What’s wrong with a little hate speech?

[Guest CraigSF39]

The history of this country is very sad and shameful because of hate speech. most eropean countrys put people in jail for it. We should be ashamed that we allow it. i think when they wrote the first amendment they didnt realize how much rasism there would be.

 

history shows theres not a lot of difference between saying a minority should be killed and there deaths. Saying you want to kill muslims is sick and dangerous, and we shouldnt allow it.

[phage]

The subject of hate speech legislation was broached in a recent thread. My spotty memory keeps me from giving credit to the original poster, but he mentioned that he supported the laws in some European countries that outlaw hate speech. He also stated that many would disagree and there was no need for the flamers to attack him about it. (Is it just a coincidence that the Internet slang for someone who slings insults is the same as the gay slang for a campy queen? What’s up with that?) There was actually very little reaction if I recall correctly, but I can think of a few of the regular posters who probably have strong opinions on the subject.

 

I’ve thought about it several times since then and am unable to form a conclusive opinion. My liberal gut tells me that some type of restriction would be a good thing. I do believe that part of government’s role should be to curb people’s baser instincts, and what possible value can there be in hate speech that just helps confirm some ignorant person’s twisted view of life? The only possible value I see to protecting hate speech is so that we can feel “good” about not restricting speech in any way. It’s hard for me to reconcile this benefit with the pain, suffering, and actual physical harm some of these free speakers cause.

 

That’s my gut speaking. My mind has a few questions. I understand that it is a potentially slippery slope. Someone must be the arbiter of what constitutes hate speech and that leaves it open for interpretation. Do you actually have to threaten or advocate harm towards an individual or group? Or are Traveller’s button pushing jokes about killing Muslims enough just because it sends CraigSF39 into a frenzy? And what about T2’s comments on filthy holes and slow, painful deaths. I happen to find both of them extremely amusing, but what if the Grand Arbiter did not?

 

There are obvious concerns and potential problems with limiting hate speech, but I’m not willing to say it would be too dangerous or too hard to implement. Not just yet...

 

I have to admit that I’m not well traveled. I know that Germany has some fairly restrictive laws. They don’t seem to have curbed the skinheads much, but I wonder if citizens feel any more secure because of the laws? Is anyone familiar with how the restrictions are implemented in Europe or elsewhere? What constitutes “hate” speech and who gets to decide? Any examples of where well meaning laws seem to have backfired and limited legitimate discussion of ideas?

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

I don't know for sure how Americans in general view this question but would you let people shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater in the name of "free speech"? How about libel and slander?

 

The issue isn't "hate speech" as such. That's just a colloquial shorthand for what is really at issue: "incitement to hatred". You can bawl your lungs out about how much you hate your neighbour all you want so long as you don't actually harrass him. We draw the line, however, at the point where you actually start spreading lies or reckless untruths about an individual or group with the aim of getting others to also hate said individual or group at the risk of provoking violence, baseless discrimination against, or contempt for said individual or group.

 

As to who gets to rule on what is or is not "incitement to hatred", it's the same as for any offence: a judge, or jury, or both, subject to the usual judicial review through appeals.

 

As for Traveller's quip, which I refuse to repeat. I obviously found it in extremely poor taste and most unfunny, particularly in light of recent events in the Middle East and Central Asia, and this, as you presumably have not noted, on the last day of Ramadan. I fear that some forms of "cultural humour" are just a tad too grotesque and insensitive for my taste. The fact that you find any humour in it whatsoever is just sad. x(

[phage]

>Well unfortunately, they don't always receive ridicule in

>the US. Do I have to remind you of how long Blacks in the

>Southern US were kept down and intimidated from voting by

>the shows of strengths racist Whites were free to put on?

 

Of course we have a long history of racism in this country, but we have also made significant progress in recent years – where I live. I don’t think you will find a KKK rally in any part of this country that is not greeted the way Devon describes with the Klan being outnumbered by counter demonstrators and the police having to protect them from the extreme “disapproval” of the anti-Klan people.

 

>I'm sorry, but I'm with those who believe you have a right to live secure from

>implied threats and without overt hostility being pushed in

>your face. People have a right to be left in peace, and

>this is precisely what your interpretation of free speech

>would deny them.

 

I actually agree with you. Did the title of the thread lead you to believe otherwise? (It was meant to be ironic.) However, the arguments of TT, Devon and the others have gone a long way to convince me otherwise.

