Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
like all rights free speech comes with limitations. Slander, incitement of violence, yelling fire in a crowded theater to just name a few.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.
the same Constitution also protects people on the receiving end of hate speech.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.
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)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.
i thought it was unreasonable to have laws against upsetting people
it usually involves hate lies and violence directed at a minority group but can include non minorities.
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
Why?Slander/libel are another matter altogether.
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 2003The 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.
i find it difficult to believe you don't take your own claim seriously enough to back it upIt's difficult to believe that this is a serious question.
so lets take the bull horn out of the situation.With words. Loud, disruptive, mechanical noises, like from a bullhorn, especially aimed at children, is a different issue.
best? its an example.Please quote me a single law about hate speech that involves children, since that's your best example.
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 gayWe're talking about two different things here. You're incorrect. I'm talking about the perception of the victim, not the perpetrator.
you can start with the equal protection clause...Which part of the Constitution addresses being a victim of hate speech?
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?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
maybe you should readHave 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?
Or maybe you should just cut and paste it? Who's to say.maybe you should read
so lets take the bull horn out of the situation.
why are you not supporting this man's right to engage in free speech?
and in the above scenario the children are not the target of any hate speech they are just the audience
still at the school and still talkingI am. If he were standing on a street corner holding a sign, that'd be fine.
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.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"
to use an old metaphor your right to swing your fist ends when it connects to my faceAnd how exactly does that relate to hate speech?
and you still haven't backed them up. at this point i can only assume that your claims are all false.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
Do we get an answer to the question from you?maybe you should read
to use an old metaphor your right to swing your fist ends when it connects to my face
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?