- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 160,900
- Reaction score
- 57,844
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Combining is not comparing. :roll:
You still don't see the stupidity of the comparison?
The constitutionality of laws regulating "hate speech" is not nearly as simple as some people here seem to think. In 1942, the Supreme Court held in Chaplinsky that "fighting words"--words "which by their very utterance inflict injury"--are not protected by the First Amendment. But in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell in 1988, the Court reversed an award of money damages to Jerry Falwell for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claimed source of this distress was a parody Hustler had published which claimed Falwell had lost his virginity to his mother while drunk in an outhouse. The Court distinguished this sort of bare-knuckle character assassination from the fighting words in Chaplinsky.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul in 1992, the Court held unconstitutional a city ordinance under which a teenager had been punished for burning a cross in the yard of a black family. Justice Scalia's reasoning was that the ordinance criminalized hurtful speech aimed at racial or religious minorities, while allowing the same sort of speech if aimed at other unprotected groups. The opinion makes clear that some fighting words are not outside the protection of the First Amendment.
In 1993, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Court upheld a statute that imposed longer sentences for assaults that were motivated by the victim's race. The reasoning was that the statute mostly targeted conduct, rather than speech.
There have been a few more cases since then that I don't have time to get into right now, but just the ones I've mentioned should make clear this issue can't be reduced to some simplistic formula.
I wouldn't call slander/ libel the same thing as so called "hate speech."
The line for me is when hate speech crosses over into incitement to violence. I have a major issue with allowing that.
He's not American but Anjem Choudary springs to mind here. I support his incarceration.
Nor would I. Nor has the Supreme Court. The cases I cited all involved hate speech and/or fighting words.
I disagree. State of mind is an aggravating factor when committing crimes.
If someone kills their wife for a large insurance payout, it's usually punished more severely than if he put a bullet in her head when catching her in bed with a neighbor. Same applies to hate. If a person kills someone or beats them up due to ideological idealism, it's punished more severely than if they did it because they were just having a bad day.
I believe inciting violence is not peacable. Such an act can even be considered seditious.
I disagree. State of mind is an aggravating factor when committing crimes.
If someone kills their wife for a large insurance payout, it's usually punished more severely than if he put a bullet in her head when catching her in bed with a neighbor. Same applies to hate. If a person kills someone or beats them up due to ideological idealism, it's punished more severely than if they did it because they were just having a bad day.
It seemed to regard slander which is a form of hatespeech.
Intent is already taken into account and does not need a separate charge.
Yes, that's really what I said but more direct.Defamatory speech has never been protected by the First Amendment.
Yes, that's really what I said but more direct.
The problem with the First Amendment arises when people--many of whom, ironically, claim to be "liberal"--try to use government to suppress views they personally dislike.
Intent due to ideological motivation does.
Ideological motivation?
Does this mean that some ideology is approved while others might not be?
In my mind, no. Any crime that is ideologically motivated is ever so slightly more egregious than one simply committed by rage or greed.
Not in my opinion. I can kill someone and get out in less than 10 years, if I play my cards right. That's not exactly "a very tough top level murder law."
Maybe in what ever blue **** hooey you live in but if you commit premeditated cold-blooded murder in Texas you're getting the death penalty.
If someone is stupid enough to make it look premeditated, sure. But, that's not "playing your cards right" like I described. THere are ways to kill someone and make it look spontaneous, even if you thought about it for years.
Yes racist murders are well known for thier high IQs.....
I believe inciting violence is not peacable. Such an act can even be considered seditious.
Except for violent fiction and movies and songs -- they are legal.
If someone is stupid enough to make it look premeditated, sure. But, that's not "playing your cards right" like I described. THere are ways to kill someone and make it look spontaneous, even if you thought about it for years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?