 

>But regardless of that slur cast against Germans, whom I

>have never found to be more or less racist than most people

>(at least since the war), I find it bizarre that you should

>somehow assume that racism in the US is less than in the

>rest of the world because of your first amendment.

 

Where did you get that? There was no slur against the Germans. The fact is that the Neo-Nazi movement in Germany does have many North African immigrants very fearful. Like many other countries, they imported cheap labor and the resident working class is not amused. Maybe you were talking about someone else’s post.

 

>From where I sit, it appears to pervade your politics, your news,

>and your social discourse. Your obsession with race is just

>baffling to us, and I suspect a large part of it has to do

>with your attitude to "free speech". I can only think of

>one (debatable) race riot in Canadian history, and we are

>hardly a country free from inter-ethnic tension and

>discrimination.

 

Granted race is a huge issue in this country and we have a long way to go, but comparisons to Canada are hardly legitimate. Believe me, I love all things Canadian, but your population is what…about the same as California? (I’m a typically provincial American and, of course, don’t actually know the population of Canada, so feel free to ridicule me here.) Other than those pesky French, isn’t heavy immigration a fairly recent trend…at least from the non-European countries? You certainly were not saddled with the legacy of slavery. It’s just apples to oranges.

[Will]

This is a slippery area, but Esc_Tracker is right: slander and libel are forms of hate-speech that are not protected under the First Amendment. Neither is hate-speech that incites to violence or insurrection. As I understand it, the major purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech, and especially a free press. For that, I say, Thank God.

 

The best possible case in point for us is the lead article in this morning's NEW YORK TIMES magazine. It's a chilling analysis of how innuendos regarding the WTC bombers' supposed homosexuality have deflected any rational examination of their motives. People find it somehow comforting to believe that those particular Muslims were terrorists because they were fags. Makes things so much simpler, doesn't it?

 

When journalists, under the cover of a free press, begin deliberately to misprepresent and tendentiously to interpret peripheral "facts," we are dangerously close to the kind of public spin that the Nazis put on Jews in the German press, long before they enacted the anti-semitic laws themselves. It doesn't matter one little bit whether the bombers were gay. But if they were, it would of course be irrational to predicate a causal relationship between their sexual orientation and their capitulation to political violence.

 

Obviously, the Nazis' racial myth, purported to be the "truth," was a form of hate speech. Let's not get all misty-eyed over our ability to hurl abuse at each other. But let's also not get hysterical and claim that countries in the civilized world actively suppress dissent in the form of criticism.

[+ Lucky]

Having traveled to Germany with an Asian man, I can say that Germany is the most racist country I have ever visited. I probably would never have seen that if I had gone with another Caucasian.

[Guest cp8036]

<...cultural humour...>

 

A wee pit pretentious with the "U"?

 

Last time I checked, we spell as humor, favor, color, etc, on this side of the pond.

[Guest cp8036]

I traveled with an Asian partner once from Miami-New Orleans-Chicago via car. We could cut the tension with a knife in some places in the South. Maybe was homophobia, or racism, or the compounded effect.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Hi guys,

 

Several of you have noted the existence of hate speech laws in Europe, but unless I missed it nobody's claimed that Europe is any less fraught with racism, xenophobia and ethnic tensions than the US. If anything, of course, the opposite is true. 'National Front' parties thrive, 'wogs out' graffiti is prolific and it is a sign of not just religious but racial strife that the French prisons are breeding grounds for Islamic militants and that some of the scariest Muslim terrorist cells are located in Hamburg, while something like 84% of British Muslims consider themselves Muslim first and British second (if that). I'm not blaming speech codes on any of these phenomena, but I don't give them a lot of credit for abating them either.

 

I think the US has been well served by ACLU-style free speech fanaticism. People freaked, for example, when the ACLU defended the Ku Klux Klan, but what happened? The Klan marched, they continue to march, and they are consistently outnumbered by anti-Klan demonstrators most everywhere they go. The police, in effect, are there to protect the Klan. Their views have been ventilated, publicly repudiated and are widely held in disrepute. I'm not suggesting that racism has left us, by the way. But it has been forced to take on progressively subtler incarnations in the public discourse, not by the heavy hand of Uncle Sam, but by the airing and discrediting of dangerous, evil ideas. I think you see a lot more overtly virulent racism in Europe most days of the week, speech codes or no speech codes.

 

I know this is an extreme example, but Tito was quite effective at keeping the lid on ethnic tensions in the former Yugoslavia. But after Tito... well like I said it's an extreme example, but it reinforces my point that the long term public good is better served when bad ideas, including racism, homophobia and all the other isms, are exposed to daylight rather than suppressed.

