Raoul said it best.

And his postcount in hex is 0x386 :x

Expressing hatred is one thing. Trying to presaude people to believe that blacks and such should be oppressed is another. Hell, their robes/sheets whatever should be right there next to German SS uniforms.

Both support the fact that hundreds of people have died at the murderous bunches of psychos that made both groups so notorious.

...the difference being, that was in the KKK's past, not the present, and the Nazis of 1930s/40s Germany killed millions, whereas the KKK has not killed nearly that many. Granted, they still have a racist attitude, but that is their right. We may not agree with it but it is one of the most important rights they hold under the constitution. And who are we to limit it? Because after we do, where does it end?

Indeed. As long as they're not causing trouble, it's their right to be racist. Just like it's people's rights to be homophobes or religious fanatics. It's just that the latter two are more popular and socially accepted.

If they tried to "persuade people" in, let's say, a public school and in the classroom, then that's a problem.

In Canada inciting hatred is a criminal offence.

It's not my definition, it's the definition by law, haha.

And I didn't understand your response -- whether or not it was a rebuttal to the definition.

Yes, "**** you" would fall under fighting words. Therefore, you saying "**** you" is not constitutionally protected. As in (let's make a basis that writing something and posting it on a sign is the equivalence of speech so that whatever is on the sign falls under speech laws), if you write "**** you" on a sign and put it on your yard, you do *not* have the freedom of speech to keep it there if the government tells you to put it away.

Government: "you can't have that there"
You: "Yes I can, free speech"
Government: "No, fighting words. remove it or you get arrested"

----^ perfectly legal as long as some judicial or official authority deems that "**** you" does indeed fall under
'fighting words'.


Again, though, it's circumstancial. My definition was one I paraphrased from my memory, because I couldn't remember it.

Here's a better definition (though they left out the 'social value' part, which is weird):
http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-definitions.php/US/US-FIGHTING_WORDS.htm

*checks off another reason he's glad he doesn't live in Canada*

Even if it's legal right now, it's wrong. Government shouldn't be in the position to make judgements on "Hate speech" because they can define it any way that suits their agenda.




Another reason my arguments are valid. :p


We're all still discussing the "right to hatred" when we forget that free speech gives us the "right to love". We can counter hate speech by speaking out of the lowly and oppressed. A government that controls speech might decide to ban protests regarding the legality of gay marriage. Or it might ban the freedom to protest near the president because of "security risks". That dissent is "hate speech" as far as Bush is concerned. How many of you who want to revoke rights support "Free Speech Zones"?

A counter-argument was that the right to hate speech doesn't work in public schools, but I would argue that is a different circumstance. A lot of speech is restricted in schools to further its purpose as an academic institution. Students, who are still minors until college, have never been guranteed full rights. Besides, a public place is one where the government actually has ownership. This is consistent with my argument that a theatre owner ought to be able to kick out someone who yells "Fire."

I know the discussion involves Canadians, but this is specific to USA: do you want the same government who decided on internment camps for Japanese Americans to decide on what words you can speak on private property? All these pleas for government to protect citizens from hate speech completely ignores our responsibility as private citizens to speak out for the oppressed---a responsibility not forced upon us by government. But everyone so far has pretty much ignored most of my posts, except Pommy, so I'm not even sure if I'm being read. That's ok. At least I can speak here.

The whole "fire in a theater" bit, to me, isn't so much punishing/restricting those who do so, but protects owners of private property who wish to remove those people from said property.



To limit someone because they have unpopular sentiments is against free speech. If we followed that kind of attitude, what kind of rights would women have? Minorities? Would violence against gays still be legally accepted? In all probability, yes.

However, there exists a limit that I agree with - for example, a state (can't remember which - New York?) supreme court ruled against a Neo-Nazi march's right to assembly because they were going to assemble in a heavily-Jewish community, which was simply begging for violence to occur. They were allowed to assemble elsewhere in the city.

