Hate Speech laws murder US 1st amendment.

Concerning recent attacks on free speech, Gaffney said: “The insinuation of Shariah legal codes and practices into Free World societies includes the effort to impose Shariah blasphemy, slander and libel laws in the West. According to Shariah, it is impermissible to engage in speech or writings that ‘defame’ Islam or otherwise offend its followers. We must oppose all these efforts.”

Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society, will introduce Mr. Wilders and outline the IFPS 2009 campaign to ban hate speech laws and to work for an “International First Amendment.” Hedegaard said:

The hate speech and blasphemy laws that are now common in many European countries lack clarity as to precisely what they aim to criminalize. Recent experience with their implementation further shows that they are unequally applied. This state of affairs is intolerable and the IFPS must therefore demand that all such laws be repealed. The way to deal with controversial, offensive or even hateful statements – unless they are directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action – is to expose them to public debate and criticism.

internationalfreepresssociety.wordpress.com...

Although this article deals with mostly european issues with hate speech laws it get the point across. Free speech must be absolute especially if it offends YOU personally. Once someone can define so called "hate speech" all free speech is DEAD.....

Even morons like Oreilly on fox are calling for other idiots like westboro church to be "silenced".......the danger is significant to all...........as in this article above, quickly the radical church police can step in and strangel all oposition.

All hate speech laws require someone to maintain a list. That is, a list of what *is* hate speech, and what *isn't*. My question is, who gets to create that list?

Hate speech laws are unjust and unnecessary.

There is a difference between saying something and acting upon it. I don't think we should have to be paranoid about what we say in worry we may "offend someone". If it offends them, discuss why it does and learn something i guess.

Originally posted by ItsAgentScully
There is a difference between saying something and acting upon it. I don't think we should have to be paranoid about what we say in worry we may "offend someone". If it offends them, discuss why it does and learn something i guess.

It matters not what man offends another man, or woman. Man offending GOD is what matters, and he is the only true judge. Words DO matter a great deal. Offensive words between mankind have no meaning.

Please tell me which commandment says "offend not thy neighbor with offensive words"...........

The rise of "hate laws" and "hate speech lists" is, of course, a direct attack on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That's exactly the target — to undermine the U.S. Constitution and the various powerful rights granted to American citizens under the Constitution.

The United States of America was founded and organized as a shelter from the oppression and injustice rampant in the rest of this savage world. The USA is where people from the world over still immigrate in numbers not seen in any other nation on earth. They come here to escape the oppression and injustice of their home countries, and to seek new lives and new opportunities they could never enjoy in their homelands.

That's why the U.S. Constitution is such an extraordinary document, in that it empowers the people to strike down their government by every means necessary when that government becomes corrupt and oppressive. The point is to maintain America's sovereignty and the Liberty of the People, regardless of whatever tyranny exists elsewhere in the world.

America must remain the shelter.

That means we must fight Globalization in America, plain and simple. We must not be assimilated into a One-World government — a government of One Law, One Economy, One Justice, and Intolerance for anything that even remotely resembles Liberty.

We're already seeing the U.S. Constitution come under increasing fire from the filthy socialists infecting American government. More than anything, they want to see the Constitution shredded and burned, eliminating those most hated of all American Rights such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Worship, and the Right for the Citizens to Bear Arms against their government.

Make no mistake, these rights ensure our LIBERTY, our SOVEREIGNTY and INDEPENDENCE from the rest of the world, which is as it should be.

When we assail the First Amendment and start labeling DISSENT as "hate speech," we're already waaay past the "slippery slope" to a Totalitarian State... We're up to our asses in the filthy socialist muck at the bottom of the slope.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 4/25/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Freedom of Speech is only free when being used to speak out against the actions of Government and was never intended to protect racist or those with similiar like politics.

When what one says has the power to take a life Freedom Of Speech becomes modifiable. The protection is there so that you can say The Gov't caters to say sea urchin and not the people and The Gov't can't and won't do a thing to you.

Free Speech does not give any person or entity the right to use the platform afforded to said person to spew racist or hate speech.

This is considered to be a "gray area" when it pertains to free speech as we must be knowledgable enough to know that when we speak there will always be some group who will use the opportunity to try and commit a violent act against someone else.

