Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 11-04-2019, 12:31 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
... The premise of hate speech prohibitions is that there are certain views that are so vile that objectively no civilized person should or would agree with them. This would include things like advocating genocide, or advocating violence against minorities defined by race, ethnicity, or gender-related attributes, or dehumanizing those minorities in a vile and hateful fashion by suggesting that they're something less than human, because those views are fundamentally inconsistent with a civilized and peaceful society. ...
Your definition of hate speech seems to reference "minorities" a lot. Do you think that advocating violence against a majority, or "dehumanizing" a majority "in a vile and hateful fashion by suggesting that they're something less than human" is hate speech too, or is that a designation only reserved for speech against a minority?
  #352  
Old 11-04-2019, 12:44 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your definition of hate speech seems to reference "minorities" a lot. Do you think that advocating violence against a majority, or "dehumanizing" a majority "in a vile and hateful fashion by suggesting that they're something less than human" is hate speech too, or is that a designation only reserved for speech against a minority?
Sticking with the "Either everything is hate speech, or nothing is hate speech" argument?
  #353  
Old 11-04-2019, 12:47 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Sticking with the "Either everything is hate speech, or nothing is hate speech" argument?
I'm just curious if his view is that hate speech is only hate speech if it's directed at a minority / if it's impossible (in his view) to say anything directed towards straight white males that would be "hate speech". It's just a request for clarification on his view / position.
  #354  
Old 11-04-2019, 12:55 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your definition of hate speech seems to reference "minorities" a lot. Do you think that advocating violence against a majority, or "dehumanizing" a majority "in a vile and hateful fashion by suggesting that they're something less than human" is hate speech too, or is that a designation only reserved for speech against a minority?
I've referenced minorities because they tend to be the usual targets. The laws that I know of don't make reference to minority groups, but rather just to identifiable groups in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Majority groups are obviously going to be far less vulnerable, but are equally protected under law. For instance, a Muslim calling for violence against Christians would risk running afoul of federal hate speech laws in Canada. I tried to find an example of that in Christian-majority western countries but, funnily enough, all I could find was anti-Muslim speech. Still, that's how it would work, and likewise with a black writer, say, calling for violence against white people. I don't know how you could think otherwise.
  #355  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:04 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I've referenced minorities because they tend to be the usual targets. The laws that I know of don't make reference to minority groups, but rather just to identifiable groups in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Majority groups are obviously going to be far less vulnerable, but are equally protected under law. For instance, a Muslim calling for violence against Christians would risk running afoul of federal hate speech laws in Canada. I tried to find an example of that in Christian-majority western countries but, funnily enough, all I could find was anti-Muslim speech. Still, that's how it would work, and likewise with a black writer, say, calling for violence against white people. I don't know how you could think otherwise.
Thanks for the clarification.
  #356  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:15 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
More like speaking in alternate dimensions it seems to me ...

A law prohibiting defamation with consequences for breaking the law is intended to prevent defamation.
Responding without the unnecessary snark, laws are literally written to provide punishment for an offense. Just look at any provision of title 18 of the US Code. To the extent that you consider the words "deter" and "prevent" interchangable, fine, I now understand your position.


Quote:
Not at all understanding what point you think you are making with your Trump comment.

Do you have ANY doubt that if our laws allowed Trump to prohibit and punish speech that was critical of him or his positions that he would do so? The current system does not allow it.
If the current system allows for restrictions on speech not to be exploited to serve a repressive, partisan, authoritarian agenda, then why can't one additional restriction also function in that same "the system can't be abused" way?

For example, lying to business investors is prohibited, and so is Holocaust denial. Not sure why the first one is on such safe ground, and the second one sets off a slippery slope of authoritarians sending people to jail (with the implication of no due process to make the threat more scary). I don't get it.

Quote:
Heck under that standard religious fundamentalists should be able to prohibit a bunch of speech about things that offend them and that they are scared may result in societal changes that they feel threatened by.
Are you of the opinion that judges and juries are unable to distinguish between words that call for ethnic cleansing of some group, and words that others simply disagree with?

if anything, I think juries might end up divided on close cases of hate speech, probably leading to prosecutors favoring to take only clear-cut cases (if indeed such a law were to include criminal penalties, as opposed to maybe a version that focuses on civil matters).
  #357  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:27 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
...

For example, lying to business investors is prohibited, and so is Holocaust denial. Not sure why the first one is on such safe ground, and the second one sets off a slippery slope of authoritarians sending people to jail (with the implication of no due process to make the threat more scary). I don't get it.
...

" Lying to business investors is prohibited" because that is fraud.

What is "Holocaust denial"? I mean you and i think we know what it is, but someone saying that the death camps didnt kill as many as the concentration camps did, or that maybe it was five million Jews, or that besides the Jews there were also millions of gays, gypsies and other people killed? Are those Holocaust denial? And on one board I was accused of being a "denier" as I did point out that Gays & Gypsies and other people were targeted also.

So you see- one is fraud. There is hundreds of years of case law and etc as to what is fraud and it causes immediate provable economic harm.

The other?
  #358  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:31 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I've referenced minorities because they tend to be the usual targets. The laws that I know of don't make reference to minority groups, but rather just to identifiable groups in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Majority groups are obviously going to be far less vulnerable, but are equally protected under law. For instance, a Muslim calling for violence against Christians would risk running afoul of federal hate speech laws in Canada. I tried to find an example of that in Christian-majority western countries but, funnily enough, all I could find was anti-Muslim speech. Still, that's how it would work, and likewise with a black writer, say, calling for violence against white people. I don't know how you could think otherwise.
Exactly. And for the sake of demonstration : Christian orgs have availed themselves of French hate speech laws a number of times. Although they seem to equate them with blasphemy laws, for some reason. For reference, ~65% of French self-identify as some flavour of Christian.
  #359  
Old 11-04-2019, 01:42 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
" Lying to business investors is prohibited" because that is fraud.
No shit.

Fraud isn't covered by freedom of speech because society has just waved a magic wand and determined that this kind of speech isn't a true Scotsman. The boundaries of what speech doesn't count as speech is this entire debate, and I welcome you to it.
  #360  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:00 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So you see- one is fraud. There is hundreds of years of case law and etc as to what is fraud and it causes immediate provable economic harm.

