There's been plenty of US court cases where hate speech has been held to be so and not protected under the First Amendment. These were overturned by the US supreme court. However, it has been shown that this was ultimately dependant upon the socio-political climate in the US at the time. As there were periods where this shifted in opposing directions before settling where it is currently. With everything going on this year with BLM and such it may end up being that hate speech isn't considered free speech.
@Silver158 On your last point, that is speculative. Right now, given the shape of the Supreme Court, I think that rather unlikely.As to your previous point, yes. That was my point as well. It is why I wrote at the outset, " There is, in First Amendment law, no such thing as "hate speech." THAT TERM BEING OF RELTAIVELY RECENT VINTAGE AND APPLYING MOSTLY IN A CULTURAL CONTEXT. As a matter of the First Amendment - and the Supreme Court rulings made pursuant to it - "hate speech" does not exist and is, nominally at least, protected." (Emphasis added.)In terms of Supreme Court being the final arbiter of First Amendment questions, this the case. Other lower courts have indeed dealt with the question. None who have attempted to so define it and ban it have prevailed to date.
Yeah my point was purely speculative. I personally think it may go that way though. But who knows.
@Silver158 There is little point in tormenting oneself with such speculations. Disraeli famously said that, "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics." Thus few things can ever be fully ruled out.However, that does not require that we assume the worst - or the best - absent some indication that things are moving in a given direction. To repeat then that, for the time being at least and the foreseeable future, given the current composition of the Supreme Court, the odds of "hate speech" being defined and not given some First Amendment protections is - relatively - remote.
doesn't torment me at all mate. I live in the UK so
@Silver158 My favorite country outside of my own!!! God save the Queen!!!
Not American, but I agree its really hard to define hate speach. You can ban topic like holocaust didn't happen, but you can't ban saying transpeople are gender there real gender not after changes. Because you just can't be oposit gender. I will respect there decision but I will not agree on there logic, so dont press me on it and you wil be fine.
everything is going to be "hate speech" under Harris
What constitutes hate can sometimes be a gray area. It’s why you don’t open that door to government intervention. I don’t think everything will be labeled hate under Harris but she won’t coddle the racists that Trump enables, nor should she.
@Roxxy99 bingo. You give me faith that some logical women still exist. The insane Marxism I’m seeing in some of these young women is scary.
Free speech and a free press are the basically the bedrock of liberty. We’ve reached a point politically in this country where people increasingly want government to intervene in speech, either not realizing or caring that it will destroy it. The left wants hate speech banned. The right now wants government to regulate the internet and social media. All of it is just bad juju.
Irrespective of what the GAG Bot says, this right here is the Superb Opinion.
Reading yalls replies its no wonder people are marxists. Your arguments are retarded lol. Roxxy the only person to make the argument and not sound like an idiot.
@Kaazsz yep. I must be even tougher to be a woman with common sense than a man. More women voted yes to hate speech regulation than no. She’s got guts.
@guesswhoseback There was a time on this site when you would NEVER see female support for a "conservative" opinion besides rissyanne if she's still around (she blocked me back when I was a rampaging leftist). These days I see pink upvotes and pink replies who are in favor of liberty all the time.
@Kaazsz I’ve been on and off this site for 11 years. I can tell you that back in 2010 people didn’t even act half insane as they do now. There were always conservatives vs. liberals of course. But nowhere near the extent there has been in the last 5 years.
*near the extent of the complete insanity.
@guesswhoseback the far left is on the ideological rise. Liberals are a dying breed and marxists are reproducing at rapid rates. But seeing women actually make non leftist arguments and show support gives me hope that we won't someday starve to death in a socialist "utopian" overthrow lol.
@Kaazsz there is a great division happening inside the Democratic Party. Many former democrats believed in social liberalism but also in the American dream. Now democrats have a choice to make. Go communist or leave the democrats. You can either be independent or defect to the GOP.
@Kaazsz I’m not a conservative. I’m more of a libertarian. Free speech infringements are often supported by both the left and the right.
@Roxxy99 Same as me. I put conservative in quotes though lol. Because I don't consider myself a conservative at all. But to people on the left, libertarians are just ultra conservatives on steroids, oh and apparently we are racists too lol.
@Kaazsz Neither party supports liberty we live in a country where having shrooms less adictive and harmful then alcohol or weed gets higher sentence then rape. Gun laws are another law to target everyday people.
@israelisevil I agree 100% it is what it is lol.
@Kaazsz yah im just excited for once one party collapses and other one will fall in under a month tops
@israelisevil Michael Malice thinks so too lol
I’ll take a libertarian over a libtard marxist ANY day. They can be a bit weird sometimes but at least they respect other people’s liberties. They often seem to be deeper thinkers about societal issues too.
@israelisevil You’re 100% correct that neither party really supports liberty. Both are eroding the constitution. They’re just doing it in different ways. I threw my vote to Jo Jorgensen in the election. It didn’t mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things but if we’re going to beat back the worst instincts of the two parties to save speech, privacy, guns, civil rights, and voting rights for all, then we’re gonna need those libertarian voices in government.
Jo Jorgensen sadly isn't any better. She hopped on the BLM bandwagon and preached censorship on Twitter until she became the receiving end of big tech censorship and then flip-flopped. I don't any hardcore Libertarian who'd ever vote for her.