 

And then let's not forget how such laws can be used against minorities. One of the most hypersensitive anti-defamation groups out there today is the Catholic League, which has repeatedly embraced multicultural lingo to object to political speech it deems anti-Catholic. Next time some gay activist pies a Cardinal, do we really want him to face enhanced penalties because he hates Catholics?

[Guest TruthTeller]

It's seriously frightening how willing people are to give up basic liberties, including the ones enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

>This is a slippery area, but Esc_Tracker is right: slander

>and libel are forms of hate-speech that are not protected

>under the First Amendment.

 

Much of what Esc-Tracker wrote regarding the state of the law -- as well as this above-excerpted passage -- is wholly inaccurate. "Hate speech" is NOT illegal anywhere in this country, nor can it be until the First Amendment is repealed.

 

The *only* type of speech which, consistent with the First Amendment, can be proscribed is speech consisting of a false statement of FACT which DIRECTLY harms another. Hence, slander/libel (which is exactly that) and "fire in a crowded theatre" can be punished, but only because they are false statements of FACT which DIRECTLY harm or which incite IMMINENT, IMMEDIATE illegal acts ("Let's go burn down teh farmer's house now!").

 

There is NO SUCH THING as a prohibited OPINION. Even opinions advocating violence ("I believe it's justifiable for whites to attack blacks") is constitutionally protected. ALL Opinions are.

 

The First Amendment has absolutely no meaning and no purpose if opinions can be banned on the ground that they "incite hatred." EVERY opinion can be said to do this.

 

The whole country was founded upon the expression of opinions which incited HATRED against the Monarchists. That speech was criminalized in England. A basic premise of this country is that the law can NEVER ban one opinion on the ground that it is "false" or that it "harms". Under the law, there is, and can be, no such thing as a "false opinion" or a "harmful opinion."

 

To quote a few Supreme Court statements on this topic (which I already had, and apologize that it's in legalistic form):

 

"Under the First Amendment there is no such things as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of ideas."

 

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340, 94 S.Ct. 2997 (1974) (emphasis added; footnote omitted).

 

It is precisely where the views expressed by a citizen provoke widespread disapproval and lead to disruption and even injury, that the protections of the First Amendment are strongest and most essential:

 

"For the First Amendment is valuable only when the speech is threatening and unpopular -- for only then would juries condemn speech in the absence of a constitutional rule. If the Constitution protects only moderate speech, it protects nothing. Supercharged rhetoric is part of many political debates, as is the careless and inaccurate accusation; these inevitably injure, yet speech must be protected even when it injures, lest the scope of debate be curtailed."

 

Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394, 399 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1065 (1989).

 

As the Nation's Highest Court has continuously made clear, there are few, if any, greater dangers to freedom than permitting a citizen to

be punished for the expression of his political or religious views:

 

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

 

Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1187 (1943).

 

This is "because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us." Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545, 65 S.Ct. 315, 329 (1945) (Jackson, J., conc. op.).

 

For this reason, the Supreme Court has expressly warned of the urgent need to accord all speech, no matter how repugnant or distasteful, full constitutional protection:

 

"One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures -- and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation."

 

Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-74, 64 S.Ct. 1240 (1944).

 

As this Illinois Supreme Court explained in enforcing the First Amendment rights of an Illinois Nazi Party to march through a predominantly Jewish neighborhood in Illinois:

 

"It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers. . . . [T]he Constitution does not permit government to decide which types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer."

 

Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America, 69 Ill.2d 605, 612, 373 N.E.2d 21, 23 (Sup. Ct. 1978). It is, therefore, well-settled that "[t]he asserted falseness of Nazi dogma, and indeed, its general repudiation, simply do not justify its suppression." Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1203 (7th Cir. 1978) (emphasis added).

 

>Neither is hate-speech that

>incites to violence or insurrection. As I understand it,

>the major purpose of the First Amendment was to protect

>political speech, and especially a free press.

 

Yes - and views which are considered "hate speech" - whether it's the belief that blacks are inferior or that Jews should be deported or that homosexuals are threats to children - are ALL examples of core political speech. None of it can be banned without a repeal of the First Amendment.

 

>The best possible case in point for us is the lead article

>in this morning's NEW YORK TIMES magazine. It's a chilling

>analysis of how innuendos regarding the WTC bombers'

>supposed homosexuality have deflected any rational

>examination of their motives. People find it somehow

>comforting to believe that those particular Muslims were

>terrorists because they were fags. Makes things so much

>simpler, doesn't it?