The other?
The other? The other is denying and distorting an unprecedented crime against humanity, and accusing the historic victims of fabricating it. This is rather more significant than lying to investors and causing economic harm, because Holocaust denial is one of the pillars of anti-Semitism. Like all historic events, lack of knowledge or, worse, outright denial, carries the risk that in some form it could happen again. Which is exactly why anti-Semites engage in it, and why most countries consider it a flagrant form of hate speech. That there are variations on exactly what is being denied doesn't make it any more ambiguous or less hateful; the general theme is always that much or all of it was fabricated by the Jews themselves and the Nazis are being unfairly maligned. It's hate speech at its worst and ugliest:
https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antis...and-distortion
  #361  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:06 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No shit.

Fraud isn't covered by freedom of speech because society has just waved a magic wand and determined that this kind of speech isn't a true Scotsman. The boundaries of what speech doesn't count as speech is this entire debate, and I welcome you to it.
I have been in it for a while. And yes, I am glad you realize that it is fraud. That is why it is prohibited.

What other crime does Holocaust denial encompass? Being a jerk?
  #362  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:21 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What other crime does Holocaust denial encompass? Being a jerk?
What do you mean, "being a jerk?" You'll have to be more specific.
  #363  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:26 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The other? The other is denying and distorting an unprecedented crime against humanity, and accusing the historic victims of fabricating it. This is rather more significant than lying to investors and causing economic harm, because Holocaust denial is one of the pillars of anti-Semitism. Like all historic events, lack of knowledge or, worse, outright denial, carries the risk that in some form it could happen again. Which is exactly why anti-Semites engage in it, and why most countries consider it a flagrant form of hate speech. That there are variations on exactly what is being denied doesn't make it any more ambiguous or less hateful; the general theme is always that much or all of it was fabricated by the Jews themselves and the Nazis are being unfairly maligned. It's hate speech at its worst and ugliest:
https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antis...and-distortion
And thus does not cause immediate provable harm. Unlike fraud, which does.
  #364  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:29 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I have the impression that the transgender community in the area harbors a small core of particularly strident activists who always seem to show up at these sorts of protests, and that might be what you're seeing here.
I suspect that's true of most protests, but it invariably starts there. The "this won't get any worse" attitude is precisely how it gets worse. (In the interest of fairness, and to ensure trans people aren't unnecessarily accused of something, I should point out the people who protested were not, it seems, transgender people.)

You are likely right in that Canada's hodgepodge and inconsistent human rights tribunals, while originally well intentioned and generally fair, are a greater threat to freedom than the existing hate crimes law.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #365  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:36 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Freedom of speech has been maintained only by a constant fight of the progressives against, essentially, the moral majority. For centuries. But now, it's the former guardians of the gates who say that they should be opened. Ir doesn't bode well for the future of free speech.
I don't think the ACLU has changed its tune on free speech since defending the Communists and original Nazis in the '30s, have they?

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 11-04-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #366  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
And thus does not cause immediate provable harm. Unlike fraud, which does.
And measurable harm. In fact if the fraud doesnt cost anyone any lost dollars, the "fraudsters" can likely get off.

How does one measure the harm caused by Holocaust denial?

And would you really want the 1st Ad repealed just so we could fine a few blathering morons for Holocaust denial?
  #367  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:50 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think the ACLU has changed its tune on free speech since defending the Communists and original Nazis in the '30s, have they?
They say no. Others say yes. See "Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities", ~2018 or so. I haven't checked myself so couldn't tell you one way or another.
  #368  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:24 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
And thus does not cause immediate provable harm. Unlike fraud, which does.
If you've been following along with the recent line of argument here, you'd see that I've been putting forward the idea that the goal of hate speech laws is to prevent the very worst kind of hateful divisiveness that is toxic to the goal of achieving a peaceful and cohesive society (by the latter term I mean a society that embraces shared values rather than racial or other tribal conflicts) -- see for instance posts #333 and #348. As such, I argue that the operative principle here is to prohibit the most vile and extremist speech that causes significant harm to those objectives by promoting hate, conflict, marginalization, and potentially violence. My view is that whether such harm is "immediate" or not is immaterial if it's likely to have a significant long-term impact. I'm aware that the criterion of immediate harm was introduced by the Supreme Court but I consider it to be myopic in the extreme, a view reflected in the values of most other countries. To the counter-argument that this is a nanny-state approach, or as one poster put it, that "you have to trust that the general public is smart enough to tell truth from propaganda", please see post #333 for evidence of how "smart" the general public tends to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How does one measure the harm caused by Holocaust denial?
I get the feeling you just don't read the things I post, or the articles I link to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And would you really want the 1st Ad repealed just so we could fine a few blathering morons for Holocaust denial?
The First Amendment didn't need to be repealed for the various limitations on free speech that already exist, about which several posters never tire of reminding us. Nor would it need to be repealed for carefully crafted and well justified laws against the most vile and socially damaging hate speech. It certainly wasn't repealed when thousands of people were accused on the flimsiest pretexts of subversion and being communist sympathizers during the Red Scare of the McCarthy era. The excesses of that era were caused by an unhealthily paranoid and polarized society, not by hate speech laws, and the First Amendment did nothing to prevent it.
  #369  
Old 11-04-2019, 07:18 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
...

I get the feeling you just don't read the things I post, or the articles I link to.

The First Amendment didn't need to be repealed for the various limitations on free speech that already exist, about which several posters never tire of reminding us. Nor would it need to be repealed for carefully crafted and well justified laws against the most vile and socially damaging hate speech. It certainly wasn't repealed when thousands of people were accused on the flimsiest pretexts of subversion and being communist sympathizers during the Red Scare of the McCarthy era. The excesses of that era were caused by an unhealthily paranoid and polarized society, not by hate speech laws, and the First Amendment did nothing to prevent it.
Yes, but how to measure the harm, as in dollars or lives? Is anyone here saying that Holocaust denial is a good thing?

No, but it would for this sort of thing. The limitations are basically for people being directly and measurably harmed. Even Kiddie porn laws fall under that. Somewhere, a Child must be harmed to sell pics or film of kiddie porn. Which is why writing kiddie porn is legal.


Yes, they were 'accused" by Sen McCarthy, but of treason, perjury and espionage, not
just their views. Were any of them put in prison? (No)


I think you are confused over what a person, even a individual politician may do vs what the entire government may do. You may decide not to buy a book you fine 'vile". You may encourage others not to buy it. You can say that the writer is vile. You can encourage your local library not to buy it. You may lead a campaign to boycott it. But what you can't do is get the government to ban it or put the author in jail.
  #370  
Old 11-04-2019, 07:27 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, but how to measure the harm, as in dollars or lives? Is anyone here saying that Holocaust denial is a good thing?

