First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
People who use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices
Posted 8/1/10
I love it when people try to use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices. I guess it's alright for me to go and kill the neighbor's dog and write in it's blood on their driveway, "Neuter Your Pets!" and then in court I can defend myself by using the First Amendment as a clutch for my obvious offense. A little extreme, but just trying to make a point.

Sometimes I wonder if people should be denied to write or say some things, but then again that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm at ends of where this conversation will go.
Posted 8/1/10
Though we have the right to say what we want, you sometimes end up paying for it anyways.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 8/1/10
I have been think about a cook book on how to cook dog and cat and the rats in New York city the one that came from South America. The horse have been living over fifty years now that we do not use them so dog and cat food seem a good place to go. there expenses the take care off.
Posted 8/2/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

I love it when people try to use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices. I guess it's alright for me to go and kill the neighbor's dog and write in it's blood on their driveway, "Neuter Your Pets!" and then in court I can defend myself by using the First Amendment as a clutch for my obvious offense. A little extreme, but just trying to make a point.

Sometimes I wonder if people should be denied to write or say some things, but then again that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm at ends of where this conversation will go.
I once asked the same question to my philosophy professor "why was Plantinga ever allowed to speak as a philosopher?" And the answer lies in the same reason why I was able to ask that very question of mine, because like it or not, they're stuck here with the rest of us and are just as equally bored. Howbeit they don't apply themselves through their individual intellect as much as they would like to be.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 8/2/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

I love it when people try to use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices. I guess it's alright for me to go and kill the neighbor's dog and write in it's blood on their driveway, "Neuter Your Pets!" and then in court I can defend myself by using the First Amendment as a clutch for my obvious offense. A little extreme, but just trying to make a point.

Sometimes I wonder if people should be denied to write or say some things, but then again that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm at ends of where this conversation will go.


Freedom of speech goes both ways. From the stuff you want to hear to the stuff you dont want to hear. So what are you trying to say? Freedom of speech shouldn't be allowed? I really can't tell what your trying to discuss here.

I'm just taking a wild guess here: From the 1st amendmant of America grants a lot of freedom under the guise of ideologoy. If you want to express an idea, the government can do very little to stop you. In most cases they just change the way you express it.

Thats the thing that most Americans dont seem to understand. Freedom of speech was never created to protect popular speech. Why? Because its OK for me to say "there should be less young black men in prison". Its popular.

But when someone says "There should be more young black men in prison". All hell breaks lose. People get angry, upset, and start saying you dont have the right to say that.

Its no different than the KKK saying one thing. And some Racist Black, afrocentric group saying the exact opposite. In a free country, if one is ok, then so is the other under freedom of speech.

We all know the hip new saying "Dont hate the player, hate the game". The same applies here.All People will not look like you and not think like you. It's a given. So if u dont want to hear what they want to say then dont listen or vote on eliminating free speech.

Because the purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular speech (the stuff you don't want to hear).

That being said, keep in mind that without freedom of speech, such things as the Civil Rights could have never happened.peace over war
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/2/10 , edited 8/2/10
I'm going to expand the topic a little since, in my country we didn't bother with amendments and just rewrote the whole durn document about 30 years ago (1982)


Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.
D


This is what our Charter of Rights and freedoms says about free speech.Pay attention to that first section, it sets vague limits on our fundamental freedoms. However, there is another clause to consider.


Exception where express declaration

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Operation of exception

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

Five year limitation

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

Re-enactment

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

Five year limitation

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).


This infamous 'notwithstanding clause' allows the government say "yeah we're violating your rights but too bad".

The other thing to consider is the difference in our libel laws. In Canada if you defame or libel someone and they sue you for it. The burden of proof is upon you. If you cannot prove your spoken or written assertions you are guilty of slander or libel. In the United States the burden of proof is upon the one slandered or libeled. They have to prove your assertions are both untrue and that you meant to hurt them with those assertions ("malice aforethought"). This too colours the nature of free speach.

Sorry for the legal Essay. I'll actually give my opinion next post.


Posted 8/2/10 , edited 8/2/10

JJT2 wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

I love it when people try to use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices. I guess it's alright for me to go and kill the neighbor's dog and write in it's blood on their driveway, "Neuter Your Pets!" and then in court I can defend myself by using the First Amendment as a clutch for my obvious offense. A little extreme, but just trying to make a point.

Sometimes I wonder if people should be denied to write or say some things, but then again that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm at ends of where this conversation will go.


Freedom of speech goes both ways. From the stuff you want to hear to the stuff you dont want to hear. So what are you trying to say? Freedom of speech shouldn't be allowed? I really can't tell what your trying to discuss here.

I'm just taking a wild guess here: From the 1st amendmant of America grants a lot of freedom under the guise of ideologoy. If you want to express an idea, the government can do very little to stop you. In most cases they just change the way you express it.

Thats the thing that most Americans dont seem to understand. Freedom of speech was never created to protect popular speech. Why? Because its OK for me to say "there should be less young black men in prison". Its popular.

But when someone says "There should be more young black men in prison". All hell breaks lose. People get angry, upset, and start saying you dont have the right to say that.

Its no different than the KKK saying one thing. And some Racist Black, afrocentric group saying the exact opposite. In a free country, if one is ok, then so is the other under freedom of speech.

We all know the hip new saying "Dont hate the player, hate the game". The same applies here.All People will not look like you and not think like you. It's a given. So if u dont want to hear what they want to say then dont listen or vote on eliminating free speech.

Because the purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular speech (the stuff you don't want to hear).

