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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak

It should be OK for both, I think I mainly disagree with...



it's commonly agreed that any ideology that encourages hate and intolerance should be openly opposed


I think that any ideology that encourages hate and intolerance should be encouraged and discussed openly so we can make our own decisions.

Otherwise it is just a popularity contest.

But yes, wanting to silence Islam is just as bad as wanting to silence nazism, marriage equality or recycling.




posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Who defines what qualifies as "hate speech?"


"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[1][2] The law of some countries describes hate speech as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[6] And additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.[7][8][9] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that contains hate speech (online hate speech) may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.........

See whole article here:
en.wikipedia.org...

As President Trump just stated that the 'press' is sometimes dangerous and might even cause wars.
- That may sometimes be true - But a free press must be protected.

Hate mongers on the other hand, of any sort, and for any reason - Particularly when it is dissemination of disparaging comments about a group or people - is anathema to the prinicples and Constitution of the United States and is not only not protected - But in fact should be defined as illegal !


No. Nyet. Nada. Nein. ABSOLUTELY NOT!

First off, and I'm referring to the last paragraph of your post here, what you describe is the 100% POLAR OPPOSITE of what the First Amendment stands for, in both form AND spirit.

Even in the text of the Wikipedia article from which you quoted (which, unlike the U.S. Constitution, is NOT a binding legal document), CLEARLY states:

"Hate speech is not a legal term.[6] And additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected."

You just can't have it both ways.

The reality of it, which some people just can't seem to understand, is that when you drill down to the absolute crux of the issue, this is about FREEDOM.

Freedom, in and of itself, is absolutely THE MOST DANGEROUS CONCEPT that has EVER existed, but it is also the the most PRECIOUS, and it is so, so very fragile.

The gentlemen who created the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and other documents that form the core and spirit of what at the time could probably be referred to as "The Great Experiment", they KNEW this.

They knew how dangerous and risky it was. They KNEW all the reasons why nothing like it had ever existed before, at least on a large scale, but they believed, as I do, that the risk was worth it.

They also, as do I and millions of other Patriots in this country, were willing to defend those belief and concepts with their lives.

We WILL do so if necessary. Never, EVER forget that.

Take that any way you want, folks, but PLEASE, PLEASE, make DAMN sure that you also take it as a warning.

Because that's what it is.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Inciting a riot is illegal.

I'm pretty sure that if you went and had a 30 min speech about how good peanut butter is. No one will riot and your new peanut butter pals will enjoy yourselves.

See how that works. No one is going to riot over your peanut butter speech.

You have to really go out of your way to cause a riot.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Short answer: yes. all speech is protected by the constitution.

you are using examples where people make a choice to allow speech to incite them in various ways. Like our moms tell us, though...we are responsible for our own actions. Not words, actions.

If what someone says incites you into action, it is you who is the problem, not them. Someone who allows such is simply waiting for the excuse to act, and using someone else's words as a stand in.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Inciting a riot can really only happen if you state a lie that causes a stampede type of response. The fire in the crowded theater, for example. Or staging a bloody entrance onto a crowded street screaming "RUN".

Some asshole with a microphone will typically not be able to achieve that. Unless it was preplanned, or agents provocateur are in the audience.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
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.


Yea, any company or Organization can fire someone if they deem their speech not appropriate or "hate speech" . But you can't arrest someone and press charges for hate speech unless they call an act of violence.

The op seems to think we endorse hate speech or mean words but really if we call speech a crime we destroy our values and are going down a slippery slope where certain people don't have a voice.

What I consider hate speech might not be hate speech to someone else. What if I make a joke and some sensitive flower presses charges over a joke and I'm in jail? Dangerous having speech police



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well that's my point.

You really have to go out of your way to incite a riot.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Hate speach is protected under the constitution... what good is the constitution and it's amendments if we can argue when they can and cant be applied. If we get to pick and choose on a whim we might as well get rid of the constitution all together and just go with the current set of laws that can be changed with simply majority in the congress any time we see fit.

You can tell "fire" in a movie theater all you want; you have a right to do so under the first amendment. What you dont have a right to do is insight a stampede which could be the outcome of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater... go scream "fire" in an empty movie theater and no one will bat an eye.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   
If you live in a country where "hate speech" means something -
You're enjoying the fruits of Marxism.
Those Kulaks will say anything to keep from sharing with the proletariat.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
The op has asked if hate speech protected under the constitution of the USA.