I disagree with a theater owner being the one who gets to make the call. If you were in the theater when a person yells fire, he puts your life in danger. If you die, his action caused your death.

I don't see how that could possibly be thought of as a privite matter to be dealt with by a privite citizen (the owner).

Because it's a matter of speech. Rather than set the dangerous precedent that government will define speech as "dangerous", we let free market economy do the work. It's less risky. If a theatre decides to ban all pro-Jewish talk... that would be pretty bad. But at least it'd be on a small scale and people could boycott it. If the government makes the same decision, we're still forced to support it with taxes or be jailed/shot. Chances are, the theatre would, while looking out for its business, limit offensive or so-called dangerous language on its own. Better to regulate speech at the lowest possible level.

Now, we're discussing a pretty lame example, actually. Fire alarms are the norm these days, no one is going to hear "Fire" and trample little children on the way out the exit. Hell, I'd contend that the people who actually do the trampling are more responsible. Even in a fire, citizens ought to control their bodies to avoid killing other bodies. This would mean attempting to leave in an organized fashion...

But a relevant example would be a threat. Here's where I get to the exception to my rule. If someone says: "I am going to kill x person." then they should be arrested or something... at the point that the person states a violent act that is illegal, then their free speech ought to be used to prevent that violence. In this case, the person making the threat has essentially defined the speech as violently hateful, justifying government intervention.

My problem rests in government, which everyone continues to assume is a rational organization. It's full of people who empirically make decisions based on getting votes.

Property owners shouldn't need another law to be able to have someone removed from their property. That should be included with the right to property. If you don't have the use of your own property protected, property rights become meaningless.

Business can currently state "No Jews allowed," and those business can be boycotted. How would that change under your proposal?

I'm not sure what your problem with the current law is.

I don't have a problem with current law. If current law exists as I say it should exist, then my arguments are a defense of that status quo. People have argued on this thread that government should-in some way, shape or form, regulate speech. I argue for "no governmental limits on speech", a privatization of censorship, essentially.

Every time someone says: "Government should do x to limit speeches in y way" I attempt to argue against that. I suppose it could get confusing because I don't plan out my posts too well so it all comes out as a list of arguments, essentially.

*checks off another reason why he's glad he doesn't live in the US*

"No Irish" was still displayed in some businesses in the UK even up to the 70s.

*checks--

Just a-kiddin'!

Well again, it's circumstancial. When a problem arises from fighting words, the case goes to federal or supreme court, who then decides whether or not the words, given the circumstances, are actually fighting words per the definition. The whole reason the definition was made was so that the courts could use it on such an occasion. The court isn't going to blatantly be unscrupulous, it's going to make a decision based on the current set of facts and try to create an outcome that's most beneficial of the society ..which is what governments are supposed to do. Make decisions and judgements for their societies.

The definition isn't any one that suits their agenda, it's one that is in line with what they're supposed to do. The over-generalized logic is:

1) A problem exists which threatens the safety/well-being/etc of a society
2) The problem exists such that rectification of the problem would impede upon free-speech laws

Question one. In this case, is the well-being/safety/etc of a society, or the right of free speech, important?

3) The problem is such that the speech in question has little or no social value and therefore is not valuable to the well-being of society

4) Additionally, this speech is designed specifically to elicit an inflammatory response, which is a direct threat to the safety and well being of a society

4a) The underlying purpose is to provide well-being to society

Conclusion one. The speech in this case is of detrament, and therefore less valuable than the well-being of the society

5) When an option to adhere to either one option OR the other and one option is of greater value than the other, it is always good to take the option of greater value

Conclusion two. The protection of the society must be ensured, regardless of impediment of free-speech laws.

Except courts often decide on past precedent, as far as I know. It's easy for one circumstance to become universal when dealing with government and courts.



Depends on who you talk to. If you talked to John Locke, he might say that we form government as a way to protect our rights to life, liberty and property. Speech would be defined as property because it is something we create/labor over. That's how Locke (AFAIK) defines property anyway. The reason property is important is that we retain ownership over ourselves, our homes, and our ability to act when we have autonomy over something. Jurisdiction over your property is THE check on government.