That being said, keep in mind that without freedom of speech, such things as the Civil Rights could have never happened.peace over war


Did you not read the title of this thread? I can't see what's so hard to understand.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/2/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

I love it when people try to use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices. I guess it's alright for me to go and kill the neighbor's dog and write in it's blood on their driveway, "Neuter Your Pets!" and then in court I can defend myself by using the First Amendment as a clutch for my obvious offense. A little extreme, but just trying to make a point.

Sometimes I wonder if people should be denied to write or say some things, but then again that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm at ends of where this conversation will go.


I've placed a lengthy post above this one describing the different legal environment Canada has from the US that may alter the way the situation you described above is dealt with under the law.

still... specifically addressing your example.

(1) killing a neighbour's dog involves a number of non speach related crimes. First it's likely (if they take proper care of their dog and obey most common leash laws) that you would have to enter their property without permission (trespass) or accost them while walking their dog and take the dog away (assualt) and in both cases: Theft.

(2) gutting a pet probably violates some local 'cruelty to animals' legislation. also it constitutes destruction of the pet owner's property (Vandalism)

(3) spraying blood or paint on another person's property is vandalism. though it might also fall under some form if anti-graffitti legislation.

-----
Going to the more general. Some hateful speach is slander or libel (if written) it's not your first amendment laws that are the problem here it's your civil laws. To prove slander or libel in court you have to PROVE in court that whatever was said (or written) was untrue, That the Author KNEW it was untrue, and that they MEANT to hurt you with it. So you have to prove a negative (hard to do), then prove something about the contents of another's mind or at least the information they had access to, Then prove INTENT.

Good luck with that.

In Canada (and I think Britain but I could be wrong) if you are sued for slander or libel. It's up to you to prove that what you said was true. This is technically a violation of 'innocent until proven guilty' but It does tame some of the more wild assertions of the media. It also means that when a Canadian media outlet talks about someone's less than savoury connection they are either really circumspect or have evidence to back their claims.

Now if you're talking about Hate Speach. Such as the anti-jewish blitherings of some neo-nazi or even hard core 'gay-bashing'. Again in Canada we claim to have limits. The argument is that free speach doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded building just for shits and giggles. In practice The Canadian and Various provincial Human Rights Commissions have handled cases of hate speach. Recently the HRCs have come under fire for attempting to shut down a major news Magazine over articles that expressed concern over Muslim activities.

Does it work better here? I don't know.

My own take is that free speach doesn't allow you to assert things about other people that are patently untrue. Not does it give you licence to smash windows destroy police cars, or otherwise vandalise the downtown of a major city.

Conversely, I'm suspicious of government control over speach because, well.... expression of opinion and thought is critical to true freedom of thought. Government controll of speach leads to government control of though. who would be happy about that?




75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/2/10
If you're talking about book burnings and flag burnings and burnings in effigy and the like...

hmmm sigh. I'll have to get back to you on just what applies legally but personally think it's a crying shame.
1167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / Waipahu, Hawaii
Offline
Posted 8/2/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

I love it when people try to use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices. I guess it's alright for me to go and kill the neighbor's dog and write in it's blood on their driveway, "Neuter Your Pets!" and then in court I can defend myself by using the First Amendment as a clutch for my obvious offense. A little extreme, but just trying to make a point.

Sometimes I wonder if people should be denied to write or say some things, but then again that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm at ends of where this conversation will go.


it would be pretty hard to sell that in defense in court, considering that your actions advocate a present danger to another human, or in this case an animal.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 8/2/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

I love it when people try to use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices. I guess it's alright for me to go and kill the neighbor's dog and write in it's blood on their driveway, "Neuter Your Pets!" and then in court I can defend myself by using the First Amendment as a clutch for my obvious offense. A little extreme, but just trying to make a point.

Sometimes I wonder if people should be denied to write or say some things, but then again that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm at ends of where this conversation will go.


Meh, what's the big deal ? So people shouldn't be allowed to be hateful ? Free speech means free speech, anything goes. Nothing is perfect, you have to take the good with the bad.
Posted 8/4/10
go to yahoo news and click on any article there, read some of the forum post and be amazed how much racism and stupidity there is.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 8/4/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

I love it when people try to use the to advocate hateful practices. I guess it's alright for me to go and kill the neighbor's dog and write in it's blood on their driveway, "Neuter Your Pets!" and then in court I can defend myself by using the First Amendment as a clutch for my obvious offense. A little extreme, but just trying to make a point.

Sometimes I wonder if people should be denied to write or say some things, but then again that wouldn't make much sense, so I'm at ends of where this conversation will go.


> They went over the top by making a public display and wrighting but what with the First Amendment would not protect the offender of that crime if it is a crime. Freedom of speach is just that making threat is against the law. I missing the piont I geuss you can protest yell stupid thing at other. What I find funnuy it the same crowd that dose the yelling and name calling and if you speak against them it hate speach go figger that one out.<
Posted 8/4/10

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

go to yahoo news and click on any article there, read some of the forum post and be amazed how much racism and stupidity there is.


Or better yet, go to Topix and see there African American forum, the things people say on there is sad. It's amazing how confident people are when in front of a computer screen.
Posted 8/4/10

LosingOrbit wrote:


CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

go to yahoo news and click on any article there, read some of the forum post and be amazed how much racism and stupidity there is.


Or better yet, go to Topix and see there African American forum, the things people say on there is sad. It's amazing how confident people are when in front of a computer screen.


I will probably not tread there i am trying to keep my blood pressure low right now
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.