No, but it would for this sort of thing. The limitations are basically for people being directly and measurably harmed. Even Kiddie porn laws fall under that. Somewhere, a Child must be harmed to sell pics or film of kiddie porn. Which is why writing kiddie porn is legal.
How do you measure the harm involved in being the victim of child porn, as in dollars or lives?
  #371  
Old 11-04-2019, 09:08 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, but how to measure the harm, as in dollars or lives? Is anyone here saying that Holocaust denial is a good thing?
Financial losses are measurable in quantifiable dollars and cents, because that's what financial accounting is. Other harms, such as emotional harms to children, are not quantifiable in the same way, but are still prohibited and treated seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, but it would for this sort of thing. The limitations are basically for people being directly and measurably harmed. Even Kiddie porn laws fall under that. Somewhere, a Child must be harmed to sell pics or film of kiddie porn. Which is why writing kiddie porn is legal.
This is simply false. A depiction of child pornography can be a drawing or otherwise simulated -- where no actual child exists -- and still be illegal in the United States. See sections 1466A and 2252A of the PROTECT Act signed into law by George W. Bush. One fellow was sentenced to 20 years for possession of pornographic anime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, they were 'accused" by Sen McCarthy, but of treason, perjury and espionage, not
just their views. Were any of them put in prison? (No)
This is false, too. The Red Scare involved major sectors of the federal government well beyond Joe McCarthy, and a whole groundswell of cultural impetus in broadcasting, filmmaking, and publishing. For example, the FBI was deeply involved, as was the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). McCarthy wasn't even part of the House, he was a Senator, and had nothing to do with HUAC. Thousands of people were accused, attacked, discredited, and blacklisted, pursued by HUAC and J Edgar Hoover's FBI, losing their reputations and careers based on things they were reputed to have said or written, or organizations they belonged to (most of which were completely innocuous). And yes, some did go to jail (have you forgotten the famous case of Alger Hiss, whose guilt remains uncertain to this day?).
  #372  
Old 11-04-2019, 09:22 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The idea that free speech absolutism has become entrenched in US jurisprudence is meant to denote a particular approach or philosophy that is rather uniquely American rather than the word "absolutism" being taken literally. That approach is one that I think I pretty much spelled out in post #336; to reiterate the key point:

The premise of hate speech prohibitions is that there are certain views that are so vile that objectively no civilized person should or would agree with them. This would include things like advocating genocide, or advocating violence against minorities defined by race, ethnicity, or gender-related attributes, or dehumanizing those minorities in a vile and hateful fashion by suggesting that they're something less than human, because those views are fundamentally inconsistent with a civilized and peaceful society. ...
Let's pause here. Ravenman this post responds to your points as well.

Do hate speech laws stop at things like advocating violence or even dehumanization? Is burning a Qu'ran doing that? It is to my mind objectionable and disagreeable speech on par with burning the American flag, and not on par with a call to violence or dehumanization, yet it was leading the list of the article quoted by the op.

Not a fan of the BDS movement and I do think that some of its supporters are anti-Semitic ... but France labelling public support of BDS as "hate speech" subject to conviction? As poorly as I think of the BDS movement and of some of its supporters, holding those views is not "fundamentally inconsistent with a civilized and peaceful society".

France also brings us the case of an activist convicted the crime of holding a sign that said "Get Lost Jerk" to Sarkozy's car.

In Singapore the pursuit of peace and social order has hate speech laws against “wounding religious feelings” used surprisingly in questionable manners.

Quote:
This is the basic sticking point in hate speech debates, that opponents of hate speech laws refuse to recognize the primacy of peace and social order. ...
And you are correct. I do not recognize that peace and social order automatically takes primacy over freedom of thought and expression. There are both fundamental rights of self-expression and to equality. Neither has primacy over the other.

Quote:
... If you think any law against hate speech, as we've been discussing it here and as implemented in other democracies throughout the world, would allow Trump or any government bureaucrat to silence his critics, then you really and truly don't understand what hate speech laws are.
I think I do.
  #373  
Old 11-04-2019, 10:49 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Let's pause here. Ravenman this post responds to your points as well.

Do hate speech laws stop at things like advocating violence or even dehumanization? Is burning a Qu'ran doing that? It is to my mind objectionable and disagreeable speech on par with burning the American flag, and not on par with a call to violence or dehumanization, yet it was leading the list of the article quoted by the op.
What I will say here is that the formulation of hate speech laws in different countries naturally follow the contours of those countries' political culture and approach to civil liberties. It's not a monolithic thing. The hate speech laws I understand best, and that frankly I think are the most moderate and restrained of the ones I know about, are the ones in Canada; I previously cited a short article about them, and if you're interested, here it is again. These laws have been rarely applied so there isn't much precedent, but I would say that the answer to your first question is yes, those hate speech laws stop at advocating violence, genocide, or the kind of extreme hate that leads to dehumanization. I don't think that merely burning a Qu'ran would rise to that level, but it may depend on the circumstances -- someone barging into a gathering of devout Muslims in a mosque specifically to do that in order to cause great offense and deliberately provoke a violent confrontation might possibly be vulnerable to charges under s. 319(1).

But as I said, hate speech laws arise from the political culture and civil liberties of the country in which they're enacted. You seem to have some issues with the laws in France, and though your account a bit light on details, I'm inclined to agree that the standard of civil liberties in France is not up to that in some other countries. You also mention Singapore, and IIRC that place is totally over the top in low standards of civil liberties and many aspects of draconian laws, and are notorious for example for their use of caning as punishment for some three dozen different offenses, some of them relatively minor, which has caused international condemnation. So all hate speech laws are not created equal, and some bad ones are not evidence that it's a bad idea, any more than the US is evidence that what I will continue to call free speech absolutism as previously defined is a good idea; indeed the social turmoil at present seems to be good evidence that it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And you are correct. I do not recognize that peace and social order automatically takes primacy over freedom of thought and expression. There are both fundamental rights of self-expression and to equality. Neither has primacy over the other.
There's a debate to be had about which is the more fundamental, but my own belief is that peace and social order, including an equitable and just society, is the fundamental purpose of government. Government only has a duty to minimize the infringement of personal freedoms as little as possible consistent with those goals. The fact is that any and all laws including basic criminal laws and property laws all infringe our freedoms to some extent, and all rational peace-loving citizens accept that. Limited hate speech laws governing extreme and dangerous behaviors are not a special intrusion into personal liberties but merely a necessary consequence of that same principle, with the intent of preserving the peace and social order. Without them society is potentially more divisive, tumultuous, and possibly violent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I think I do.
Then I repeat, if you think any of the kind of hate speech laws we've been talking about would help someone like Trump legally silence his critics, then you're not thinking of real-world hate speech laws as enacted in western democracies, but instead you're thinking of some imaginary fiction. It may be illegal to insult the royalty in Thailand, but in the political and cultural context of western democracies, hate speech laws don't work that way.
  #374  
Old 11-04-2019, 11:56 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
I honestly want to know, why is slandering Johnny Somali subject to legal remedy but slandering Somalians is not? At what level of specificity does freedom of speech kick in? Is it because calling Somalians child molesters doesn't cause immediate and accountable financial harm to ny specific individual?
  #375  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:24 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
...

