Is Hate Speech Protected by Free Speech?

Yes. With the standard "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" exceptions.

 

Yes. Undoubtedly. At times, I wish it wasn't, but then my common sense about censorship steps in.

 

...remember - truth tends to get thrown under the bus in hate speech.

"All {pick your group} are stupid, or illtempered, or irresponsible, ...."

You can sue for slander as an individual.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Nov 30 2006, 06:49 AM) [snapback]355650[/snapback]</div>

Probably not. If someone said "All Republicans (or Democrats) are stupid ...", etc., you could not win a slader suit. But that's not hate speech, anyway.

In California, hate crimes have a legal definition and the law is used only to increase the punishment for certain acts. You wouldn't be convicted of saying something bad about some minority, for instance, unless that speech was accompanied by an illegal act. If you punch someone in the face, you've committed battery; if you punch someone in the face and use an ethnic slur, you've committed a battery and a hate crime. So the DA can press not just one, but two charges against you.

Its used like the concept of intent is used to increase punishment for criminals. Its no more a restriction of free speech than admitting evidence that a killer planned a murder by using his right to free speech to talk to his buddies about killing his wife. When he kills her, you can use that protected speech as evidence of intent and, in California, that may qualify you to increase his punishment to execution.

So hate crime laws are used to show the intent of the perpetrator in the commission of an illegal act in order to allow society to increase the punishment. I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't get expanded to a ban on speech alone, without the commission of an illegal act.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 30 2006, 11:00 AM) [snapback]355640[/snapback]</div>

NO.

Howabout starting the ball with YOUR thoughts?

:angry:



Maybe I should start a thread like:


ANGRY GAY SEX:

YOUR THOUGHTS.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov, 06:00 AM) [snapback]355640[/snapback]</div>

No.

Our Constitutional freedoms are limited when they infringe on others.

 

Yes...
because if it's "no", then we don't have free speech.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Nov 30 2006, 11:15 AM) [snapback]355727[/snapback]</div>

ROTFL :lol:

You think that will actually happen? external bibliography? thorough?

Anyways, what are you're views on angry gay sex? Personally, i say what happens in the bed room, stays in the bed room - sort of "don't ask don't tell" policy... if they want to share their personal moments, i'll probably go throw up somewhere (just as i would if someone talked about angry straight sex), but thats just me. your views?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Nov 30 2006, 10:49 AM) [snapback]355650[/snapback]</div>

That's kind of a krock. No one of average income, makes enough to make it worth your average attorney's salt to sue you. From them, we seem to put up with it. But the wealthy? The corporation? The local Municapality? The Fed's or State? Bring on the moral outrage baby.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 30 2006, 11:12 AM) [snapback]355656[/snapback]</div>

Oh yea? Then why is it that when a race fight / death breaks out in prison, their sentences aren't being increased?

 

Hate speech, like other forms of speech is constitutionally protected... and should be. The constitution protects free speech, and really doesn't have any limitations on what that free speech is.



There are really two issues here - is the constitution a 'free pass' to say whatever you want? No. You can still be held criminally liable for your statements, and may be held liable in a civil court as well for any damages caused. If your statements are true, though, you generally don't have anything to worry about.



Let's look at the latest hot button example - comedian Michael Richards. Can the U.S. government prevent Richards from going on an anti-black rant? No... they have no power to do that. Can the men who the rant was directed at sue Richards for damages? Yes, provided that they can prove in court that Richard's statements were slanderous and that they actually suffered damages. Personally, I don't believe that they did suffer damages... hard to find anyone that was 'swayed' by Richard's speech, so damage probably didn't occur. Richards, like Mel Gibson, has already been tried in the court of public opinion, though, and he has severely damaged his reputation. That has nothing to do with the government, though.



The real issue is, can the government censor your speech (any speech, including hate speech) before you actually say it? According to the constitution, they can't. That doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your speech.



Dan

 

using the word "you" as an ambiguous term for anyone, and not directing anything toward any single person here:

you're free to say whatever you like.

i'm free to think you're an donkey.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Nov, 10:01 AM) [snapback]355767[/snapback]</div>

It sounds to me like you're having it both ways here. By this logic, I'm free to go shoot my neighbor, but I may be held criminally liable for my action.

So that's the point. Either you're free to do it, or it has limitations. If you cause damage to someone else, that's a limitation, and you're not free to do it. Meaning, the constitution does not protect you from doing it. Meaning, you can do it if you want, sure, but there may be criminal or civil consequences.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Nov 30 2006, 02:15 PM) [snapback]355727[/snapback]</div>

Oddly, I was contemplating this in the men's room, of all places. What exactly makes it angry? The facial expressions, or as the great Judas Priest once sang, the "RAM IT DOWN!" aspect? Perhaps a bit of both? Angry, rough, grunting? ...or must there be some sort of blood? What's to differentiate between "angry", or simply "solemn", "morose", or even, "cheerless"?

