Sure it is. We recognize new torts all the time.
Not true; not all speech is constitutionally protected. Thus, hate speech may not be constitutionally protected. It’s true that it is not its status as “hate speech” which leads to the loss of protection.
“If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
It’s a little disingenuous for Holmes to grandstand about the freedom of speech like that when he upheld criminal speech laws earlier the same year.
True enough. Ken White’s commentary on that passage was a dry, “Oh, NOW you tell us.”
In the Charlie Hebdo example I cant imagine that it wouldnt be protected speech, at the highest level. Its a journalistic publication. Isnt the Hustler case relevant here too?
Well, the Hebdo example doesn’t fall under US law. I suspect one or two of their Muslim pieces might have been libelous to Muslims (rather than Muhammad, who can’t be slandered) but it’s very difficult to prove “group defamation.”
The Hustler case isn’t exactly relevant; it was decided on the grounds that it was so obviously satire that it could not be defamatory . If, say, TIME had printed a piece that made the same accusations about Falwell as the Hustler cartoon (and presented it as fact) the case would probably have gone the other way.
You responded to a post that said “Maybe you can define ‘hate’ …” with “Listen to Glenn Beck for ten minutes” - which appears to directly contradict the above.
I posted nothing that in any way characterized Glenn Beck, or anything he has said. Shagnasty has it exactly right: whether or not I think Beck is hateful is irrelevant, since I believe ‘hatefulness’ should have no bearing on whether speech is legal or not.
Raises the thorny issue: who gets to decide what’s true, and what’s harmful?
Well, the Food and Drug Administration, for one.
They have continued to do so. So I guess not.
Not in the foreseeable future.
In all likelihood the impact of such laws would be immeasurably tiny. Depends on the laws, but to use the example of Canada, the laws are almost never used, are extremely difficult to use by design, and have had basically no noticeable effect on political discourse.
The court system.
I didn’t ask what impact you thought it might have. I asked if you agree with such laws. Do you agree with the criminalization of hate speech?
No, that is not what you asked. You asked if “it would be a positive thing.” My answer could not be more clear; it will make no significant difference at all, positive or otherwise.
Then I’ll rephrase. Do you think hate speech should be criminalized?
I know this wasn’t directed at me but the answer is of course not. The U.S. already has a severe problem with giving criminal penalties and lengthy prison sentences for fairly minor but truly criminal offenses. Many people are trying to reverse that trend now. Does anyone really want to expand criminal prosecutions to include simple speech no matter how you view it personally (I am ignoring the blatantly obvious 1st amendment violations in favor of more utilitarian concerns with this answer)?
I swear this whole thread and line of questioning baffles me because it defies rational thought. It is like the far Left and far Right either switched sides or somehow became an incestuous amalgam. I can’t tell anymore. Where are people getting these lines of questions from? They aren’t based on any lines of legal reality or practicality.
Free speech is bad because so many people are hateful.
Democracy is bad because so many people are stupid.
Perhaps there’s a stronger case for abolishing democracy, because we can develop somewhat objective tests for stupidity.
In defense of democracy, stupid people tend to be distributed roughly equally across ideological classes, and so, in most elections, cancel each other out.
How does a court of law decide truth? Does something become true, or false, if a judge declares it to be? If a sufficient majority of jurors vote that it is? Will a government Ministry of Truth be needed to decide such things?
Further, you can’t call it free speech if a person is subject to being hauled into court to have it adjudicated whether what he said was truthful and/or harmless. Only a few such trials - pretty much regardless of their outcome - will convince a great many citizens that the sensible course is to carefully keep their speech “under the radar”.
I, for one, hope they confine their attentions to food and drugs, while resisting the temptation to make decisions relating to free speech.
So, if a drug company manufactures a sugar pill, and markets it as a cure for cancer, should the FDA have a role in making decisions relating to their free speech or not?