This is simply false. A depiction of child pornography can be a drawing or otherwise simulated -- where no actual child exists -- and still be illegal in the United States. See sections 1466A and 2252A of the PROTECT Act signed into law by George W. Bush. One fellow was sentenced to 20 years for possession of pornographic anime.



This is false, too. The Red Scare involved major sectors of the federal government well beyond Joe McCarthy, and a whole groundswell of cultural impetus in broadcasting, filmmaking, and publishing. ... And yes, some did go to jail (have you forgotten the famous case of Alger Hiss, whose guilt remains uncertain to this day?).
"Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children". Note the word ;visual". So, actual 'writing" is legal, and the legal status of drawn porno is still doubtful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_...#United_States

and I see no one in prison for 20 years, got a cite? One guy got six months, but he pled guilty.

Yes, and so? Alger Hiss wasnt accused of writing or saying commie stuff, but of committing espionage, a totally different crime. He was convicted of perjury, not of saying commie stuff or being a Communist.

No one was convicted of any crime involving for simply saying commie stuff or spreading commie propaganda. What the hell does the McCarthy trials have to do with Free Speech? It wasnt illegal to be a Communist.
  #376  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:43 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I honestly want to know, why is slandering Johnny Somali subject to legal remedy but slandering Somalians is not? At what level of specificity does freedom of speech kick in? Is it because calling Somalians child molesters doesn't cause immediate and accountable financial harm to ny specific individual?
Slander isn't even a crime (in the US). If you slander me, I have a high bar, in the US, of showing that you have damaged/harmed me. To seek civil remedy. Pretty damn hard to do that if you go around saying that Quakers should be eradicated because we eat babies*.

Borrowing "arguments" presented thus far, It's certainly the very worst kind of hateful divisiveness that is toxic to the goal of achieving a peaceful and cohesive society. The claim is it's causing harm to those objectives, but it's certainly not causing harm, let alone criminal harm, to people by promoting hate, conflict, marginalization, and potentially violence. There is no immediate harm to people. Who cares! Immediate is immaterial! Is it likely to actual cause, hate, conflict, marginalization, and violence? Oh sorry, potentially violence -- can't forget the weasel words. The presented evidence does not support an affirmative conclusion there. Borrowing terms like "likely" and "significant" from scientists isn't going to fool anyone. But it may get your Olestra banned.

What else did I miss, oh yes: "potentially more divisive, tumultuous, and possibly violent" (holy weasel words, Batman!)
Potentially not.

*We don't, AFAIK; YMMV (please feed your Friend according to its user guide to ensure normal behavior -- hunger may result in errors)

And similarly, components of the PROTECT Act look to be bad law.
  #377  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:14 AM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I honestly want to know, why is slandering Johnny Somali subject to legal remedy but slandering Somalians is not? At what level of specificity does freedom of speech kick in? Is it because calling Somalians child molesters doesn't cause immediate and accountable financial harm to ny specific individual?
The current interpretation is that the individual must be specifically named for them to have any standing in regards to defamation, that no reasonable person will believe a slanderous statement about a group will apply to all members of that group, and that group defamation doesn't have a tendency to cause personal harm. That's the long and the short of it.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #378  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:08 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I don't think that merely burning a Qu'ran would rise to that level, but it may depend on the circumstances -- someone barging into a gathering of devout Muslims in a mosque specifically to do that in order to cause great offense and deliberately provoke a violent confrontation might possibly be vulnerable to charges under s. 319(1).
I would presume that someone deliberately trying to incite violence could be charged with other crimes in most civilized countries without bothering to classify that as "hate speech." There is a legitimate logical argument to be made that if you're saying "hate speech" is limited to trying to start a riot or advocating violence, those things are already illegal and could be handled by those laws.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #379  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:32 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I would presume that someone deliberately trying to incite violence could be charged with other crimes in most civilized countries without bothering to classify that as "hate speech." There is a legitimate logical argument to be made that if you're saying "hate speech" is limited to trying to start a riot or advocating violence, those things are already illegal and could be handled by those laws.
Possibly, depending on the circumstances, but it's already been established that this is not always the case. Another ruling that I personally found disturbing was R.A.V. v City of St. Paul where burning a cross on the lawn of a black family was considered just peachy-fine "protected speech". And the existence of hate speech laws not only catches incentivations of hate that may easily fall through the cracks of other laws, but, as in the case of designated "hate crimes", it may elevate the severity of the crime and how it's investigated and punished beyond what it would be if done without targeted hateful intent.

I'm not going to rehash all the arguments for hate speech laws that have been ongoing in this thread for 8 pages now other than to re-iterate that there's a damn good reason that virtually all of the world's freest democracies have enacted laws against hate speech. That the US is a rare outlier in this respect, not to mention how stridently many here defend that anomaly, is an interesting aspect of American culture mostly, I think, reflecting an aversion to and distrust of government in general.
  #380  
Old 11-05-2019, 12:59 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I would presume that someone deliberately trying to incite violence could be charged with other crimes in most civilized countries without bothering to classify that as "hate speech." There is a legitimate logical argument to be made that if you're saying "hate speech" is limited to trying to start a riot or advocating violence, those things are already illegal and could be handled by those laws.
All that most hate speech laws are, is recognizing instances of advocating or threatening violence that currently get to fall through the cracks.
  #381  
Old 11-05-2019, 02:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
.

