Freedom speech issues

[Yvonne183]

I know there are nut jobs and such but the question I gave was who is considered a nut job. I agree, the guy burning the bible is one and there are quite a few real nut jobs as well in the world. My concern is the people who might be what can be described as borderline hate. Who decides if that person should be banned or let them speak.

And most examples given above about people who hate are people on the right side, maybe even white right side of society. On one hand an example is given that the guy burning the bible is sort of responsible for people being killed by those who were offended by the burning. If that is so, then is an artist who mocks Christianity also responsible if someone was to kill because they felt offended? So far just the opposite happens here in the US. The civil liberties union defends the anti-Christian art as free speech, yet insult a muslim and it's offensive. If this banning of hate speech is to be correctly done then all hate speech has to be banned not just from one section of society.

It's slippery slope once banning speech is concerned. It will always be the people in power who will decide what speech is hate and what isn't. As I said, the above examples were of the extreme hate people. There will be others banned fro not being so extreme, I never trust the Gov't to do what is right, they have a lousy track record.

[russtafa]

Once banning something the powers that be can then ban any thing they find a threat and that's left or right

[trish]

Therefore no one should be given the authority to ban anything. Instead the authority should remain with those who can give it in the first place, the people. That why here we have a government of, by and for the people. It the government of the people that bans, for example, murder without running the risk sliding down the slippery slope to dictatorship. We also ban shouting fire in a crowded theater, false advertising and other verbal cons.

[Yvonne183]

I don't think I ever remember a having a Gov't that is of, by and for the people. Anyone who believes that is not looking at the Gov't as late. The Gov't is of big business and has always been this way since i was alive, even right now, Obama is hoeing himself on Wall street trying to get their dollars for his next campaign. And there is no law saying one can not yell fire in a crowded theater,, what if there really was a fire in that theater.

[hippifried]

And there is no law saying one can not yell fire in a crowded theater

Sure there is, if there's no fire. It's called creating a public danger. The method of creating a public danger is irrelevant, & can't be protected by a claim to freedom of speech. We don't ban hate speech, but we ban incitement to violence. The concept is the same. Personal freedoms can't be used as an excuse to endanger the public. There's no impunity. Speech is an action, & everybody's responsible for their own actions.

There's no right to be heard either, which a lot of people seem to think they have.

[BluegrassCat]

Sure there is, if there's no fire. It's called creating a public danger. The method of creating a public danger is irrelevant, & can't be protected by a claim to freedom of speech. We don't ban hate speech, but we ban incitement to violence. The concept is the same. Personal freedoms can't be used as an excuse to endanger the public. There's no impunity. Speech is an action, & everybody's responsible for their own actions.

There's no right to be heard either, which a lot of people seem to think they have.

Finally! Someone who has read and understands the constitution!

[Ben]

Really? I didn't know that. So every proposed law of physics is brought before the Parliament and then gets signed into law by the Prime Minister? When you exaggerate, it's difficult to know the precise bounds where truth ends and falsehood begins. It was Ann, not the Canadian government, who decided to cancel her Ottawa speech in March of 2010. She surmised that spreading her propaganda wasn't worth the risk of the response it might provoke.

Case in point. Up in ol' Canada. Jaggi Singh spent a year in prison for, well, speaking -- what?!?!?!?!?

Jaggi Singh set free
"My only regret is that we didn’t succeed in tearing down that fence.”
By Ben Spurr


Activist Jaggi Singh exited the courthouse at Old City Hall this morning to the sound of cheers from his supporters, having just been given a sentence of no jail time for calling for the G20 security fence to be torn down.
“Thank you to everybody for your support,” he said. “I went into this hearing today not feeling isolated, not feeling isolated personally, and not feeling isolated politically. My only regret is that we didn’t succeed in tearing down that fence.”
Back in April Singh, a Montreal-based activist and member of the group No One Is Illegal, pleaded guilty to counseling to commit mischief of over $5,000, a charge stemming from a speech he gave in front of the security fence on June 24, 2010.
At that time, he told a group of reporters “I think the fence deserves to be taken down, and I hope people do organize to do so.” Prosecutors argued that he was aware attempting to tear down the fence would have resulted in violence, and so the speech was a criminal act.

[NYBURBS]

Sure there is, if there's no fire. It's called creating a public danger. The method of creating a public danger is irrelevant, & can't be protected by a claim to freedom of speech. We don't ban hate speech, but we ban incitement to violence. The concept is the same. Personal freedoms can't be used as an excuse to endanger the public. There's no impunity. Speech is an action, & everybody's responsible for their own actions.

There's no right to be heard either, which a lot of people seem to think they have.

No, the concept is not the same. Incitement to violence requires a imminent threat, and is not some general license to censor anything the sovereign deems "hateful." Even this has been problematic, such as prosecuting someone for "fighting words" when they labeled the US government "fascist," but it's still a much greater level of protection than what is granted in parts of Europe.

There is a fundamental difference between saying that someone or something is wrong/evil/immoral and urging that people resort to immediate violence or other conduct that would result in physical injury. Some European laws restrict even the former, while for the most part US law only covers the latter.

[hippifried]

You're burbling again, Burbs. You skipped right over the first part of the sentence leading up to the one you emboldened. Let me repeat, just in case you actually missed it. "We don't ban hate speech..." We don't prosecute "fighting words" either. If you're stupid enough to use them, the guy who punches you in the eye gets to walk. Calling the government names doesn't fall into that category. "Fighting words" are set aside from other incitement because you're inviting violence against yourself. There's no specific law against being stupid, but that's why most convicts are where they are. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, Is a malicious act & an imminent threat. How's it different from other malicious speech that creates imminent threat? (Well... Other than the heinousness getting kicked up if the hatred is specific.)

I think the big problem that Europe has is that they still look at rights as a grant frpm the state.

[NYBURBS]

You're burbling again, Burbs. You skipped right over the first part of the sentence leading up to the one you emboldened. Let me repeat, just in case you actually missed it. "We don't ban hate speech..." We don't prosecute "fighting words" either. If you're stupid enough to use them, the guy who punches you in the eye gets to walk. Calling the government names doesn't fall into that category. "Fighting words" are set aside from other incitement because you're inviting violence against yourself. There's no specific law against being stupid, but that's why most convicts are where they are. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, Is a malicious act & an imminent threat. How's it different from other malicious speech that creates imminent threat? (Well... Other than the heinousness getting kicked up if the hatred is specific.)

I think the big problem that Europe has is that they still look at rights as a grant frpm the state.

I was taking issue with your statement that the concept is the same, and it's not. As for fighting words, yes we do still prosecute it, it's just that it tends to be listed as a minor offense in most states (and it is scrutinized much more closely now). In New York it's generally prosecuted under disorderly conduct, which is a petty offense.

I do agree with your last statement though. Its easier for a lot of European States to enact laws like that due to their notion of parliamentary sovereignty (aka supremacy).