Whether this is political speech or not does not change the fact A.) we are talking about expressive speech, B.) expressive speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution, and C.) hate speech is also protected, even when it is expressive conduct.
So, even assuming, arguendo, this is hate speech, as opposed to political speech, this distinction alone by itself is of no importance, a point Bricker made previously.
It looked to me like some of the other posters had twisted it a bit, since the OP did not explicitly state that the government cannot use others’ reactions as a rationale to squelch speech. I meant it as a clarifying note, that is all. 
And yet it is n illegal act in many, if not most, places. How can your assertion possibly be true, except perhaps as a wish?
Please.
IANAL, etc – just reading this with interest – isn’t part of the “hate speech” concept that inciting to violence is required?
What? Where in the US is hate speech illegal? (If you’re talking about other countries, you may be right, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to this thread).
When the Supreme Court invalidates state statutes, it doesn’t automatically lead to repeal of those statutes. And, indeed, prosecutors don’t always get the federal memo. What you need to find, to show that hate speech can be criminally prosecuted, is prosecutions that survived appeal.
In this particular case of attempted quran-burning, I believe it qualifies as an act of hate:
“What’s next for Repent? They’ve posted a “Warfare Map” on the group’s Web site…Also on the list are the 806 coffeehouse (a hangout for artists and counterculture types), the Islamic Center of Amarillo (“Allah is a false god”), and “compromised churches” like Polk Street Methodist (gay-friendly).”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/repent-amarillo
Please note-I worry about hate speech laws vs free speech.
All the time. I’ve frequently said that the SDMB is full of ideas and opinions that I’ve never actually heard anyone seriously espouse IRL, but I’ve long since learned that saying “Whoa now, that’s not right!” when someone starts blathering nuttery is a one-way ticket to a flame-tastic pile-on.
On a topic slightly more germane to the OP, when I was in Malaysia there was a brouhaha surrounding a blogger making disrespectful remarks about one of the Sultans who had recently died. It got political very quickly (as such things are wont to do, especially in that part of the world), and one of the things that happened was a public discussion of the roles of blogging and free speech etc in modern Malaysia.
Anyway, one of the politicians or Ministers For Somethingorother went on record as saying that the problem was caused by “[People] abusing their right of Free Speech”
Now, to an American, that’s a patently absurd statement- but I (non-American) understood what he was talking about and where he was coming from. I didn’t necessarily agree with him, but I think his point was valid: Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should, and if the majority of people would prefer you did that something away from them, then I think they’re within their rights to (peacefully and legally) go about encouraging that course of action.
Never, for me. The only that stops me in mid-post is the realization that what I’m about to submit isn’t funny.
The sorting process is not a perfect one, admittedly.
Precisely correct. You can make a prima facie case by simply quoting a “hate speech” law that you believe was violated. But the response will be a court case invalidating that or similar laws. In response to THAT, you need to show a successul prosecution under that law.
I agree trespass is a viable option, but is disorderly conduct an option as well?
I think disorderly conduct in many situations would most likely be sufficient to remove the heckler.
I agree criminal sanctions laws cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, and haven’t. But state universities have hate speech codes which have, I believe, survived scrutiny. I think that’s a horrible precedent, by the way, but I am pretty damn certain, casting my mind back a few years, that it is true.
Now obviously the standard is somewhat different, but the underlying principles are the same.
Sure. I have no doubt that burning a Koran would be a violation of many university conduct and speech codes.
But surely in this discussion we’re not talking about univerisity codes, but the general public and the laws which govern the general public.
I think those codes have been justified when they are drafted in such a manner as to not prohibit the speech itself but the speech being used in a harassing manner.
It’s something that happens in both real life and on the internet. If you have a large enough and vocal enough grouping that is very pro or anti some point they can hold sway fairly easily because they can all pile in to support their viewpoint and observers know that if they jump in for what they believe is correct they will be attacked and ridiculed.
It’s a good reason why people saying to someone: “No one agrees with you” on an internet forum is an example of some very dodgy logic. A sort of reverse Argumentum ad populum. It may be that a few people are incandescent with rage over some position you are supporting but that does not mean that they are not all complete idiots.
In r/l their number needs to exceed some proportion of the total audience and both in r/l and on line the subject in question is relevant because the degree to which this phenomenon works depends on the strength of feeling of both the hecklers and the remainder of the audience.
People may stand by whilst a politician is heckled about some obscure economic point but they will become considerably more combative if he’s being heckled for supporting some important scheme beloved of the general populace.
You defined your OP as hypothetical. Hypothesize anything you like, but don’t then object when others pick other hypotheticals, or even the real world.
I’m an American, and I understand it just fine.
NotreDame05, how about you tell us the difference between burning a Koran and painting a swastika on a synagogue? Then tell us what happens to someone caught doing the latter, and why. Would that help clarify the question for us?
I’ll bite: the Koran probably belongs to the person burning it, the synagogue belongs to someone else.
OK, but what relevance does that have to the nature of the “speech”, which is what is under discussion?
So it’s already a crime to vandalise someone else’s property, even without laws against hate speech. It’s not our fault you picked a bad example.
A better analogy is burning a Koran vs. burning a flag. Funny how the people who rallied round the (heh) flag supporting flag burning are suddenly shocked, shocked when The Wrong Sort of White People burn other flammable stuff.