This is false, too. The Red Scare involved major sectors of the federal government well beyond Joe McCarthy, and a whole groundswell of cultural impetus in broadcasting, filmmaking, and publishing. For example, the FBI was deeply involved, as was the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). McCarthy wasn't even part of the House, he was a Senator, and had nothing to do with HUAC. Thousands of people were accused, attacked, discredited, and blacklisted, pursued by HUAC and J Edgar Hoover's FBI, losing their reputations and careers based on things they were reputed to have said or written, or organizations they belonged to (most of which were completely innocuous). And yes, some did go to jail (have you forgotten the famous case of Alger Hiss, whose guilt remains uncertain to this day?).
Actually, come to think of it, the Red Scare is a perfect example of why hate Speech laws are a BAD idea. It would have been so easy to make Communist propaganda = "hate speech" , and all those who just espoused some communist ideals would have been imprisoned. Thanks. You made a excellent point.... for the other side.

  #382  
Old 11-05-2019, 02:52 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm not going to rehash all the arguments for hate speech laws that have been ongoing in this thread for 8 pages now other than to re-iterate that there's a damn good reason that virtually all of the world's freest democracies have enacted laws against hate speech.
Argument from popularity is a poor argument. Lots of countries, including many of the freest ones, have had similarly flawed laws on any number of topics; there are people alive today who can remember when laws against homosexuality were considered as infallibly decent as laws against hate speech ever have been.

We're here to discuss the pros and cons of that sort of thing.

MrDibble, in one sentence a few posts ago, provided a better argument in favor of hate speech laws than any previous poster in the thread did in whole paragraphs, and without any of the irritating righteous indignation that so often accompanies arguments on this topic.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #383  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
... MrDibble, in one sentence a few posts ago, provided a better argument in favor of hate speech laws than any previous poster in the thread did in whole paragraphs, and without any of the irritating righteous indignation that so often accompanies arguments on this topic.
In post #372, DSeid gave a series of examples of hate speech law violations that were not "advocating or threatening violence": BDS activism, "Get Lost Jerk", "wounding religious feelings", etc.
  #384  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:32 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Possibly, depending on the circumstances, but it's already been established that this is not always the case. Another ruling that I personally found disturbing was R.A.V. v City of St. Paul where burning a cross on the lawn of a black family was considered just peachy-fine "protected speech". And the existence of hate speech laws not only catches incentivations of hate that may easily fall through the cracks of other laws, but, as in the case of designated "hate crimes", it may elevate the severity of the crime and how it's investigated and punished beyond what it would be if done without targeted hateful intent.

I'm not going to rehash all the arguments for hate speech laws that have been ongoing in this thread for 8 pages now other than to re-iterate that there's a damn good reason that virtually all of the world's freest democracies have enacted laws against hate speech. That the US is a rare outlier in this respect, not to mention how stridently many here defend that anomaly, is an interesting aspect of American culture mostly, I think, reflecting an aversion to and distrust of government in general.
That wasn't part of the holding in R.A.V.. You've been repeating this nonsense on this board for years and you were completely wrong then and you are completely wrong now. The statute in question was struck down on the basis of "Overbreadth" because it conceivably criminalized protected speech as well as unprotected speech and because the statute engaged in viewpoint/content discrimination. At no point did the unanimous Court view the act in question as "protected speech." In fact, the Court as part of its Strict Scrutiny analysis determined that St. Paul could have easily criminalized the behavior with a less broadly worded statute (since under SS the law must promote the compelling interest in the least restrictive/most narrowly tailored manner possible).

So given that you completely and repeatedly misunderstand an important 1st Amendment precedent and apparently don't understand the contextual jurisprudence that goes along with it, maybe you just don't know enough about the topic to make informed criticisms about US Free Speech Law.
  #385  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:34 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
The current interpretation is that the individual must be specifically named for them to have any standing in regards to defamation, that no reasonable person will believe a slanderous statement about a group will apply to all members of that group, and that group defamation doesn't have a tendency to cause personal harm. That's the long and the short of it.
A bit of a nit-pick here, though your other points are spot-on. At least in some jurisdictions, an individual need not be specifically named in an action for defamation if their identity as the subject of the alleged defamation can be reasonably deduced by a third party.

But I think one important element of defamation (libel/slander) and fraud, both generally as an exception to Free Speech laws and specifically when contrasted with hate speech laws, has been glossed over as far as I have seen. The important distinction is that both defamation and fraud require a false statement of fact. Statements of pure opinion (and possibly those which are somewhere in the middle) are not actionable as defamation. In fraud, the false statement of fact must be material and the aggrieved party must show that the false fact was relied upon to their detriment. These elements serve to make defamation and fraud very narrow exceptions to Free Speech and confine them to false statements on subjects that are necessarily falsifiable. In contrast, hate speech laws would almost certainly cover slurs, epithets, etc. which are fundamentally opinions or even ostensible statements of non-falsifiable "fact."

And with defamation you also have the added elements that it must be "published" to a third party and must cause damage to reputation. This of course means that even false statements of fact are not actionable as defamation if they fail to meet these additional elements. Lastly, actions for defamation are even further narrowed when the subject of the alleged defamation is a public figure or if the topic is "a matter of public concern." In these cases, the desire for a political environment where criticisms of public figures and dialogues on important issues are not unduly inhibited means that a higher standard of culpability must be met (for example, "actual malice").
  #386  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:30 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
What I will say here is that the formulation of hate speech laws in different countries naturally follow the contours of those countries' political culture and approach to civil liberties. It's not a monolithic thing. ...
Yes. Each country is different, including the United States.

What are the contours of the United States political culture and approach to civil liberties?

Well first, yes placing more inside the fence of protected speech with a higher fence than many other countries.

A longer history of greater religious, racial, and ethnic diversity than most other countries, many of whom are only relatively recently dealing with significant diversity all being part of the same culture, and most frankly not doing it so well IMHO.

Historical experience with the fence being not as wide and high that almost always resulted in squelching of dissent by those in power (again see Schenck).

Recent efforts to create laws which put more speech outside of the protection fence by elements of the Right.

These are our contours.

Quote:
... There's a debate to be had about which is the more fundamental, but my own belief is that peace and social order, including an equitable and just society, is the fundamental purpose of government. Government only has a duty to minimize the infringement of personal freedoms as little as possible consistent with those goals. ...
I personally have a strong other belief: personal freedoms are to me on equal or even greater footing with social order. Overlapping footing even. I would argue that substantial infringement of personal freedoms is antithetical being an equitable and just society.


