First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
People who use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices
Posted 8/22/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That doesn't make sense, as in those representatives are still people.


True Democracy

General Voting Public ---> Law

Republic

General Voting Public ----> Elected officials ---> Law



And although hate speech itself isn't a part of hate crime legislation, you could still make a false claim with your hate speech, thus becomes a civil violation when you unjustly attacked a person's very own identity
What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.(citation)


Free speech means the right to defamation, libel and slander. You have the right to say anything about anyone regardless of the truth of the statement. That's how it works.

Freedom of press grants one the right to print anything even if its defamatory.
And what's your proof that such was the case to be? As in just how you can interpret the First Amendment into something akin to you can rant and lie like a crazy lunatic and still speak the truth:

Are lies and liars protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution?

Yes and No:

No: Interpersonal speech that results in harm or damage to another, particularly where the damage or harm caused is intended or reasonably forseeable, because it is fraudulent, libelous or uttered as part of or in the furtherance of a criminal activity, a criminal conspiracy or a criminal enterprise.

No: Speech that is intended to cause or incite violence, or riots.

No: Speech that is seditious or intended to cause rebellion against the government.

No: Speech that is intended to impede or interfere with the legitimate exercise of govermental power or authority. (Lying to the police, or falsifying a tax return, etc.)

In the instances where the speech is not protected the speaker is subject to civil or criminal liabilty and penalties when held responsible or accountable for the non-protected speech.(citation)
So let's review on what you were intended to use as an example of "writing and distributing a booklet about why we need to kill all black people", according to that interpretation you would land yourself in trouble with the laws. Unless you wanna argue that intentional killing isn't a form of violence known as murder.

And again, doesn't matter how you claim it, it's still people voting on laws. Unless you wanna argue that "elected officials" aren't people by nature.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 8/23/10

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That doesn't make sense, as in those representatives are still people.


True Democracy

General Voting Public ---> Law

Republic

General Voting Public ----> Elected officials ---> Law



And although hate speech itself isn't a part of hate crime legislation, you could still make a false claim with your hate speech, thus becomes a civil violation when you unjustly attacked a person's very own identity
What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.(citation)


Free speech means the right to defamation, libel and slander. You have the right to say anything about anyone regardless of the truth of the statement. That's how it works.

Freedom of press grants one the right to print anything even if its defamatory.
And what's your proof that such was the case to be? As in just how you can interpret the First Amendment into something akin to you can rant and lie like a crazy lunatic and still speak the truth:

Are lies and liars protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution?

Yes and No:

No: Interpersonal speech that results in harm or damage to another, particularly where the damage or harm caused is intended or reasonably forseeable, because it is fraudulent, libelous or uttered as part of or in the furtherance of a criminal activity, a criminal conspiracy or a criminal enterprise.

No: Speech that is intended to cause or incite violence, or riots.

No: Speech that is seditious or intended to cause rebellion against the government.

No: Speech that is intended to impede or interfere with the legitimate exercise of govermental power or authority. (Lying to the police, or falsifying a tax return, etc.)

In the instances where the speech is not protected the speaker is subject to civil or criminal liabilty and penalties when held responsible or accountable for the non-protected speech.(citation)
So let's review on what you were intended to use as an example of "writing and distributing a booklet about why we need to kill all black people", according to that interpretation you would land yourself in trouble with the laws. Unless you wanna argue that intentional killing isn't a form of violence known as murder.

And again, doesn't matter how you claim it, it's still people voting on laws. Unless you wanna argue that "elected officials" aren't people by nature.


Elected officals are not general voting public.

If you can't wrap your little brain around simple concepts like general voting public then I am wasting my time talking to you.
Posted 8/23/10 , edited 8/23/10

Allhailodin wrote:



Elected officals are not general voting public.

If you can't wrap your little brain around simple concepts like general voting public then I am wasting my time talking to you.
They are still people nonetheless, and no amount of your bullshit can change that fact.


LosingOrbit wrote:

There's a thin line between Freedom of Speech and Slander.

At the end of the day "freedom" comes with consequences, and it even states in the First Amendment that there are restrictions, but unfortunately these "restrictions" seem to have loopholes. Now I believe people have taken advantage of this law, and use it as an excuse.
And according to your First Amendment, they're the political and religious individuals, businessmen, and the mass medias:

Are lies and liars protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution?

Yes and No:

Yes: Political and religious speech are categorically protected, hence falsehoods, half-truths and down right lies that are promulgated within the context of such speech are also protected...So too, are the people who are responsile for the false, misleading or deceptive utterances couched in politics or religion. This appears to be so whether the speaker intends the lie or not.

Yes: Commercial and journalistic speech are protected for the most part. However, unlike political and religious speech and speakers which enjoy absolute protection, there are areas in which commercial speech and journalistic speech are measured or evaluated in terms of veracity and or intent regarding the queation of damage or harm to either an individual or society. In these areas commercial and journalistic speech which is deemed intentionally deceptive and the cause of damage or harm is not protected and may result in the perpetrator being hit with a civil or criminal penalty of some kind.

(In the law the concept of intent is critical because without showing the requisite intent, the harm or damage caused by the liar's lie may not result in the liar being subject to civil or criminal liabilty and penalties.)(citation)
Then again, when you consider just how faulty human intention/rationale can be, this just means that legally proven stupidity is not a crime:

In some cases, the people who created these now-worthless investments sincerely believed they were smart enough to turn a risky, sub-prime mortgage into a perfectly safe investment. It was all right there in the computer.