 

Do you think that someone who insinsuates that the hijackers were gay should be imprisoned or sued? What if they were gay? Shouldn't someone be able to point that out? If someone says they are gay, but they're not, isn't a better solution to prove that they're not, rather than to punish the person who says that they are?

 

>When journalists, under the cover of a free press, begin

>deliberately to misprepresent and tendentiously to interpret

>peripheral "facts," we are dangerously close to the kind of

>public spin that the Nazis put on Jews in the German press,

>long before they enacted the anti-semitic laws themselves.

 

But what is a tendentious interpretation to you is a clear truth to someone else, and vice-versa. That's why the Government is not permitted to ban ANY opinions. Or, as the Supreme Court said: "the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us." Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545, 65 S.Ct. 315, 329 (1945) (Jackson, J., conc. op.).

 

>Obviously, the Nazis' racial myth, purported to be the

>"truth," was a form of hate speech. Let's not get all

>misty-eyed over our ability to hurl abuse at each other.

>But let's also not get hysterical and claim that countries

>in the civilized world actively suppress dissent in the form

>of criticism.

 

European countries DO suppress dissent by banning the expression of certain POLITICAL OPINIONS. That's because they have no constitutional guarantee of free speech. We do. It's VERY alarming how eager people are to give that up all because the most likely candidate to be banned - FOR NOW - is someone else's opinion.

[BewareofNick]

>The history of this country is very sad and shameful because

>of hate speech. most eropean countrys put people in jail

>for it. We should be ashamed that we allow it. i think when

>they wrote the first amendment they didnt realize how much

>rasism there would be.

>

>history shows theres not a lot of difference between saying

>a minority should be killed and there deaths. Saying you

>want to kill muslims is sick and dangerous, and we shouldnt

>allow it.

 

 

When the Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment, they knew exactly what they were doing. The important concept is that the First Amendment protects the speech you like AND the speech you hate. As odious as it is to listen to Jerry Falwell or Dr. Laura, I don't want them silenced. Once we take that first step, it becomes as others have stated a slippery slope indeed.

 

Saying you want to kill Muslims IS sick and it IS dangerous, AND possibly worthy of investigating if there is some evidence to suggest this person might be serious. BUT, if someone says they think all Muslims should be killed, as awful as that is, they have a right to say it and I will defend the right if not the content. We all should,

 

As for the European countries, who gives a crap???? Other than England, most of them were under the control of Hitler or at least bowed down to him. That's somehting we should emulate???

[phage]

>The *only* type of speech which, consistent with the First

>Amendment, can be proscribed is speech consisting of a false

>statement of FACT which DIRECTLY harms another. Hence,

>slander/libel (which is exactly that) and "fire in a crowded

>theatre" can be punished, but only because they are false

>statements of FACT which DIRECTLY harm or which incite

>IMMINENT, IMMEDIATE illegal acts ("Let's go burn down the

>farmer's house now!").

 

It’s this very point that confuses me and keeps me from reaching a conclusion. Why does the harm done have to be immediate? If you incite such hatred that your pawn goes out and kills someone the next week or month…what is the big difference? What about those web sites maintained by the anti-abortion groups that list doctor’s home addresses? I think any reasonable person recognizes these as “hit lists." Just because they don’t say, “Go kill Doctor So-and-so right now!” they have obviously done harm to the doctors by creating a very real threat and the fear that goes with it.

 

>"For the First Amendment is valuable only when the speech is

>threatening and unpopular -- for only then would juries

>condemn speech in the absence of a constitutional rule. If

>the Constitution protects only moderate speech, it protects

>nothing. Supercharged rhetoric is part of many political

>debates, as is the careless and inaccurate accusation; these

>inevitably injure, yet speech must be protected even when it

>injures, lest the scope of debate be curtailed."

>

>Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394, 399 (7th Cir. 1988), cert.

>denied, 489 U.S. 1065 (1989).

 

This is powerful and impossible to argue with. Now, if you can help me with this issue of “immediacy”, I’ll be comfortable with what seems to be a foregone conclusion.

[phage]

>Several of you have noted the existence of hate speech laws

>in Europe, but unless I missed it nobody's claimed that

>Europe is any less fraught with racism, xenophobia and

>ethnic tensions than the US. If anything, of course, the

>opposite is true.