Let's be clear: In the United States we are not really talking about a hate speech law.

First off speech "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is already not inside the fence of protection, and speech in a workplace that infringed on equality, speech which made for a hostile work environment was discrimination, and not within the fence of protection.

Pass a law, however crafted, that hits neither of those bars and the issue is SCOTUS and the Constitution. Changing the nature of the fence beyond that is not just a law; it is a change in the interpretation of the Constitution by SCOTUS or a new amendment narrowing and lowering the fence.
  #387  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:41 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Argument from popularity is a poor argument. Lots of countries, including many of the freest ones, have had similarly flawed laws on any number of topics; there are people alive today who can remember when laws against homosexuality were considered as infallibly decent as laws against hate speech ever have been.
My answer to both of those arguments is the same: evidence-based judgments of the results of such laws is an objective process and is entirely different from "argument from popularity".

Of course in order to be objective, one needs objective criteria with which to evaluate the resultant society and its values. Laws against homosexuality might be judged to be beneficial if one could make a case that they prevented something that was socially destructive, but this is not a case that can rationally be made, and conversely there is a strong case that such laws are an egregious infringement of civil rights. But laws against hate speech further the goals of a peaceful, ordered and just society while having little or no impact on meaningful freedoms, and indeed frequently correlate with (if not necessarily causing) greater freedoms and a more robust democracy than found in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
That wasn't part of the holding in R.A.V.. You've been repeating this nonsense on this board for years and you were completely wrong then and you are completely wrong now. The statute in question was struck down on the basis of "Overbreadth" because it conceivably criminalized protected speech as well as unprotected speech and because the statute engaged in viewpoint/content discrimination. At no point did the unanimous Court view the act in question as "protected speech." In fact, the Court as part of its Strict Scrutiny analysis determined that St. Paul could have easily criminalized the behavior with a less broadly worded statute (since under SS the law must promote the compelling interest in the least restrictive/most narrowly tailored manner possible).

So given that you completely and repeatedly misunderstand an important 1st Amendment precedent and apparently don't understand the contextual jurisprudence that goes along with it, maybe you just don't know enough about the topic to make informed criticisms about US Free Speech Law.
I'm well aware of the text of the ruling, thanks very much. But any ruling centering on the First Amendment self-evidently comes down to the question of whether the words or actions constitute protected speech, or conversely, whether a particular prohibition on those words or actions is constitutional given the protections of the First Amendment. Any argument to the contrary is an oxymoron. Moreover, the State Supreme Court had earlier upheld the St. Paul ordinance on the grounds that it prohibited only "a category of expression unprotected by the First Amendment"; by reversing, the federal Supreme Court was implicitly and effectively declaring the opposite. This was duly noted here: "On June 22, 1992, the Supreme Court decided R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, holding that burning crosses inside the fenced yard of a black family living across the street is protected speech."

Which wasn't even my central point anyway; my main point as clearly stated was that I found the implications of the ruling disturbing. You may disagree, but disagreement with my opinion and my observations about the injustices and the bigotry and violence that such rulings facilitate has absolutely nothing to do with what I understand or don't understand about the principles of free speech in the US.

Nor am I alone in this view:
... prohibition of cross burning in St. Paul was not simply an infringement of the expression of a politically debatable idea. Rather, the prohibition of cross burning, in this case, was a protection against the infringement of the civil rights of all citizens, by protecting public safety and order. In Cox v. New Hampshire, the Court held that, "civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained abuses."

When Robert Viktora and his friends constructed and burned a cross on the front lawn of a Black family that lived across the street, they were clearly breaching any public order and peace that may have existed. The burning of the cross exemplified the abusive level to which racially motivated hate speech may rise and the dangers of physical destruction which accompany such speech ... Like the centuries of lynchings of Black men, women, and children, and the decades of burning Black churches across the country, Robert Viktora's burning cross was a profound expression of malevolence, one which has often stood as a promise of doom to millions of African-Americans.
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06...rchburn01c.htm
  #388  
Old 11-06-2019, 11:51 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In post #372, DSeid gave a series of examples of hate speech law violations that were not "advocating or threatening violence": BDS activism, "Get Lost Jerk", "wounding religious feelings", etc.
The "get lost jerk" thing wasn't a hate speech law. It was a 100+ year old law about insulting the head of state. And as far as "wounded religious feelings", I doubt many here are advocating for a Singapore style justice system.
  #389  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:16 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
...
I'm well aware of the text of the ruling, thanks very much. But any ruling centering on the First Amendment self-evidently comes down to the question of whether the words or actions constitute protected speech, or conversely, whether a particular prohibition on those words or actions is constitutional given the protections of the First Amendment. ...

.... ...
[/INDENT]
No, you are wrong and DirkHardly is right.
you said "Another ruling that I personally found disturbing was R.A.V. v City of St. Paul where burning a cross on the lawn of a black family was considered just peachy-fine "protected speech".

SCOTUS ruled nothing of the sort. Note that RAV was charged with two counts, one of which a violation of the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance. That ordinance was struck down as being over-broad.

However, SCOTUS noted several times during it's decision that the conduct at issue could have been prosecuted under different Minnesota statutes. In other words, the cross burning here was & is illegal. It is just that that ordinance was Unconstitutional. No Judge- at any time- said that the conduct was "peachy-fine", in fact the opposite. wiki "The Court concluded, "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."

In fact later "In Virginia v. Black (2003), the United States Supreme Court deemed constitutional part of a Virginia statute outlawing the public burning of a cross if done with an intent to intimidate, noting that such expression "has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence.
  #390  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:07 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm well aware of the text of the ruling, thanks very much. But any ruling centering on the First Amendment self-evidently comes down to the question of whether the words or actions constitute protected speech, or conversely, whether a particular prohibition on those words or actions is constitutional given the protections of the First Amendment. Any argument to the contrary is an oxymoron. Moreover, the State Supreme Court had earlier upheld the St. Paul ordinance on the grounds that it prohibited only "a category of expression unprotected by the First Amendment"; by reversing, the federal Supreme Court was implicitly and effectively declaring the opposite. This was duly noted here: "On June 22, 1992, the Supreme Court decided R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, holding that burning crosses inside the fenced yard of a black family living across the street is protected speech."

