It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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. 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. In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term. And additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected. 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. 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.
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.
Stupidly simple answer is yes it is. The governement cannot prosecute you for hate speech.