Here is my answer to that, and what some of the best legal minds can come up to:

All speech is protected under the constitution, however the moment that speech inspires or causes a physical injury, then it ceases to be protected and becomes a crime. The example of the fire in a theater is a good example. A person calling out fire in a crowed movie theater is not protected, as the act would cause people to get injured. The same could be said about protest. Protesting is a form of speech, however, it ceases to be protected when other laws get broken in the process, or becomes a riot.

While it may seem appealing to ban such, cause it is hateful or even fully distasteful, it not correct nor an idea that anyone should consider. To consider it, means that we now must look at censorship. And how many in the country would be affected, or even what other rights would be removed or stripped from this.

We do have the freedom of speech, however there are consequences for such.
The only defense of this one right and freedom is to protect the speech that offends us.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: ketsuko

Inciting a riot is illegal.

I'm pretty sure that if you went and had a 30 min speech about how good peanut butter is. No one will riot and your new peanut butter pals will enjoy yourselves.

See how that works. No one is going to riot over your peanut butter speech.

You have to really go out of your way to cause a riot.


Are you?

Let's see. Not so many years ago, had you made a speech about the wonders of plastic straws, I would have been pretty sure that no one would have rioted about it. However, nowadays, because of press about the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" among other things, you might find yourself stuck in a riot created by environmental activists who don't want anyone to hear about why plastic straws might not be the Devil, Himself.

Similarly, go back even further, and actually wearing furs would have been similarly common place and non-controversial.

However today, you might get stuck in a PETA riot.

Things change. Your uncontroversial peanut butter might become the focus of riots put on by treenut allergy suffers fed up by a lack of access to foods produced in nut free manufacturing facilities. And this is because everyone thinks the way to get their way is to erupt into not just protest, but violent protest.
edit on 6-8-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Who defines what qualifies as "hate speech?"


"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[1][2] The law of some countries describes hate speech as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[6] And additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.[7][8][9] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that contains hate speech (online hate speech) may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.........

See whole article here:
en.wikipedia.org...

As President Trump just stated that the 'press' is sometimes dangerous and might even cause wars.
- That may sometimes be true - But a free press must be protected.

Hate mongers on the other hand, of any sort, and for any reason - Particularly when it is dissemination of disparaging comments about a group or people - is anathema to the prinicples and Constitution of the United States and is not only not
protected - But in fact should be defined as illegal !


So it is only ok for the media to degrade people, not the regular citizens? the press is not above the citizens.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is an incorrect assumption.

Making a speech about peanut butter, plastic straws or what have you isn't inciting anyone to riot.

To be charged with that sort of crime. Your speech would have had to have had specific wording that would cause imminent lawless action. ie fire in a theater.

If a bunch of yahoo's come to your speech and start up trouble. Well that's their problem. You cannot control others who are not affiliated with yourself.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Now, you're backtracking.

Go back to the original post I made.

People have been showing up and speakers' events and rioting, claiming their speech incited them to riot. In many cases, these were events where a person would have had to pay to get in. Clearly, many feel the speakers were making hate speech to have incited the riots provoked. If you didn't, you wouldn't have started this OP.

However, now you claim that the those yahoos outside who came to stir up trouble outside a Ben Shapiro speech had some sort of other problem, and no one should expect Ben to control others no affiliated with himself?



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Very interesting friends - I'm glad I started this post - Makes me feel at home with you Humans.

OK - Let's elaborate.

Believe it or not, even though it may not be defined by the ATS hierarchy - This forum, for the most part does not tolerate
hate speech - Try atacking someone, in any personal way on this forum - And expect consequences.

And yet ATS is a very broad minded forum, there are many solid right leaning conservatives here, many solid liberals here,
- And evern a few aliens, like me, here, who defy definition.

Yes, the Constituton of The United States of America does indeed protect 'free speech'
- But 'free speech' is not 'hate speech'.

'Hate speech' is a delebrate attempt to malign, degrade and injure someone, or some group of people
- I say this is not protected - Anymore than singling out, say Mexicans, for all the problems in the United States,
- as Hitler did with the Jews in Germany - And gave his rousing speeches to stir up the proletariat to begin
exterminating the Jews, seize their wealth and propert6y and then prove the 'superiority' of the Aryans.

Admit it - He was the all time mastre of 'hate speech' - Right?

And what does this have to do with you you ask in your attempt to define the meaning of the First Amendent /

In a word everything - As you allow malicious, vicious, and often slanderous comments, and defend them in the
name of 'Free speech' - You are no longer defending 'Free Speech' - You are defending 'Hate Speech'
Hate speech is, by its very nature, the diametrical opposite of 'Free Speech'



And when Patrick Henry said:

"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!"