Which wasn't even my central point anyway; my main point as clearly stated was that I found the implications of the ruling disturbing. You may disagree, but disagreement with my opinion and my observations about the injustices and the bigotry and violence that such rulings facilitate has absolutely nothing to do with what I understand or don't understand about the principles of free speech in the US.

Nor am I alone in this view:
... prohibition of cross burning in St. Paul was not simply an infringement of the expression of a politically debatable idea. Rather, the prohibition of cross burning, in this case, was a protection against the infringement of the civil rights of all citizens, by protecting public safety and order. In Cox v. New Hampshire, the Court held that, "civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained abuses."

When Robert Viktora and his friends constructed and burned a cross on the front lawn of a Black family that lived across the street, they were clearly breaching any public order and peace that may have existed. The burning of the cross exemplified the abusive level to which racially motivated hate speech may rise and the dangers of physical destruction which accompany such speech ... Like the centuries of lynchings of Black men, women, and children, and the decades of burning Black churches across the country, Robert Viktora's burning cross was a profound expression of malevolence, one which has often stood as a promise of doom to millions of African-Americans.
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06...rchburn01c.htm
Not sure how you reconcile any meaningful interpretation of you "being well aware of the text of the ruling" with you getting an important part of the ruling 100% wrong. See that would actually be a better example of something oxymoronic than what you cite in your post. So given that you believe that the cross-burning was deemed protected speech by the Court on what grounds do you believe that the law was ultimately struck down? It would be an unusual scenario where the speech in question was found to be protected under the 1st Amendment but the law was nevertheless ruled unconstitutional. Not impossible, but certainly unusual.

And regardless of your answer to the above question, how do you reconcile your belief that the Court found the speech to be Constitutionally protected when the Court stated the following in its decision:

Although this conduct could have been punished
under any of a number of laws, (Footnote 1)...

(1)The conduct might have violated Minnesota
statutes carrying significant penalties. See, e.g.,
Minn.Stat. § 609.713(1) (1987) (providing for up
to five years in prison for terroristic threats); §
609.563 (arson) (providing for up to five years
and a $10,000 fine, depending on the value of
the property intended to be damaged); §
609.595 (Supp.1992) (criminal damage to
property) (providing for up to one year and a
$3,000 fine, depending upon the extent of the
damage to the property). 505 US 377, 380-81.

And:

The dispositive question in this case, therefore,
is whether content discrimination is reasonably
necessary to achieve St. Paul's compelling
interests; it plainly is not. An ordinance not
limited to the favored topics, for example, would
have precisely the same beneficial effect. Ibid at
396-97.

So how can the Court possibly find the cross-burning is protected speech while contemplating the conduct being prosecuted under other laws or under the law in question if it had been viewpoint/content neutral? Those two positions are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Perhaps even oxymoronic, if you will. Protected speech is just that, by definition, and not subject to prosecution of any kind.

In addition to apparently not understanding what "protected speech" is, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Free Speech and Constitutional cases in general are decided by the courts. The nature of the law in question and the conduct in question are not distinctly separate issues but are generally (except see below) two components of one overall issue. So there is no "conversely" relationship between them. Instead courts generally consider the conduct and how the law is applied to that conduct. If the conduct is Constitutionally protected then the law is definitively unconstitutional, whether generally or as applied. But conduct that is Constitutionally protected under one set of circumstances may not be under another, in this case under a differently worded law. So because of this interaction you generally cannot address either in isolation except as explained below.

Before I get to that important and extremely relevant exception, you might be thinking that what I outlined above is what occurred in R.A.V.. Namely that the Court found that burning a cross, on someone else's property no less, was protected speech under some circumstances but not others. But that would be wrong as well.

This is because that the exception to the above generalization of Constitutional challenges is the Facial Challenge. And you and the authors of your "cites" seem to fail to grasp the significance of this in your faulty analysis of R.A.V.. A Facial Challenge challenges a law as unconstitutional on, well, its face. Thus, it is the exception where the conduct that underlies the claim is largely irrelevant because the law is inherently Constitutionally flawed regardless of its application. So in R.A.V. the Court had no need to decide whether the conduct was protected speech since the law was unconstitutional on its face. So they didn't. And as evidenced by their reasoning, including what was quoted above, they didn't even contemplate doing so. You and the authors of your "cites" just completely misunderstand the Court's decision and its reasoning and mistakenly leap to the conclusion that the Court has deemed such conduct Constitutionally protected.

Speaking of which, your "cites" are garbage. You found two out of the maybe million+ people in the US who have J.D.s that agree with you on what are essentially blogs. I defy you to find an actual legal cite such as a law journal article, a legal textbook, a treatise, a hornbook or whatever that reconciles your position with the clear language of the Court.

So you found the ruling and its implications disturbing. Except the ruling isn't what you think it is, thus the logical implications aren't what you think they are either, and your conclusions based on your wrong information are suspect at best. I mean, sure, someone could read the decision, misread it as you have, and in their case go burn a cross on someone's lawn thinking that it is protected speech. But I hardly think that's the Court's fault and existing laws will handle such instances appropriately (or if they don't that's similarly not the fault of the Court).
  #391  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:57 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm not going to rehash all the arguments for hate speech laws that have been ongoing in this thread for 8 pages now other than to re-iterate that there's a damn good reason that virtually all of the world's freest democracies have enacted laws against hate speech.
Of course there may be a reason, but I have yet to see it. The mere fact that other countries you consider "the world's freest democracies" have enacted laws against hate speech, does not imply that the U.S. should.

I personally define hate speech as speech that could be reasonably expected to deny or incite people to deny the target some natural right. I hesitate to endorse the censorship of (punishment for) hate speech in any public or quasi-public forum unless that speech has the immediate effect of inciting violence, or if such speech is a specific and malicious libel.

Instead I assume that free and open debate will soundly refute the positions of hate in the minds of reasonable men and women. If it cannot, or if the majority of people are unreasonable, perhaps I ought to live with the hatred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
That the US is a rare outlier in this respect, not to mention how stridently many here defend that anomaly, is an interesting aspect of American culture mostly, I think, reflecting an aversion to and distrust of government in general.
I'm not generally a fan of U.S. exceptionalism but the U.S. is certainly exceptional in our construction of freedom of speech. Who else goes so far as to boast, in the highest court of the land, how 'we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate"'?