It can be argued that Freedom Of Speech collides and directly cancels out the time tested and time honoured motto that is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!" only if and when said speech threatens directly or indirectly the person's inaliable rights/

Freedom is there to protect all and not just a minute subset. No man is above the Nation or another. It is also deemed free based upon the views, opinions and what at least 85& of the populous as a whole deems acceptable. This is for we can grow as a nation and be able to move ahead and not reverting backwards all the time.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

Many Western Democracies have hate speech law, but not the US. Hate speech violate the US Supreme court case law that interprets the first amendment. The US Supreme court recently struck down a law outlawing cross burning on first amendment grounds.

Western Democracies all have some sort of "first amendment" or law that allows free speech. All Western Democracies, including the US, have carved out exceptions to this rule. For example, in most Western democracies one cannot incite a riot or make child porn. Many western democracies have included "hate speech" in the carve outs, but not the US.

Free speech is one thing, incitement is something entirely different.

There are radio talkshow hosts who have been recorded - on the air - suggesting that it is legal and morally okay for their listeners to shoot Census workers as long as the worker steps onto their porch. And this is after working to convince their audiences that the Obama government will use the Census to find Conservatives and prepare to sweep through and drag them off to internment camps. The suggestion is that the Census worker has put him/herself in harms way by violating the property line of the homeowner, and shooting the person at that point is legal in those states that allow for this sort of protection of home and property.

Now, the truth is that it's illegal to shoot a Census worker in the performance of his/her job, and that this job is clearly outlined in the Constitution (the original draft, in fact), and that this sworn position of the worker gives him/her the implied consent to walk onto all private property within the United States. That said, the law won't protect the life of a Census worker if some terrified bonehead believes the radio talkshow host, and blows him/her off the porch in a misguided 4th Amendment defense of property. The homeowner will still go to prison for (at least) 2nd degree murder, and the Census worker will still be dead.

And what of the jackass on the radio who used his 1st Amendment right of Free Speech to teach that knucklehead that it was okay, and even his patriotic duty, to shoot that invading government Census worker? Still think that his incitement is covered by the 1st Amendment? We may soon find out.

The word is that someone is likely going to get dusted by some idiot who's been taught - since Obama won the election - that the Census is designed to enable this "illegitimate" government to round up "patriots" and put them into internment camps. The chatter is all over the Internet about this, and being pushed by small-market radio talkshow hosts in the 3rd world nether regions of Red State America. Some poor chump is going to get blasted, and then we'll get the word on what the 1st Amendment is about and what constitutes illegal speech in this country.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by NorEaster]

I limit practically no speech in my views on freedom and the 1st amendment.

Hatred, bigotry, racism, and all other forms of foul human thoughts are fair game and should be kept as such. I even support speech that speaks to overthrow of the government.

Only saying directly threatening (first person) or instructing another to commit a felony would be limited.

Hate speech is garbage that reduces free speech to thought policing.

I know this is simplistic, but the second amendment guarantees the first and all other amendments.

Every American should be mad as hell about any right being curtailed. Even the anti-gun nuts should fight tooth and nail to keep this right. Sound oxymoronic, but they should.

The people who want to silence the Westboro Baptist Church actually need to defend their right for free speech.

Once you start an us/them mentality, we all loose our rights.

People should read the statement of Pastor Martin Niemöller. Then maybe you will understand.

Originally posted by hinky
The people who want to silence the Westboro Baptist Church actually need to defend their right for free speech.

My thoughts exactly...as repugnant as Fred Phelps is...his rhetoric is protected as well. I am bemused by commentary that defends your freedom of speech unless offensive to the status quo.

On the other hand, given the 20th century genocides that started off by inciting hatred of a particular group or culture, it's tough to find an arbitrary cut off point. Slippery slope, indeed.

Apart from chilling free speech, hate speech laws may actually encourage and promote extreme hate groups. In the US, there are no hate speech laws. People are free to express reasonable and politically incorrect views on topics like: immigration, crime, and terrorism. Extremist groups have little support in the US because people can support reasonable, yet politically incorrect positions.

In Europe, where hates speech laws exist, people are not free to have reasonable, but politically incorrect views. The average European is left with two choices- to follow political correctness or support the underground radicals. Many Europeans go with the second choice. They support racist radicals like Neo Nazi parties. This is why Neo Nazi groups have much more support in Europe than in the US. If Europeans were given a third choice, a politically incorrect but reasonable position, extremists would virtually disappear.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity


When we assail the First Amendment and start labeling DISSENT as "hate speech," we're already waaay past the "slippery slope" to a Totalitarian State... We're up to our asses in the filthy socialist muck at the bottom of the slope.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 4/25/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Experienced this on a 2nd amendment thread on this site.
Quite a rude awakening.
Now that I'm awake, I'm aware that agreeing with your post will place me on a "list" somewhere.
This being awake thing is a little uncomfortable.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
The average European is left with two choices- to follow political correctness or support the underground radicals. Many Europeans go with the second choice. They support racist radicals like Neo Nazi parties.

