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. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some in the left are certainly pretty keen on it.

    Sure, it would just require the First Amendment to be ABSOLUTELY TRASHED!
     
  2. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The US
     
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So if it's none of the federal and state government’s business, what level of government is it the business of?
     
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't accept the "left"/"right" labels (ironically, commonly used to promote hatred for large generic groupings). If there are formal proposals for new laws, they can be presented and assessed.

    You're still ignoring all of the existing restrictions on free speech (and other freedoms) in the US despite the Constitution. They are generally defended on the basis of preventing harm (reasonably or not) and the same argument could be attempted for any other law restricting fundamental or constitutional rights. The US Constitution has never[/] been interpreted literally or unconditionally by legislators or the courts.
     
  5. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Civil courts but not criminal courts. As tort law not as criminal law as the state would not have an interest in the outcome
     
  6. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I certainly acknowledge them, but seriously, if offensive speech was outlawed, what remaining types of provocative speech would the Constitution be protecting? Perhaps only anti-government speech. The 'speech' element of the First Amendment would be just about utterly worthless.

    Yes, but as @spiritgide so elegantly put it, "slander and libel can be consequences of that right to free speech, but that is generally related to the damages that result, if and when they exist. Those laws do not punish for the words, nor for the emotional resentment the person may react with, but for the tangible damages.Thus- they are not limits on speech itself."
     
  8. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, courts ARE government aren't they?
     
  9. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes that’s technically true but speech laws in tort cases are mostly decided on the issue of monetary damages. The state does not have an interest in the outcome. If we compare the situation in say England or Germany where there are strict anti hate speech laws then speech is criminalized and the state does have an interest in successful prosecution.
     
  10. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would continue to protect the vast, vast majority of speech, all that isn't/wasn't explicitly restricted by law (like what we're doing right now for example :) ). The (perceived) provocativeness of speech is irrelevant by the way.

    Yes, there is a strong argument against the kind of restriction you describe (though haven't demonstrated anyone calling for) on the basis that it wouldn't cause significant harm. That is completely different to your argument of "First Amendment therefore no!" though.
     
  11. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You think that the idea of the First Amendment was to protect speech like what we're doing right now? Surely you can't be serious.
     
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've never heard of the idea that government only has an interest in criminal law.
     
  13. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope they have an interest in defense and tax collection among other things but we were talking about speech.
    What interest does government have in suits like slander and libel or tarnishment or dilution between private parties?
     
  14. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    to the point that government laws are the reason which such suits exist. Sure, such suits aren't anywhere near as important as criminal cases, but it's still the government system.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  15. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The courts are there in those cases to be more an arbiter than a party in the suits.
    No one to my knowledge has ever been incarcerated for libel for instance.
     
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, sure. It's certainly different in that there is no Public Prosecutor in such cases.

    Incarcerations are only part of criminal law aren't they?
     
  17. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My view is that no speech should be made illegal and subject to criminal penalties at the government level. Torts are civil not criminal actions.
    The only possible exception might be leaking state military secrets during wartime.
     
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Via actual speech?
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  19. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Spoken or otherwise transmitted
     
  20. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By default, it protects all speech, that's the point. That's your point isn't it? Anyway, public discussion of politics strikes me as exactly the kind of thing some government might like to restrict so this would be exactly the kind of speech being protected.
     
  21. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Releasing classified material is not protected speech.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  22. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nor should it be but I can’t think of any other speech which should be criminalized.
     
  23. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The point is, that hate speech laws in the US would be an insane jump from the current speech laws.
     
  24. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree.
    Bring all speech into the light so a true dialogue can be had.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  25. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As you described them, I agree. That isn't the point you actually made in the OP (or at best, it was lost in all the partisan rheotric) and since you've not established anyone has even casually proposed such laws, it seems like something of a moot point anyway.
     
    chris155au likes this.

Share This Page