We still can't define what a problem or threat to the safety of well-being is objectively. Governments have always had whacky ways for making this determination. As stated by me above 100000 times. :p



Except that this justifies government oppression. I've given tons of analysis about how the cost of government oppression will always be greater than the words of individuals... think about it. Sticks and stones break your bones... so do tanks, machine guns... Governments have these tools to enforce their free speech laws. They can always take your money to support policies you disagree with, while you can always boycott and refuse to pay shops that discriminate.



I repeat this because it allows me to basically summarize every argument I've made in one post. What I said to this already was:
1) Gov. gets to define that the intent of speech was "obviously" to cause trouble and not just a genuine speech act

2) Allows major loopholes if part of the law is intent... intent of speech is harder to find conclusive evidence for.



So was Vietnam, Japanese internment camps, Patriot Act, Fugitive Slave Act, Plessey vs. Fergeson...



In making policy decisions, you have to analysis the cost and benefits of the two possible actions... that includes the magnitude of the problem and the likelihood. Not only is government freedom of speech regulation more likely to be used to regulate unfairly in an age of terrorists and NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS (hey... it's like those Free Speech Zones that actually happened in real life)... as opposed to companies and individuals who don't want their interests to be harmed by being labelled a bigot... we also see that government can beat us down with the stick of injustice a lot harder.

I apologize for the repitition.

Conclusion two. The protection of the society must be ensured, regardless of impediment of free-speech laws. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree that free-speech zones are BS, and there are a lot of crazy laws out there, but specifically the yelling "fire," or pulling a fire alarm is entirely different. Maybe I'm just focusing on that issue too much.

That is so clear-cut wrong and detrimental to society. It isn't just a prank, people have been killed. Your solution is that he's kicked out of the establishment, for endangering dozens of peoples lives? At the very least he is civilly liable toward everyone in the building and should be taken to court.

And kicking him out isn't going to prevent him from doing it again. How is it beneficial to society to keep a sociopath running around placing people's lives and limbs in jeopardy? He may just be speaking, but he presents a clear and present danger.

As far as I know, Canada and most European nations have much stricter hate speech laws than the U.S.

No. To quote former Supreme Court Justice Douglas:



A malicious lie, like any action, has foreseeable consequences for which one can and should be held accountable. You can legally say, "People can fly. Go jump out a window," but expect to be held culpable when you suggest it to a 2-year-old.

I'm in a hurry so I just skimmed over what you said, but what I got of it was basically "you can't put government in a position to abuse power, oppress, etc"

My basic contention is that it is the government's job to make decisions, regardless of whether or not you or someone sees them as 'wacky'. This sounds stupid, but if you think about it -- if you force limitation on the government, then you're basically saying "ok we're putting you here to make decisions, but you're not allowed to unless we tell you to." So then, either eradicate government completely, or change the form of government.

The whole point of having a democratic system such as ours is to try to limit unscrupulous government activity as much as possible -- it is inevitable that unscrupulous activity will occur, but the goal is to minimize it.

By the way, the law is not intent afaik.

You're saying that the law is bad because it is not absolute and therefore allows 'loopholes' through the process of decision, but the whole point is to have that process of decision. If you want to get rid of the process of decision, you might as well get rid of the governmental body, because there'd be no need for it. I know you're not speaking in terms of complete absolutes, but if all laws were absolute, etc, all we would need would be enforcers, not a government to make decisions.

The fact is that there will ALWAYS be some situation that demands a decision with the potential for power abuse, repression, etc. Any taxing decision has that potential. The reason a government exists is because we need a body we can put faith into to make the *correct* decision. If you have no faith in the system and therefore demand for there to be no opportunities for abuse, then there MUST be an atmosphere where there are NO decisions, and no government. There cannot be a situation that requires such a decision without some form of government.

Something that hobbes and locke are actually in agreement with

Ah. Makes sense.