 

This is just what I was wondering about. I would not expect there to be less racism – it seems so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that it doesn’t need much external stimulation other than some simple reinforcement by our parents or peers. However, I thought that the residents of those countries might feel a little more secure knowing that the government suppressed overt hatred. I guess that’s pretty naïve. I’m sure an immigrant in Germany doesn’t feel more secure just because the Nazi’s can’t hold a public march.

[CT Dick]

>Last time I checked, we spell as humor, favor, color, etc,

>on this side of the pond.

 

Or, this side of the border. :-)

 

Dick

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

>Last time I checked, we spell as humor, favor, color, etc,

>on this side of the pond.

 

Excuse me? I'm a Canadian. We have no "u" shortage north of the 49th parallel. If you want to use defective spelling, feel free. But I don't have to follow your rules just because I live on this continent. Your "we" does not include "me", and it is presumptious on your part to suggest otherwise. x(

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

>What about those web sites maintained by the

>anti-abortion groups that list doctor’s home addresses? I

>think any reasonable person recognizes these as “hit lists."

> Just because they don’t say, “Go kill Doctor So-and-so

>right now!” they have obviously done harm to the doctors by

>creating a very real threat and the fear that goes with it.

 

It's not quite that simple. To begin with, whether a doctor is an abortionist or not is a question of fact, and a matter of public record. A patient has the right to know that a gynecologist performs abortions so that she may take her business elsewhere if she chooses. You are proposing to create a rather unprecedented and disturbing right to perform secret surgical operations out of thin air. Yes, it is possible that some crazy will decide to treat this as a hit list, but I am far from convinced that this is a major problem in the US. How many abortionists have been shot in the history of the Internet? You are presuming much by assuming that this is necessarily *intended* as a hit list.

 

I don't think an anti-Semitic site, for example, should have to be closed down just because it provides a list Jewish shopkeepers. If that harms their business, or if the case you outlined discourages someone from patronizing that particular gynecologist, well thems the breaks. People are free to spend their money as they wish and have a right to make unfortunate informed choices if they want.

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

>I’m sure an immigrant in Germany doesn’t feel

>more secure just because the Nazi’s can’t hold a public

>march.

 

Is that so? Do you think he would feel *more* secure if Nazis could hold public demonstrations in the street outside his door?

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Is that so? Do you think he would feel *more* secure if

>Nazis could hold public demonstrations in the street outside

>his door?

 

Not that it matters - since, in a free society, you don't have the guarantee of being free of disturbing ideas -- he should feel more secure if the demonstrations are allowed. Groups become much more powerful, and much more dangerous, when they're banned and suppressed.

 

This is so because banning them: (a) turns them into martyrs (i.e., people rally to their cause); (b) forces them to resort to illegal means in order to disseminate their message; and, most importantly, © gives them more credibility, because a Government only tries to suppress that which is threatening (when the Government suppresses a group due to its opinions, it leads people to wonder, "What does the Government want to hide from us?").

 

Devon made an excellent point. By criminalizing the expression of certain views, European countries have caused those views to spread more rapidly. In the U.S., by allowing them to breathe in the light of day - and by allowing DEBATE regarding them (rather than banning debate) - they have been exposed for what they are.

 

Suppression of "bad" views is not only wrong; it is always counter-productive.

[phage]

>Yes, it is possible that some crazy will decide to treat this as a

>hit list, but I am far from convinced that this is a major

>problem in the US. How many abortionists have been shot in

>the history of the Internet? You are presuming much by

>assuming that this is necessarily *intended* as a hit list.

 

This probably wasn’t major news in Canada and it was last year so…once again…damn my memory. It was a web site maintain by a particularly militant anti-abortion group (‘Army of God’ or some such thing) whose ideology clearly included killing abortionists because they believe the abortionists are murderers themselves. Their leader is very clear to say that he doesn’t *advocate* murder, but he does think it is justified…yeah, right.

 

The site had photos, bio’s, work and home addresses for the doctors. When one of the doctors was shot and killed (how many does it take before you consider it a “major problem”) an ‘X’ was placed across his photo. What would you call it?

 

This was clearly not about economic boycotts and a woman’s right to know her doctor performs abortions. The many pickets that take place in front of their offices would easily handle that. This was about terrorizing the doctor.

[phage]

>Is that so? Do you think he would feel *more* secure if

>Nazis could hold public demonstrations in the street outside

>his door?

