compounded problems... Stress wrecks lives. For all I've observed and learned I can honestly say victimization hardly ever stops at mean words and people being meanies.

Things escalate with time, bullies push the boundaries of what they can get away with mean words yesterday can evolve into weekly beatings, a systematic approach of abuse.




If you kill yourself over speech, then you have deeper problems than just that your peers are calling you names.


Catch 22... If you're alluding to mental health issues then chances are they've been developed from the speech that is derogatorily aimed at an individual.

Kids are only locked up in extreme cases. Say an individual is being bullied and harassed daily, beaten and told to kill themselves often due to something a parent or whatever did. Should that individual toughen up? Speak up and challenge their predicament lawfully (takes time, potential for harrasment increases) or should they "get on with it" till the inevitable breaking point when the individual and/or others are put at serious risk?

It's never as cut and dry as "they're just words and your mental for letting them bother you" your experiences and reactions are generally not applicable to another's, if it was we wouldn't have an issue with childhood suicide and murder.

"Grow up" and "toughen up" would be the cure words to ALL human interaction, they're not...



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Hate speech is protected. You can yell fire in a crowded theatre. It’s a great document.



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView


Some weirdo "expert" was on CNN today describing how it's OK for the media to hate-speech President Trump, but it's not OK for President Trump to hate-speech the media.

Supposedly, the media has "special protections"?

Sounds like B.S. to me.



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:59 PM
link   
thank mozes we have our constitution.
in the republic we still have freedom of speech.

in europe, canada, australia and new zealand you can go to jail for thought crimes,
OR teaching a dog how to salute.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: Gothmog
All laws are not covered under the Constitution
The Constitution was a framework
Any conflicts are adjudicated by the Supreme Court
Done
Over
Next



Just because I say "I could murder a Mexican" doesn't mean I want to kill a Mexican, I might just want Taco's.


Well put, it is perfectly reasonable. I, myself always say "I could murder a Mexican" when I want a taco. I'm sure many others here do also.

It's all legal until someone loses an eye.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: ketsuko

Compounded problems... Stress wrecks lives. For all I've observed and learned I can honestly say victimization hardly ever stops at mean words and people being meanies.

Things escalate with time, bullies push the boundaries of what they can get away with mean words yesterday can evolve into weekly beatings, a systematic approach of abuse.


Don't we all know it! A fart in the breeze will eventually wipe us all out!



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Hate speech is fully protected in the sense that no laws can be passed by Congress to prohibit it.

It does not stop a private company or venue from banning hate speech based on their own rules.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Good for the ACLU.

As far as the OP goes you are wrong and you don’t have a right to tell others what they can and can’t talk about. Free speech is protected, however, your censorship is not.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Yes, free (hate) speech is still protected and so it should always be protected.

As cruel; hurtful and painful as some hate speech may be, there are other ways of dealing with it besides legislation.

Free speech is just too important to have any restrictions put on it at all.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 02:53 AM
link   
The problem with the term 'hate speech' is, surprise surprise, leftists.

Critisizing islam is NOT hatespeech. Calling for border security is NOT hatespeech. Opposing liberal ideology is NOT hatespeech. Critisizing Christianity is NOT hatespeech. Pointing out statistical FACTS is NOT hatespeech. Supporting President Trump is NOT hatespeech.

It's just like the term 'racist'.

Opposing illegal immigration is NOT racist. Opposing islam is NOT racist. Supporting President Trump is NOT racist.

Laws already exist governing freedom of speech. As long as you're not openly calling for violence (like the fascist antifa and blm-type groups) or calling for specific groups to be outcast (like the fascist anti-white movement)then you are within your rights to express your views, in public. Even if your views are not 100% completely and totally in line with the democrat agenda

Silencing an entire viewpoint from public listeners IS fascism. Intimidating people into silence IS fascism. Openly calling for your political opponents to be harrassed in public wherever they go IS fascsim.

Freedom of speech laws do not allow what 'normal' people would consider 'hate speech' but they most certainly DO allow speech that the regressives would consider 'hate speech'



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's not just leftists that call for censorship.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
- And is not only not protected by the First Ammendment, but in fact is treasonous and should be illegal.

What do you think




I think you are wrong!

Hate speech or love speech is just people stating their views.
Why do you want to stop people from openly stating their views?

No one cares about any hate speech against whites.
Why is that?

It seems to be that white people can handle racism, the idea that we need to make rules to protect the others from racism is laughable and at it's core racist. But even if we ignore the hypocrisy there's other problems that arise.

What if the 1%'ers are right and the white man is the devil?
Hate speech laws would stop the public from being able to discuss it.

What if the jews are in charge?
Hate speech laws would stop the public from being able to discuss it.

What if the reptillians are in charge?
Hate speech laws would stop the public from being able to discuss it.

Any rule which encourages dishonesty is bound to fail.
Just let the racists be racists.

If you hate a Nazi you are no better than a Nazi.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


Nazism is not generally accepted in societies because it's commonly agreed that any ideology that encourages hate and intolerance should be openly opposed. So people are more than happy to oppose nazism because nazism is hateful and intolerant.

Hitler's Mein Kampf is like a heart-warming love story compared to muhammed's book. There is no better example of 'Hate and Intolerance' in all of human history than the ideology of islam. No other comes anywhere near it. I never heard of an SS Stormtrooper stoning his own daughter to death because she fell in love with a jewish boy.

If I am allowed to openly criticize nazism, without being called a racist or a bigot or closeminded or a Drumpftard or islamophobe. Then WHY am I not allowed to openly critizes islam for the EXACT same reasons and not be accused of "hatespeech"?

The definition of hatespeech is too open to individual points of view. I think that calling for the death of all white people is definitely hatespeech. Leftists think that wearing a MAGA hat is definitely hatespeech.
edit on 6 8 2018 by Breakthestreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak

Do you realise that your ideology encourages hate and intolerance towards Nazi's?

Essentially you are saying encouraging hate and intolerance towards people you don't agree with is OK.

Freedom of speech is all or nothing.
There is no in between.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


Ah yeah, I think you missed my point.

All I was saying is : why is it ok with people to openly critisize nazism but it's not ok to openly critisize islam?

The point I was making is that 'hatespeech' is not easily defined when you have a totally irrational leftist movement going on.

But I guess you're right, I'm anti free speech because I think islam should be silenced. I'm anti free speech because I think nazism should be silenced.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join