Hate Speech...

Status
Not open for further replies.

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
The fact is that here in America what you're describing is protected free speech. Anyone can stand on the sidewalk and say whatever they want, handout pamphlets etc. The only thing that may legitimately run afoul of the law is the blowhorn and then only if there is a noise ordinance which would prohibit amplified noise and speech.
like all rights free speech comes with limitations. Slander, incitement of violence, yelling fire in a crowded theater to just name a few.

But again free speech is protected as rightly so but free speech doesn't protect people of the consequences of what they say.

Otherwise, if someone wants to stand on the sidewalk and criticize people they are free to. They're even free to walk very close to the line of inciting violence pursuant to Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US 444 89 S. Ct. 1827; 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969). Likewise, in Cohen v California 403 US 15; 91 S. Ct. 1780; 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971) even if someone is swearing that speech is protected. In Cohen the defendant wore a jacket or tshirt that said "F*** the draft" and was charged under an obscenity law. The Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional pursuant to the first amendment. (For the record I only included the obsenity because it was germaine to the Supreme Court case)

Point being, we don't have hate speech laws in this country because hate speech is protected by the first amendment. I dare say we don't want such laws either because the term hate is incredibly subjective. We shouldn't want the state determining what speech is hate and therefore banned and what speech is not hate and therefore allowed.
the same Constitution also protects people on the receiving end of hate speech.
 
Upvote 0

Redwingfan9

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
2,629
1,532
Midwest
✟70,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
like all rights free speech comes with limitations. Slander, incitement of violence, yelling fire in a crowded theater to just name a few.

But again free speech is protected as rightly so but free speech doesn't protect people of the consequences of what they say.

the same Constitution also protects people on the receiving end of hate speech.
Slander/libel are another matter altogether. Likewise, speech which can cause imminent danger can be prohibited (yelling fire in a theater etc.) Those exceptions are incredibly narrow though. The Brandenburg case I cited earlier severely limits the ability of the state to prosecute people for incitement to violence. That's why Trump's rally comments last week will never be prosecuted. (Impeachment is a political not a legal matter)

The Constitution does not protect people from speech. It does not protect anyone from hurt feelings. It affords you the right to ignore speech you don't like or to counter it with your own speech. It doesn't protect you from hearing it in the first place.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: garee
Upvote 0

NerdGirl

The untamed daughter
Apr 14, 2020
2,651
3,104
USA
✟65,654.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
i thought it was unreasonable to have laws against upsetting people

With words. Loud, disruptive, mechanical noises, like from a bullhorn, especially aimed at children, is a different issue.

it usually involves hate lies and violence directed at a minority group but can include non minorities.

Please quote me a single law about hate speech that involves children, since that's your best example.

Your thing with the word perceived involves the perception of the one engaging in the hate. Someone may believe that a Catholic family is Jewish and spray paint a swastika on their home is still hate speech even if they got the target of their hate wrong

We're talking about two different things here. You're incorrect. I'm talking about the perception of the victim, not the perpetrator.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Slander/libel are another matter altogether.
Why?


The Constitution does not protect people from speech. It does not protect anyone from hurt feelings. It affords you the right to ignore speech you don't like or to counter it with your own speech. It doesn't protect you from hearing it in the first place.
but it does protect people from harassment and intimidation either as individuals or as groups. This includes symbolic actions like burning a cross or malicious misinformation that are meant to make specific victims fear for their well being or incite discrimination, even if the cross-burners don’t actually plan to carry through with the threat See Virginia v. Black 2003
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
With words. Loud, disruptive, mechanical noises, like from a bullhorn, especially aimed at children, is a different issue.
so lets take the bull horn out of the situation.

why are you not supporting this man's right to engage in free speech?



Please quote me a single law about hate speech that involves children, since that's your best example.
best? its an example.

and in the above scenario the children are not the target of any hate speech they are just the audience


We're talking about two different things here. You're incorrect. I'm talking about the perception of the victim, not the perpetrator.
perceived member of a minority refers to the perception of the person engaging in the hate. Someone don't have to be gay to be on the receiving end of anti-gay hate those spreading the hate just have to think their target is gay
 
Upvote 0

Confused-by-christianity

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2020
1,254
384
48
No location
✟116,331.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
so lets take the bull horn out of the situation.
why are you not supporting this man's right to engage in free speech?

best? its an example.

and in the above scenario the children are not the target of any hate speech they are just the audience

perceived member of a minority refers to the perception of the person engaging in the hate. Someone don't have to be gay to be on the receiving end of anti-gay hate those spreading the hate just have to think their target is gay
Have you stated what you think? (I'll admit I haven't read the posts of the 4 pages). What was your answer to the original thread question?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NerdGirl

The untamed daughter
Apr 14, 2020
2,651
3,104
USA
✟65,654.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
so lets take the bull horn out of the situation.

why are you not supporting this man's right to engage in free speech?

I am. If he were standing on a street corner holding a sign, that'd be fine.

and in the above scenario the children are not the target of any hate speech they are just the audience

They ARE the target.

Your post: "so if someone were to park out in front of your child's school and use a bull horn to shout obscenities and claims about how the members of the neighboring synagogue are going to come into the school to select a child from each class to sacrifice"

Your examples and arguments are poor.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
I am. If he were standing on a street corner holding a sign, that'd be fine.
still at the school and still talking


They ARE the target.

Your post: "so if someone were to park out in front of your child's school and use a bull horn to shout obscenities and claims about how the members of the neighboring synagogue are going to come into the school to select a child from each class to sacrifice"
he isn't threatening the children. He is doing a public service by warning the children about what those people in the synagogue have planned.

Why aren't you supporting his right to free speech?
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
But surely, if you had time to write it once, you have time to write it again! Per your own logic about my past posts ^_^
and you still haven't backed them up. at this point i can only assume that your claims are all false.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.