He meant it - We stand by it - And sure as, there be a future of us in the universe - Are not going to let some messed up psychoes
filled with hate destroy it



- AlienView










edit on 7-8-2018 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
Very interesting friends - I'm glad I started this post - Makes me feel at home with you Humans.

OK - Let's elaborate.

Believe it or not, even though it may not be defined by the ATS hierarchy - This forum, for the most part does not tolerate
hate speech - Try atacking someone, in any personal way on this forum - And expect consequences.

And yet ATS is a very broad minded forum, there are many solid right leaning conservatives here, many solid liberals here,
- And evern a few aliens, like me, here, who defy definition.

Yes, the Constituton of The United States of America does indeed protect 'free speech'
- But 'free speech' is not 'hate speech'.

'Hate speech' is a delebrate attempt to malign, degrade and injure someone, or some group of people
- I say this is not protected - Anymore than singling out, say Mexicans, for all the problems in the United States,
- as Hitler did with the Jews in Germany - And gave his rousing speeches to stir up the proletariat to begin
exterminating the Jews, seize their wealth and propert6y and then prove the 'superiority' of the Aryans.

Admit it - He was the all time mastre of 'hate speech' - Right?

And what does this have to do with you you ask in your attempt to define the meaning of the First Amendent /

In a word everything - As you allow malicious, vicious, and often slanderous comments, and defend them in the
name of 'Free speech' - You are no longer defending 'Free Speech' - You are defending 'Hate Speech'
Hate speech is, by its very nature, the diametrical opposite of 'Free Speech'



And when Patrick Henry said:

"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!"


He meant it - We stand by it - And sure as, there be a future of us in the universe - Are not going to let some messed up psychoes
filled with hate destroy it



- AlienView











Hate speech is free speech.

Actually, the Nazis were censored quite a bit leading up to their seizure of power. Hitler and his writings were banned in several provinces. Weimar Germany had fairly strict hate speech laws. Didn’t stop them. In fact it helped them.

On the other hand, America has no hate speech laws, and Nazism, the KKK, holocaust denial etc were sent to the fringe of society.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Dbl pst
edit on 7|8|18 by Words because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Just wanted to point out that grey580 didn't write the OP, AlienView did. (And if I misunderstood and you didn't think he/she was the OP, my apologies.)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: ketsuko

Just wanted to point out that grey580 didn't write the OP, AlienView did. (And if I misunderstood and you didn't think he/she was the OP, my apologies.)


Thank you riiver for giving me credit for starting this post - People seem to like this post
- But don't like me for starting it - The price you pay for forcing Human out of their often 'meat-headed' state of mind,

Let me try again using what is called in philosophy 'Fictionalism' [ie. Netzche's 'Also Sprach Zarathustra, where a fictional
mental superhero opposes the World he lives in and uses Nietzsche's talent as writer to manifest his views]

In the 'Many Worlds theory' in physics - In one of the possible worlds - This story is true:

Yes, they needed an operative to infiltrate the Human paradigm of thinking and gain perspective - A debate
has been raging about the myth of Human intelligence - Some races say that it is fiction, Man shows no signs of real
intelligence, some races with a sense of humor see Humans and their history as a joke.

I was sent here in male Human form to gather data on an open forum - Other data on Human biology has been
gathered through the well publicised 'Alien Abductions'.

Now I want you to think about those well publicized UFO sightings and consider the races of beings that are flying them.

These beings operate on plains of intelligence that are much in advance over Human - and part of this intelligence is in
an operational form as seen in the UFO craft - So what does this fanciful tale hsve to do with 'hate speech'
you ask?

When you deal with species of beings whose intelligence is far in advance of yours - Mind rules


Hate speech is a defacto state of war - When you engage in 'hate speedh' you are in a state of war.

And yes wars among the more advanced species in the galaxies do occur - But becuase we have the intelligence to see
them developing - we can often stop them before they manifest into ugly conflicts

Hopefully we can evolve your species one step further into the future - We are always looking to meet
new and even old species from the past who can evolve one step further into the future.

- Zarathustra II, the past returns to the future



- AlienView [Est. 1776]



ed
edit on 7-8-2018 by AlienView because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly. To incite a riot you really have to go our of your way to do so.

If Ben Shapiro is having a normal conversation that's not inflammatory in any way. He is not liable for the stuff that other people do.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join