Why don't people understand freedom of speech?

[HansNZ]

HansNZ, the Sumpreme Court of the US, a bi-partisan panel of jurists, has ruled repeatedly that the content of speech cannot be regulated by the government (except when broadcast over public airwaves). Hateful speech cannot be a crime because those who listen have the free will to ignore it. Even if one chooses to believe or agree with the hateful speech, the government cannot regulate a thought. It is only when the hateful speech becomes inciteful is there potentially a crime.

Your example of yelling "fire" in a crowded room is a crime. Yelling "kill darky" in an empty field is not. Yes, both could cause a breach of peace or violence. But, while these examples are simplified, the law is purposely vague to consider the time, place and manner of the speech in question. In other words, the first is likely to create panic. The second isn't likely to do anything at all.

BTW, Fast Twitch Fiber, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as a First Amendment protection from interference from state governments.

So you're agreeing with me then. I concur that inciting people to violence is a violation of free speech. People can think whatever they like and say whatever they like. But when it comes to inciting violence then that crosses the line. Isn't that what my KKK example was indicating?

 

[ariolanine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why don't people understand freedom of speech?

yes, and ariolanine disagrees with these penaties.



btw, if someone is rallying others to bash faggots or niggers, it is not my "opinion" that this is inciteful or hate speech. It is a obvious to most sane people. But I understand the unlimited potential american conservatives have for arguing that blue is red and not being able to see how ridiculuous their arguments are.

I can see how this thread is going to develop. I will now have the 10,000 right-wing conservatives that dominate EF attacking me and expecting me to respond to every one of their quirky arguments.

Absolutely not. I agree 100% with pOink. My original post said "opinion." Slander, libel, defamation, etc.. have nothing to do with free speech as they are not opinions.

By your logic, any speech can be treated as "hate speech." When Susan Sarandon gives a speech at a so-called peace rally and the hippies start attacking the police at some point, should she be charged with a crime? It's no different than a clan rally. Both seek to change the status quo. One group hates conservatives, the other hates blacks.

 

[MCBAYNE]

HANZ WANTZ TO SUCK MY DICK

ALL FAGGOTS WANT MYJJOHNSON

CAUSE IT IS FUCKING AWESOME AND I AM THE MAN

 

[Rockafella Skank]

So you're agreeing with me then. I concur that inciting people to violence is a violation of free speech. People can think whatever they like and say whatever they like. But when it comes to inciting violence then that crosses the line. Isn't that what my KKK example was indicating?

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing. I'm just passing along what the US's highest court has ruled ... which is that inciteful speech is potentially a crime. That it's inciteful does not automatically make it criminal. Even in the case of a KKK rally where one implores the group to "kill Jews and mud people," this is not necessarily a crime. Again, it falls back to time, place and manner. It's a very difficult burden to overcome because the government would have to prove that those words truly caused the violence (as opposed to whether the persons who carried out the violence would have done so without the speech that preceeded it).