It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 10:36 AM
Well look at who wrote the document. Bet they had hatred of Brits and French(via Canada). So I don't think they even considered "hate speech" as a thing.

posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 11:05 AM
a reply to: intrepid

Seems unlikely, doesn't it?

Semantics can turn any speech into hate speech... Making a legal definition somewhat difficult. IMHO, of course. Don't hate me, man.

posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 08:24 PM

originally posted by: MteWamp

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:

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.

You convinced me - Not just the First Amendment of the US Constitution is at stake here
- It is much more - The fundamental right for Humans to hate each other must be maintained
- We would not want an inferior species such as Humans to gain any significant power in the galaxy.

Keep Humans hating each other and the universe is safe from Human stupidity and corruption!

So Humans you insignificant and inferior species - Let us encouage you to continue

- And let this be your motto:


Cursed be the damned - As they shall inherit the Hell they create

Hateful enough for you Human?

- AlienView

posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 09:23 PM
a reply to: AlienView


See? We understand each other perfectly!!!

posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 10:21 PM
And fellow hate mongers - Just played tonight but you can probably get a replay on The PBS website:

KLVX-HD - 10.1 Tue, 8/07, 10:00 PM 1 hr
"Documenting Hate: Charlottesville"
New, 8/07/2018, Season 36 / Episode 16 , Investigative, Documentary, Social Topic, Public Affairs, Politics
An investigation by ProPublica exposes the white supremacists and Neo-Nazis who were involved in the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Va., and how some of them went unpunished and continue to operate around the United States.
Credits: Will Lyman (Narrator)

And you can see this right now.......

Charlottesville Car Attack Suspect Indicted on Federal Hate Crime Charges

"WASHINGTON — James Alex Fields Jr., the suspect in the death of a woman who was mowed down along with others by a car last summer at a counterprotest to a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., was indicted on Wednesday on federal hate crime charges. The charges stood in contrast to President Trump’s refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-Nazis after the woman, Heather Heyer, was fatally struck. He declared that “many sides” shared blame as the violence touched off a firestorm over race relations in the United States. “Last summer’s violence in Charlottesville cut short a promising young life and shocked the nation,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement on Wednesday. “Today’s indictment should send a clear message to every would-be criminal in America that we aggressively prosecute violent crimes of hate that threaten the core principles of our nation........”

Hate crimes illegal but not 'Hate speech'

If your hate speech results in a hate crime and even death - protected under the Constitution ?

Or aiding and abetting a crime
That too protected under the Constitution

posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 01:56 AM
a reply to: AlienView

There is a difference between crime and speech, hence the different words “hate crime” and “hate speech”. Crime is not protected by the constitution; speech is.

posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 03:36 AM

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: AlienView

There is a difference between crime and speech, hence the different words “hate crime” and “hate speech”. Crime is not protected by the constitution; speech is.

Just just for the sake of argument let's say I agree with you - And have concluded it might be impossible to define hate speech

in a legal sense - Like obscenity laws which the courts gave up on and a Supreme Court ruling from maybe 50 yeats ago gave
legal license to X rated porn movies.

BUT 'libel and slander' are real legal terms - People sue for libel and slander
- And isn't a good part of so-called 'hate speech' libeloous and slanderous ?

Take the President for example talking about illegal Mexican aliens bringing crime and drugs to the United States
- That is a fact and since when he gave that speech before the election he added - Some of them are good people,
that was not hate speech.

Now take someone else who just hates Mexicans gives an open to the public rally, or even just posts a video
on YouTube were he says 'Mexicans are degenerates and all should be forced out of the USA - You would probably
say that that is protected under the First Amendment's free speech.
- Now say I'm a succesful Mexican American citizens - He just libeled and slandeered me - Should I have the right
to sue him ?

I think you can - And here is how hate speech can be controlled even without a specific law against it
- People maligned by hate speech should sue the perpetrator - And could probably win often enough so as
to curtail the ugly nature of hate speech.

You can see the headline now: 'Mexican American wins $1,000,000 in defamation suit against anti-immigrant

So aspiring young lawyers who want to make a name for yourself, and maybe some money too
- Try suing the hate mongers - Make them pay for it

Or as the old saying goes:

"Dont get angry - Sue the Bastards !!!"

And this might be an effective tool against online bullies as well - Make them pay for it !!!


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

posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 03:44 AM
Stupidly simple answer is yes it is. The governement cannot prosecute you for hate speech.

I can state gays suck, black people are the cause of Chicago’s problems, and Hispanics are responsible for my thanksgiving watermelons... however I cannot be prosecuted, judged in court, or sent to jail for such statements.

Can we get some stars on black on black crime in Chicago this weekend?

posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 09:45 PM
EternalSolace wrote:

Stupidly simple answer is yes it is. The governement cannot prosecute you for hate speech.

But I'm an American from Brooklyn and come from a history of defending underdogs.

So beginning today we begin - We form a non-profit, non-political, organization

- say we call it the American Society of Human Dignity [ASHD] - It is basically a watchdog group of lawyers

who mercilessly bring suit against individuals and group who perpetrate malicious, derogatory and slanderous

information that is untrue and unproven and that degrades the life of the person or persons they are maligning .

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people...........".
edit on 8-8-2018 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 06:18 AM
We no longer live in outlaw times.

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in