I don't see evidence of that in Canada...beyond Coulter getting her kickers in a knot over her reception on-campus. While I'm unsure how I feel about the laws, I don't see them polarising the populace here. Let's not forget that Europe does have a somewhat sketchy history as regards slaughtering one's neighbours over issues of faith and culture.

We must be able to self police ourselves and our actions, if it becomes too problematic or a public nuisance only then will Government get involved. Self chequing, self control and self awareness of not only our words but actions are needed to prevent Government from passing or adopting any laws modifing free speech.

We control the course in that regard.

I am all for the protection of Free Speech but responsible and intelligent thought and actions must ferment in order to avoid external intrusion by any outside group or entity.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

I find it funny that since the founding of the country we have come so far down the road that PC governs our lives. Many people often look and ask what would the founding fathers would do, and how it comes to free speech. Accusations of fear mongering and liability of slander is always in the forefront of the minds of people when they print stuff, but in the days of our early founding fathers I am forced to remind myself of the following:
In the campaign that followed, the Federalists depicted Jefferson as a godless nonbeliever and a radical revolutionary; he was often called a Jacobin, after the most radical faction in France during the French Revolution. His election, it was charged, would bring about a reign of terror in the nation. The Republicans cast Adams as a monarchist and the Federalist Party as an enemy of republicanism, including the greater egalitarianism promised by the American Revolution. The level of personal attack by both parties knew no bounds. At one point, Adams was accused of plotting to have his son marry one of the daughters of King George III and thus establish a dynasty to unite Britain and the United States. The plot had been stopped, according to the story, only by the intervention of George Washington, who had dressed in his old Revolutionary War uniform to confront Adams with sword in hand. Jefferson, meanwhile, was accused of vivisection and of conducting bizarre ritualistic rites at Monticello, his home in Virginia.
Now I don't know about you, but the founding fathers when it came to a no holds bar of free speech, went all out, and it was very hateful and probably very slanderous.
We can not give into fear, nor can we just limit the means of speech, cause someone may get hurt feelings from what they read. The limits of the freedom of speech, has always been as long as it does not incite violence it is protected by the first admentment and the laws of the united states of America. If they start to limit such, then all I can say is dust off the printers, break out the old printing presses and start pumping out fliers and phamplets and start really putting thing to make people think.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I disagree. Government may NOT interfere with speech regardless of how it's used. While I'd agree that being responsible is a good ideal, it is a relative term.

The founding fathers were grossly irresponsible in some people's eyes (there were a great many royalists here before, during, and after the revolution).

Speech is a right that may not be stymied or interfered with by government.

Period.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

I disagree. Government may NOT interfere with speech regardless of how it's used. While I'd agree that being responsible is a good ideal, it is a relative term.

The founding fathers were grossly irresponsible in some people's eyes (there were a great many royalists here before, during, and after the revolution).

Speech is a right that may not be stymied or interfered with by government.

Period.

The Founding Fathers left that avenue open for us to not only examine but review every now and then to amend accordingly. The time on when one can say whatever they want has unfortunately come and gone. To maintain the right to Free Speech requires and demands accountability and responsibility. If one cannot self police themselves and thinks that it's ok to use the right to free speech to attack another for no reason is dead wrong.

"To form a more perfect union" - Did anyone forget that from the Preamble? For us to evolve as a nation we must every now and then purge and eliminate thinking from the past as what kind of message does that send the future if we allow racial intolerance and division while under the guise and premise of free speech. Too many hate groups have hid behind the Constitution to commit acts of deadly and lethal violence against another. When do we say enough is enough?

I respect and will defend anyone's Free Speech rights but do realize that with great power comes great responsibility and some groups and individuals shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the Constitution if it directly threatens someone else's inaliable rights to "Life, Liberty and he pursuit of happiness".

If being PC means and guarantees that we are able to evolve and are able to finally rid ourselves of thinking from the past then so be it.

Either we change our thinking or else it will be done for us. We have no other option. Why should we still have 18th and 19th Century thinking in the 21st Century? That means we've taken like 100 steps backwards.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]