~Max
  #392  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:12 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Not sure how you reconcile any meaningful interpretation of you "being well aware of the text of the ruling" with you getting an important part of the ruling 100% wrong. See that would actually be a better example of something oxymoronic than what you cite in your post. So given that you believe that the cross-burning was deemed protected speech by the Court on what grounds do you believe that the law was ultimately struck down? It would be an unusual scenario where the speech in question was found to be protected under the 1st Amendment but the law was nevertheless ruled unconstitutional. Not impossible, but certainly unusual.

And regardless of your answer to the above question, how do you reconcile your belief that the Court found the speech to be Constitutionally protected when the Court stated the following in its decision:

Although this conduct could have been punished
under any of a number of laws, (Footnote 1)...

(1)The conduct might have violated Minnesota
statutes carrying significant penalties. See, e.g.,
Minn.Stat. § 609.713(1) (1987) (providing for up
to five years in prison for terroristic threats); §
609.563 (arson) (providing for up to five years
and a $10,000 fine, depending on the value of
the property intended to be damaged); §
609.595 (Supp.1992) (criminal damage to
property) (providing for up to one year and a
$3,000 fine, depending upon the extent of the
damage to the property). 505 US 377, 380-81.

And:

The dispositive question in this case, therefore,
is whether content discrimination is reasonably
necessary to achieve St. Paul's compelling
interests; it plainly is not. An ordinance not
limited to the favored topics, for example, would
have precisely the same beneficial effect. Ibid at
396-97.

So how can the Court possibly find the cross-burning is protected speech while contemplating the conduct being prosecuted under other laws or under the law in question if it had been viewpoint/content neutral? Those two positions are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Perhaps even oxymoronic, if you will. Protected speech is just that, by definition, and not subject to prosecution of any kind.

In addition to apparently not understanding what "protected speech" is, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Free Speech and Constitutional cases in general are decided by the courts. The nature of the law in question and the conduct in question are not distinctly separate issues but are generally (except see below) two components of one overall issue. So there is no "conversely" relationship between them. Instead courts generally consider the conduct and how the law is applied to that conduct. If the conduct is Constitutionally protected then the law is definitively unconstitutional, whether generally or as applied. But conduct that is Constitutionally protected under one set of circumstances may not be under another, in this case under a differently worded law. So because of this interaction you generally cannot address either in isolation except as explained below.

Before I get to that important and extremely relevant exception, you might be thinking that what I outlined above is what occurred in R.A.V.. Namely that the Court found that burning a cross, on someone else's property no less, was protected speech under some circumstances but not others. But that would be wrong as well.

This is because that the exception to the above generalization of Constitutional challenges is the Facial Challenge. And you and the authors of your "cites" seem to fail to grasp the significance of this in your faulty analysis of R.A.V.. A Facial Challenge challenges a law as unconstitutional on, well, its face. Thus, it is the exception where the conduct that underlies the claim is largely irrelevant because the law is inherently Constitutionally flawed regardless of its application. So in R.A.V. the Court had no need to decide whether the conduct was protected speech since the law was unconstitutional on its face. So they didn't. And as evidenced by their reasoning, including what was quoted above, they didn't even contemplate doing so. You and the authors of your "cites" just completely misunderstand the Court's decision and its reasoning and mistakenly leap to the conclusion that the Court has deemed such conduct Constitutionally protected.

Speaking of which, your "cites" are garbage. You found two out of the maybe million+ people in the US who have J.D.s that agree with you on what are essentially blogs. I defy you to find an actual legal cite such as a law journal article, a legal textbook, a treatise, a hornbook or whatever that reconciles your position with the clear language of the Court.

So you found the ruling and its implications disturbing. Except the ruling isn't what you think it is, thus the logical implications aren't what you think they are either, and your conclusions based on your wrong information are suspect at best. I mean, sure, someone could read the decision, misread it as you have, and in their case go burn a cross on someone's lawn thinking that it is protected speech. But I hardly think that's the Court's fault and existing laws will handle such instances appropriately (or if they don't that's similarly not the fault of the Court).
I agree with you, but for the casual reader I want to summarize. The Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance was so broad that it was unconstitutional, and thus overturned a kid's conviction under that ordinance. Yes, the kid burned a cross in front of a church. No, the court did not decide whether burning a cross in front of a church is protected speech under the First Amendment. They only ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face, and stopped there.

~Max
  #393  
Old 11-06-2019, 09:20 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I agree with you, but for the casual reader I want to summarize. The Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance was so broad that it was unconstitutional, and thus overturned a kid's conviction under that ordinance. Yes, the kid burned a cross in front of a church. No, the court did not decide whether burning a cross in front of a church is protected speech under the First Amendment. They only ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face, and stopped there.

~Max
I would only add that not only did the Court not find the cross-burning to be protected speech but, while not explicitly saying so, actually implied in no uncertain terms that it was in fact unprotected. By contemplating criminal charges under other laws and by finding that the conduct could have been reached under a version of the law absent the Constitutional flaws, it follows logically that the Court saw no Constitutional barriers to criminal prosecution under either scenario.
  #394  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:03 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,956
started a GQ thread on Canada's hate laws; open for questions, provided it's factual, not a debate.

Factual Discussion about Canada’s Hate Speech Laws
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #395  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:16 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Where do you stand on hate speech which is not incitement? Do you feel there should be laws against it? Or should hate speech only be illegal when it crosses the line into incitement?
I see no social value whatever in people stating, as a matter of public policy, that other people should be killed based on their personal characteristics. A law preventing that is acceptable.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #396  
Old 11-09-2019, 01:20 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I see no social value whatever in people stating, as a matter of public policy, that other people should be killed based on their personal characteristics. A law preventing that is acceptable.
Would wanting to bomb the ISIS or the cartels be considered hate speech? How about advocating a blockade on a country we are at war with?
  #397  
Old 11-09-2019, 03:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I see no social value whatever in people stating, as a matter of public policy, that other people should be killed based on their personal characteristics. A law preventing that is acceptable.
So the "Kill the nazis' meme going around shoudl be a crime?
  #398  
Old 11-09-2019, 04:01 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Oh yeah, because ISIS and Nazis are protected classes. Everyone knows that you can’t fire someone for being a Nazi. That’s discrimination.
  #399  
Old 11-10-2019, 10:44 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Some people have a weird idea of what constitutes a "personal characteristic"

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-10-2019 at 10:45 AM.
  #400  
Old 11-10-2019, 11:04 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
"You won't let people who want nothing but to kill you and everyone looks like you openly speak their truth. So much for the tolerant Left !"
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017