Magic Fills the Air Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 You don't understand the purpose of the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech does not protect speech you like, it protects speech you hate. When you say it protects speech you hate, do you mean it inhibits this kind of speech or grants it freedom? My view is there are a tiny minority who have such extreme and dangerous views that I don't believe they should have their free speech protected. In some extreme circumstances there should be intolernace of intolerance otherwise others end up sacrificing their freedoms to ensure the freedoms of these extreme minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted May 20, 2011 Author Share Posted May 20, 2011 When you say it protects speech you hate, you mean it inhibits this kind of speech or grants it freedom? My view is there are a tiny minority who have such extreme and dangerous views that I don't believe they should have their free speech protected. In some extreme circumstances there should be intolernace of intolerance otherwise others end up sacrificing their freedoms to ensure the freedoms of these extreme minorities. Hi Magic, You know America is bereft of morality in its law making dont you? and so it should be, Morality is a personal choice in a Free World, I would rather chuckel at these Morons than have the "US Inquision" deal with them, who wouldnt? Kind Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 When you say it protects speech you hate, do you mean it inhibits this kind of speech or grants it freedom? I believe when I said "it protects speech you hate" the word protect basically gave it away. I don't think I need to explain what the word protect means. I happen to think the Westboro Baptist clowns are some of the most vile and offensive pieces of filth let loose on humanity, but the first amendment not only gives them the right to freedom of speech, but also freedom of assembly. So my hatred and disgust for them doesn't prohibit their behavior, nor should it. That's not what the first amendment is for, or what it's meant to do. I don't think the framers could have envisioned something like this occurring all these many years later, but the point still stands that the USSC has upheld their right to their little gatherings of fun, regardless of whether it's morally or ethically appropriate. A lot of people don't agree with flag burning either, but the USSC has said more than a few times that it's constitutionally-protected speech. This is no different. So argue to your heart's content about whether they should do what they do, but there is zero argument about whether they have the legal right to do it. They do, and that's that. I believe it was you who said you're happy you live in the UK where people like this aren't allowed to do what they do, but I'm going to have to disagree with you and say I'd rather live in a country where putrid filth like this has the right to freely speak their mind, regardless of how much I may disagree with the content of their speech instead of a country where the rights of free speech are not granted. Because once you curtail the speech of people you don't like for X reason, you can easily do the same for Y reason, and Z reason and on down the line until no one has the right to say anything, at all. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Regarding burning the Quran. NOTHING was ever solved or changed by burning a book, whether it was the Quran, the Bible, Mein Kampf, or My Two Dads. People who burn books just look silly. The same goes for record burners...whether they're burning disco records or Beatles records. Regarding the free speech/hate speech quagmire, I realize the 1st Amendment protects all forms of speech, but wasn't there a Supreme Court decision by Oliver Wendell Holmes that placed certain restrictions, (ie. you can't falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre), on free speech? I don't know the case name off-hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 ^United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. This case was decided on the basis of "clear and present danger". Source: wiki, absoluteastronomy The exact quote is: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." When you say it protects speech you hate, do you mean it inhibits this kind of speech or grants it freedom? My view is there are a tiny minority who have such extreme and dangerous views that I don't believe they should have their free speech protected. In some extreme circumstances there should be intolernace of intolerance otherwise others end up sacrificing their freedoms to ensure the freedoms of these extreme minorities. As long as they don't incite a riot they are free to speak even if you don't like what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Regarding burning the Quran. NOTHING was ever solved or changed by burning a book, whether it was the Quran, the Bible, Mein Kampf, or My Two Dads. People who burn books just look silly. The same goes for record burners...whether they're burning disco records or Beatles records. Regarding the free speech/hate speech quagmire, I realize the 1st Amendment protects all forms of speech, but wasn't there a Supreme Court decision by Oliver Wendell Holmes that placed certain restrictions, (ie. you can't falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre), on free speech? I don't know the case name off-hand. The name of the case isn't really important, you got the main point of it - when speech presents a clear and present danger and/or incites a riot, that leaves the speech outside the penumbra of the 1st amendment. If I stand on a street corner screaming "KILL ALL LED ZEPPELIN FANS! KILL THEM NOW!" and people just walk by and ignore me, then what I've said falls under the 1st amendment. It's stupid, but allowed. If someone hears me say that and then kills a Led Zeppelin fan specifically because they heard me say it, not because they were going to kill someone anyway, then I am liable for what I've said and the consequences of that speech. These Westboro Baptist people are all lawyers, they know the law better than anyone here, and definitely better than the people they're antagonizing. They stay just barely on the side of legal speech to avoid repercussions in the courts. They know where the line is, and they take great delight in dancing all over it, but never over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 The name of the case isn't really important, you got the main point of it - when speech presents a clear and present danger and/or incites a riot, that leaves the speech outside the penumbra of the 1st amendment. If I stand on a street corner screaming "KILL ALL LED ZEPPELIN FANS! KILL THEM NOW!" and people just walk by and ignore me, then what I've said falls under the 1st amendment. It's stupid, but allowed. If someone hears me say that and then kills a Led Zeppelin fan specifically because they heard me say it, not because they were going to kill someone anyway, then I am liable for what I've said and the consequences of that speech. These Westboro Baptist people are all lawyers, they know the law better than anyone here, and definitely better than the people they're antagonizing. They stay just barely on the side of legal speech to avoid repercussions in the courts. They know where the line is, and they take great delight in dancing all over it, but never over it. Not exactly. Killing a fan is not something that a reasonable person would do. But if you shout a warning like "fire!" in a crowded theatre, most reasonable people would head for the door in an instant. If the stampede for the door causes injury or death, then the person who falsely yelled 'fire!' would be at fault, probably for civil charges of wrongful death and possibly criminal charges for inciting a riot. They might charge someone with conspiracy to commit murder if they were to scream 'kill all led zeppelin fans, kill them now', if they had a dead body that resulted from that act of screaming, where the ill-advised clueless perpetrator were to foolishly rely upon such poor direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 One way to get around them is to require a permit via local ordinance. They can say pretty much what they want, but local jurisdictions sometimes require a permit for them to be where they are if they are staging a public speech related event for a specific time so they don't disrupt everyone else's business. And some areas can be designated for them, while others can be off limits, thus making their speech less disruptive.They still get to say what they want, and they still get heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.