In any event, you can't really have an "angry gay sex" conversation without, at the very least, thinking of Mr. Robert Halford, former lead singer of Judas Priest, frontman of a band called "FIGHT" (last I knew anyway), which released an EP some time ago entitled "Mutations", for which Rob Halford ejaculated the following statement: "...the mutations EP, because we've all got to change....".

...as an odd footnote involving Mr. Halford, I once had a dream where he was chasing me around, roof top to roof top, in NYC (think begining of the first Matrix movie where Trinity is being chased by the "Agents"), throwing exploding pies at me... no joke, as at the time, I was obsessed with the song "Turbo", from the '86 album of the same name. Which, incidentally, was around the time heavy metal music as such was being blamed for kids killing themselves... Sort of like this kid in my hometown which killed himself because, supposedly, his D&D character got killed... ...all I remember of him, were his tan parachute pants, as breakdancing was vogue at the time...

...anywway...



PS Doesn't he look like a human chicken foetus? I picture a giant egg rolling out onto a stage, and he slowly cracks out of it while screaming some Fight song with mucous all over him...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Nov 30 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]355727[/snapback]</div>

We all know all gay sex is angry, all lesbians have no sense of humor, all straight married people are sexless creatures, all Floridians old farts, and if hate speech ISN'T protected by free speech then all political discussions for the past 14 years are liable to lawsuits. Sheesh, this is as plain to see as defeat in Iraq, the neocon defeat at the polls a few weeks ago and eventual defeat of anti gay marriage amendments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 30 2006, 12:02 PM) [snapback]355812[/snapback]</div>

Well, if you want to get technical, the Constitution doesn't prevent you from shooting your neighbor. If fact, the second amendment might just encourage it. Carrying that a bit further, the government can't lock you up just because you might someday shoot your neighbor... they don't have the power to preemptively prevent you from committing a crime... only to punish you after it is committed. Yes, if you threaten to shoot your neighbor, that is a crime in itself... they can lock you up for that. Why do you hate your neighbor so much, anyway? Do they own a Hummer?

As for free speech, the first amendment guarantees us the right to say what we want, when we want without fear of government censorship. It does not prevent you from criminal or civil liability for those actions. This was designed so dissenting opinions could not be quashed by the government. If you wanted to write an article about corruption in the executive branch, for example, the executive branch could not prevent that article from being published and read. Citizen oversight is a foundation of our democracy, and is not enjoyed in many other countries around the globe. China, for example, preemptively censors content critical of their government and it's policies.

There is a legal term called "Prior Restraint". This is when a government (or court) orders a publication stopped before it is actually published. To do this, the government would need to find out about the publication prior to that happening... newspapers are not required to submit articles for governmental approval in the U.S. Courts have generally found that prior restraint can only be used in cases of national security. In this case, the government must bear a heavy burden of proving why prior restraint is warranted. In many cases, censorship is voluntary (such as was correspondents being embedded with frontline troops), and is never litigated in court. An interesting case to read is Near v. Minnesota, in which a newspaper publisher critical of local politicians (and accusing them of illegal/unethical actions) challenged a state law which was effectively censoring what he could publish. Near won, with the Supreme court deciding that articles about potentially corrupt politicians (whether provable or not) had to be protected to serve the functioning of a democracy. There are some situations where prior restraint is used... such as obscenity.

Now, there are some funky laws related to libel and slander. If I were to state that my neighbor (by name) is gay, and my neighbor lost standing in the community (or lost business), he could sue me for damages. In my defense, I would need to prove that my statement was true (my neighbor would only need to prove that I made the statements)... in general, truth is the ultimate defense for libel or slander. If the statement isn't true, then I'm liable for damages. The damages can get touchy depending on the state's laws. If it can be shown that my statements were intentionally malicious, the damage award can generally be more severe. The laws are different when the victim of the slander/libel is a public figure. If I were to say that Tom Cruise was gay, Cruise would need to prove that the statement was false (burden of proof responsibility is flipped), and that I published the accusation maliciously to win damages. Public figures are generally considered to have access to the media, and be able to defend themselves from slanderous/libelous statements through those channels. Furthermore, if the slander/libel is clearly labeled as opinion, it is generally exempt. The statement "In my opinion, Tom Cruise is gay." may be accurate, because it may reflect my opinion. I have no reason to believe that Tom Cruise is gay, and my usage of those as examples in no way implies that I have any knowledge to that effect. The neighbor referred to in this paragraph is not a real person... just an example.

So, back to the real argument. Does hate speech fall under the sphere of prior restraint? If the Nazi party wants to have a rally, can the U.S. government prevent it by invoking prior restraint? I used to live in Skokie, Illinois, and can tell you that the answer is no. If the Nazis rally, incite a riot, and people are injured, can they be sued? You bet!

Dan



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 30 2006, 12:46 PM) [snapback]355840[/snapback]</div>

dbermanmd and I agree on something? This has to be a sign of the apocalypse!



Dan