 

That wasn’t my point, but…maybe he would. My point is that simply having legal restrictions on hate speech is not enough to make someone feel more secure. Whether the Nazis demonstrate or not…they manage to instill fear in the lives of foreigners in Germany. Perhaps, as others of have suggested, it would be better to allow them to demonstrate so that they can face the ridicule that they receive in the US. It might actually make someone feel more secure to see that the majority of the community passionately disagrees with them.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>It’s this very point that confuses me and keeps me from

>reaching a conclusion. Why does the harm done have to be

>immediate? If you incite such hatred that your pawn goes

>out and kills someone the next week or month…what is the big

>difference?

 

It's a simple distinction, really -- the difference between words and actions. You can be punished for the latter, not for the former.

 

If you give a speech that promotes hatred (let's say, for example, you give a speech arguing that the Rich are evil, or that white people are the spawns of Satan), and someone hears the speech and THAT PERSON then, based on the IDEAS you espoused, goes out and kills someone (someone rich or white), you have DONE nothing. You merely expressed your views, and THAT OTHER PERSON went out and acted and committed a crime.

 

You cannot be punished for a crime someone else committed, even if your ideas "inspired" or "incited" that crime.

 

But when there is a sufficent immediacy between your words and the actions, then your words become PART OF THE ACT. The example I gave is the classic one: You are standing with a crowd outside of a farm, and you address the crowd and say: "Let's go burn down the farmer's house. He deserves death," and the crowd then runs and burns the farmer's house down. There, you actually become part of the conspiratorial act -- you become, in essence, the planner of the act, the one who directed the crowd to go do it.

 

The reason it's a crucial distinction (even though it may seem, and even be, blurry), is because it's critical that a person NEVER be punished merely for the expression his of views, no matter what the consequence of the speech is.

 

I'm not necessarily a big fan of this distinction; I think that any type of incitement should be constitutionally protected. But this "immediacy" requirement is the only type of "incitement" the Supreme Court has allowed to be punishable consistent with the First Amendment.

 

>What about those web sites maintained by the

>anti-abortion groups that list doctor’s home addresses? I

>think any reasonable person recognizes these as “hit lists."

 

This exact case was just addressed by a federal appellate court, which held that the First Amendment bars the imposition of liability for the publication of abortionists' home addresses (there, the web site actually put a line through the names when the doctor was killed, clearly encouraging the killings). It's based on the same theory: you can only be punished for crimes you actually commit or participate in, not for crimes you "inspire" by expressing your views.

[BewareofNick]

>Not that it matters - since, in a free society, you don't

>have the guarantee of being free of disturbing ideas

 

>Suppression of "bad" views is not only wrong; it is always

>counter-productive.

 

This is one concept that many people have a hard time wrapping their heads around. They think that if something offends them it should be banned because they assume they have some sort of right to not be offended. There is no such right.

 

Banning ideas or views is an incredibly stupid thing to do and as TT says is counterproductive. Remember back when people were actively trying to get Howard Stern off the air? It didn't work, did it? NBC's own research showed that people who hated Stern listened to him longer than people who loved him. The protests made Stern a phenomenon.

 

I am also reminded of a little TV show on FOX. It was floundering in the ratings and was doomed to a quick death..until a woman named Terry Rakolta came across the show one night and was offended. She launched a protest against the show and what was once a low rated show became one of the longest running sitcoms: Married With Children.

[phage]

Very interesting distinction. The key seems to be that lapsed time indicates a person is acting on another’s ideas rather than their instructions. I can accept that. Don’t like it but can accept it. I can see that it provides protection for people to espouse unpopular ideas. Of course, since I think many people can be pretty stupid and malleable, I would like to hold their puppet masters accountable.

 

>I'm not necessarily a big fan of this distinction; I think

>that any type of incitement should be constitutionally

>protected.

 

Also very interesting. I assume this is because you believe that each individual is absolutely accountable for his own actions, so no matter how he is influenced, he is solely responsible for any crimes committed. If I understand this correctly…the classic “fire in a theater” person would be liable because this is an ACTION not an incitement, idea or opinion.

[phage]

>This is one concept that many people have a hard time

>wrapping their heads around. They think that if something

>offends them it should be banned because they assume they

>have some sort of right to not be offended. There is no

>such right.

 

Although I’m fairly convinced that even hate speech has to be protected, we are talking about something much more serious than simple “offence.” We are talking about the kind of speech that gets people beaten or killed. The kind of speech that terrorizes people and affects their lives. I have never seen anything close to that on network television – not even FOX.

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

Ok, that site would qualify as incitement to hatred. Is it still up?