How would the First Amendment even BEGIN to be interpreted as allowing hate speech laws?

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by chris155au, Jul 16, 2020.

  1. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, tort law deals with libel and slander which are civil infractions and none of the federal and state government’s business.
     
  2. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would it even REQUIRE the people to "let them?"
     
  3. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Free speech itself is under attack the like of which I’ve never seen in my life.

    The notion is that the truth is so clear that any unorthodoxy could confuse and corrupt others.

    Free speech is an outdated notion when people were less enlightened.

    Let us burn the witches to save them.

    Nothing new here!
     
    chris155au likes this.
  4. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what level of government manages civil infractions if not state or federal?
     
  5. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Here" as in Netherlands?
     
  6. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes Holmes said that free speech does not extend to people yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre but does not address people who sincerely believe in the fire.

    He also gave an antitrust exemption to baseball cause he liked it and advocated forced sterilization of mentally retarded people because “three generations of imbeciles is enough”

    What’s he got to teach us?
     
  7. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are civil interests involved in commerce. I oppose this on the federal level.

    There should be special courts that are independent of government that deal with this through binding arbitration.
     
  8. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Netherlands has the freest speech in all of Europe.
     
  9. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Speech and action are conflated.

    One does not necessarily proceed from the other.

    Certainly the call to violence from Antifa is overlooked in this regard .
     
  10. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That, done by children, would be child like. By adults, it is childish.
     
  11. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps Europe can argue that special language codes are necessary there, given its propensity for wars of religion, revolution and ideology. By American standards and experience, they have no place.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
    chris155au likes this.
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure, but that might not be difficult. I'm guessing that it's STILL pretty damn restricted.
     
  13. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've only ever been pulled over for moving violations- crossing the lane line without using turn signal, not signalling at least 300ft before turn, tail light out, 1mph over speed limit... then they ask if I've been drinking. I've never been pulled over specifically because of suspicion of being drunk. Not technically anyway...
     
  14. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the context of which country?
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2020
  15. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nevertheless, do you still disagree with it being illegal?

    Who would it provide "protection" for?

    Doesn't the fact that not ALL speech is protected dispute that idea?
     
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Presumably hate speech laws would include outlawing hateful OPINIONS, which is quite different to what you mention above.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2020
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm really talking about just saying hateful things about people, whatever "hateful" could be defined as.
     
  18. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So not something anyone has even seriously suggested criminalising in the US? And as I've already explained, even if anything like that was proposed, even that wouldn't require the First Amendment to be "overturned" or "abolished".
     
  19. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It’s not as free as I would like but compared to England or Germany it’s pretty free. Were I in either of those countries, I just wouldn’t talk :)
     
    chris155au likes this.
  20. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Should be like that in every country.
     
  21. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Remember when we said sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?

    Well I guess we are all just too delicate for that now.

    It is embarrassing!
     
  22. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It makes the issue very confusing and arbitrary. The more complex the "rules" become- the more loopholes they create, the more distortion and abuse they invite.

    Our worst issues with free speech at the moment come from the loss of journalistic integrity, and the decline of the media's role into political propaganda machines manipulating people's perceptions instead of actual factual reporting to allow them to decide for themselves. Just as we separated the slander of public figures from the libel laws, we should be requiring media claiming to be reporting news to do so in true ethical fashion. That doesn't alter the 1st amendment at all, it does alter the tolerance in how it may be abused when damages result- and a dishonest press most certainly causes damages. More general ones, but overall- damaging to all society. Years ago we did exactly that with "Truth in advertising" laws to protect consumers from fraudulent representations. "Truth in news" laws would do far more good.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  23. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If everyone were able to stifle speech that offended them then what is left to talk about?
     
  24. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You were talking about slander and libel. I was asking if you disagree with it being illegal.

    In the context of what country? It can't be the US, which has ZERO hate speech laws,

    I wasn't sure, as it was you who first used "IT." You said, "IT'S discriminatory in itself- providing a protection for some that does not apply to all , and thus is a very unequal form of "justice".

    Good point. Is there something in US law which protects the media more so than other industries such as the ones which the "truth in advertising" laws were aimed at?
     
  25. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the context of which country?
     

Share This Page