Unfortunately, stupidity is not a crime.(citation)
Posted 8/27/10
Although people like the kkk, the westboro baptist church people, and pretty much any extremist group, all make me very angry I cannot say that they should be banned from making their speeches and preaching their beliefs. Although we'd all agree what these people are preaching is wrong if we deny them their first amendment rights what is to stop people from being denied their rights all over America just because someone else does not agree with them. The founding fathers made the freedom of speech the first amendment for a reason, even if the message being spread is hate if I was to tell these people they cannot continue what they are doing because I don't agree with it what would stop me from going to my neighbor and telling them they can't live their lives because I don't agree with how they are doing it?
Posted 9/2/10 , edited 9/2/10

Abandoned_Dream wrote:

Although people like the kkk, the westboro baptist church people, and pretty much any extremist group, all make me very angry I cannot say that they should be banned from making their speeches and preaching their beliefs. Although we'd all agree what these people are preaching is wrong if we deny them their first amendment rights what is to stop people from being denied their rights all over America just because someone else does not agree with them. The founding fathers made the freedom of speech the first amendment for a reason, even if the message being spread is hate if I was to tell these people they cannot continue what they are doing because I don't agree with it what would stop me from going to my neighbor and telling them they can't live their lives because I don't agree with how they are doing it?


Those types of people deny the rights of others for their races and sexuality all the time, so why shouldn't we deny theirs?
Posted 9/2/10

LosingOrbit wrote:


Abandoned_Dream wrote:

Although people like the kkk, the westboro baptist church people, and pretty much any extremist group, all make me very angry I cannot say that they should be banned from making their speeches and preaching their beliefs. Although we'd all agree what these people are preaching is wrong if we deny them their first amendment rights what is to stop people from being denied their rights all over America just because someone else does not agree with them. The founding fathers made the freedom of speech the first amendment for a reason, even if the message being spread is hate if I was to tell these people they cannot continue what they are doing because I don't agree with it what would stop me from going to my neighbor and telling them they can't live their lives because I don't agree with how they are doing it?


Those types of people deny the rights of others for their races and sexuality all the time, so why shouldn't we deny theirs?


I only said we shouldn't not allow them to voice their opinion, if they were physically doing something to infringe on the rights of other they should be stopped yes, but if they are just verbally spreading their hate then unfortunately that is their right to have their own opinions.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/9/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Free Speech ends, as mentioned above, when you set about inciting acts co-current to the welfare of others. That is to say, if you wrote an entire pamphlet on why we should kill all black people, you are going to be arrested, but if you join a club, say, League of Southern Gentlemen and Sons of the Confederacy, in so much as you assemble peacefully, distribute pamphlets on why the emancipation proclamation is totally wrong, &c. as long as you don't incite violence, it's okay.

Hateful speech, no matter how disdainful, is still speech protected by our constitution, and is needed to preserve our democracy.


Actually you won't get arrested for writing and distributing a booklet about why we need to kill all black people. That is protected under free speech. Freedom of Press. You can print anything you want. The fact that I owned an Anarchist Cookbook is proof of that.

And 2, we are not a Democracy. We are a Representative Republic.


Democracy

People ---> Law


Representative Republic

People ---> Representatives (Congressmen and Senators)---> Law


Really now? Then what about 'Schenck v. United States' about?

Also, the 'Anarchist's Cookbook' has snice been removed from the public, unprinted, and several people have been arrested for its possesion.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/9/10

longfenglim wrote:

Really now? Then what about 'Schenck v. United States' about?

Also, the 'Anarchist's Cookbook' has snice been removed from the public, unprinted, and several people have been arrested for its possesion.


I doubt anyone has been arrested for possession of the Anarchist Cookbook, and it hasn't been unprinted or removed from the public, you can buy it from Amazon, Barnes && Noble && Overstock to name a few retailers.

You might be arrested if you were just plain stupid and tried a few of the things in the book tho.

And Schenck vs U.S was different - violated the Espionage Act of 1917.

Saying 'Murder all Black People' isn't espionage.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/9/10
The cook book is still out there and it is not legal to have it, people have used it the past and killed or harm themselves. One printing company did state they would take out the parts that where consider dangerous. Then again first year chemistry book has far more dangerous mixes if you apply yourself. I have seen freedom of speech abuse by just about every group out there. Some clown will cross what most may think is a line. Only when language is used to threaten to do harm to others and or property then the person can and should be arrested. And that only a misdemeanor crime unless the have a weapon on them. To me Hate act to crimes is for show only. Murder is murder robbing a person of another collar is still theft.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/10/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Really now? Then what about 'Schenck v. United States' about?

Also, the 'Anarchist's Cookbook' has snice been removed from the public, unprinted, and several people have been arrested for its possesion.


I doubt anyone has been arrested for possession of the Anarchist Cookbook, and it hasn't been unprinted or removed from the public, you can buy it from Amazon, Barnes && Noble && Overstock to name a few retailers.

You might be arrested if you were just plain stupid and tried a few of the things in the book tho.

And Schenck vs U.S was different - violated the Espionage Act of 1917.

Saying 'Murder all Black People' isn't espionage.


But it does incite concrete hateful actions, does it not, and, if I recall correctly, that is against the law. Also, incitement of rebellion or violent opposition against the government is also illegal if it advocates concrete actions, as put out in Yates v. US. Likewise, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire also illegalise 'fighting words', or words which, in not expressing any actual substance are only use to either deride or provoke. Even John Staurt Mills advocate a limitation of Free Speech base upon 'protection against harm to others', and, yea, this has been evoked. So yes, the Anarchist Cookbook is, or at least, should be illegal, based upon the above mentioned principles, like saying 'Murder all Black People' (though the folks who would say something like that would use a less comparitively genteel word as 'Black' or 'African American').
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.