You a wise gal Roxx. Why do you think they call me the Bastard Scorekeeper in certain locales?It's because I always know what the score is. How does Roxy scorekeeper sound?You don't need a green card do you? LOL I'm just kidding around wit ya gal. I can tell you. have skills with the pen. keep it up! take care
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
So disappointed with women it comes to this poll. Not just the numbers but their typical mindless emotionally based responses. Just sickens me they don’t have the logical brain capacity for critical thinking on such a very serious issue. Free speech restrictions is extremely serious threat to western democracy. It won’t stop with making it illegal to make a nasty comment about transsexuals. It will go much further than that. These people voting NO have absolutely no f*cking clue about the danger they are asking for.
www.saturdayeveningpost.com/.../March 21, 2017 POLITICS AND POLICYTITLE: 6 Surprising Exceptions to Freedom of SpeechSubtitle: Your right to free speech is limited by where you are, what you say, and how you say it.Jeff NilssonAlthough the First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” Americans don’t have the luxury of always saying whatever they want. Your right to free speech is limited by where you are, what you say, and how you say it.Here are six areas where your talk can make you liable in criminal or civil court.
1. Obscenity Most of the legal cases that concern sex and free speech have involved publications (a form of speech as far as the courts are concerned). Obscenity is not protected by the Constitution, but it has been difficult to define what is obscene. In 1973, the Supreme Court, in Miller v. California, came up with a three-part definition of obscene material. A work is legally considered obscene ifan average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material appeals to prurient (appealing to sexual desire) interest.the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, specifically defined by applicable state law.taken as a whole, the material lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.This limit on obscene speech also applies to broadcasting. The FCC controls what is allowed on air, so you can’t broadcast sounds or images that could be offensive to your audience or use language inappropriate for children.However, the Supreme Court has, so far, kept the internet free of obscenity restrictions. You can make whatever statements you want on social media sites, but the owners of those sites have the freedom to censor or delete your content if they find it offensive.
2. LiesLying is covered by the First Amendment, except when it’s not. You can be prosecuted for lying under oath in court (it’s called perjury). You can also be charged with misleading authorized investigators. Remember Martha Stewart’s conviction in 2004? She went to prison for lying to investigators about her stock trading.It is also illegal to run dishonest advertisements. And if you deliberately tell lies about people, you can be hit with a lawsuit in civil court for either libel (if published) or slander (if spoken).Politicians, on the other hand, have broad protections against being prosecuted for lying, and citizens largely have free rein to criticize their governments, even if the comments are false. Luckily for late night talk show hosts, the First Amendment allows citizens to satirically mock a public figure.
3. ViolenceYou can’t make offensive remarks or personal insults that would immediately lead to a fight. You also can’t threaten violence to a specific person unless you’re making an obvious exaggeration (for instance, “I’m going to kill my opponent at the polls”). Finally, you can’t knowingly say things that cause severe emotional distress or incite others to “immediate lawless action.”In 1951, the Supreme Court concluded in Dennis v. United States that the First Amendment doesn’t protect the speech of people plotting to overthrow the government.
4. Students’ SpeechStudents have limited rights of free speech while in school. In 1986, Bethel School District v. Fraser upheld the right of a school to suspend a student for making an obscene speech. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988, supported a school’s right to censor student newspapers. However, many states are now passing laws to grant broader First Amendment protections to student speech.
5. Offending Your Friends and CoworkersYou don’t have the right to say whatever you want in someone else’s home or other private setting. And, as an employee, believe it or not, you have no free-speech rights at your workplace. The Constitution’s right to free speech applies only when the government — not a private entity — is trying to restrict it. For example, an employer can legally fire an employee whose car bears a campaign bumper sticker he doesn’t like.It’s a different matter for government employees. In Elrod v. Burns, the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that the Constitution prohibits government employers from discharging or demoting employees for supporting a particular political candidate.The law also prohibits speech that shows clear intent to discriminate or sexually harass.It also prevents employees in medical or financial fields from discussing confidential information outside of work.
6. Expressing Your Political ViewsThe law has never permitted Americans to protest in any way they wanted. While the government can’t control what you say, how you say it must be subject to what the courts consider an appropriate time, place, and manner.Legal authorities have a responsibility to protect the safety of attendees at political gatherings and to protect protestors themselves. If authorities think you pose a sufficient risk, you can be restricted to a Free Speech Zone. These have been used since the 1980s, principally to contain protestors at political conventions.House Bill 347 authorized Secret Service agents to arrest anyone protesting in the president’s or vice president’s proximity. They also have this authority at National Special Security Events. These events have included state occasions, of course, but also basketball championships, the Academy Awards, Olympic events, and the Super Bowl. A conviction can result in up to 10 years in a federal prison (another place where your freedom of speech is limited).
So what you are saying is you want the Trump administration to designate what is and is not "hate speech"?
@genuinlysensitive No, the judicial system does that.
So you want Trump appointed judges doing that...
@genuinlysensitive All judges and Congress do it already, no matter who appoints or elects them.For instance, this is Justice Potter Stewart discussing the First Amendment and porn a concurring opinion to the decision in the US Supreme Court case Jacobellis v. Ohio:"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."======Anyway, yes, I have no problem with others defining hate speech as long as that definition is within reason. If it isn't, then We the People can use our democratic processes to change it. That's how democracy works.