NationStates Jolt Archive

It has been debated for as long as I can remember on whether or not hate speech should be protected under the 1st ammendment in the United States.

There are two sides that I can see.

1. "Hateful" comments are just that, comments; speech. A person has every right to say whatever they want. If people don't like what they're saying...then just don't listen.

2. On the other hand, when does it go too far? Hitler's anti-semitism started out as just hate speech, then grew into genocide. When does hate speech infringe on a persons right to live as they wish? When does it become "clear and present danger"?

What do you guys think?

free speech is free speech

you cant claim to promote free speech and then stop people saying stuff that you dont like

Dammit! I pressed the wrong one...

It's free speech, no matter how fucking stupid it is.

Inciting harm against someone can be considered hate speech, for instance, there was a case awhile back at a basketball game where an angry fan started screaming "Kill the ref" and someone else threw something at the referee.

The screaming man was charged with inciting harm, even though it wasn't him that attacked the referee.

Should he have been charged with anything?


But by "hate speech" I assume you are talking about just general proclamations, whether they are anti-homosexual, anti-Jew, anti-black, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, whatever.

In that case, I tend to fall on the "freedom of speech means ALL speech" side.

Once you disallow hate speech what becomes hate gets put on a slider, and it's just as easy to ban speech that critiques the government, and that's what free speech is for. Can't do it.

Doesn't mean you can't use your free speech to call that person on what they are saying. It's something thats getting lost in the shuffle, complaining about the complainers as part of thier free speech. Just because you argue against something doesn't mean you are trying to ban it. It means you are arguing with that person against it. There is a difference and both are free speech.

I might not like it but must defend their right to say it. If you pass laws against it what is next, censorship?

We've already got Censorship. It's called the FCC.

I think somewhat as you guys do. I think that all speech should be protected, but there comes a point when hate speech will spawn hate crime.

At that point, I think everyone needs to be wary or the speaker.

Fred Phelps comes to mind doesn't he?

Exactly. The speech should be legal, but the things that go along with it (beatings, lynchings, mob rule) shouldn't.

free speech is free speech

you cant claim to promote free speech and then stop people saying stuff that you dont like


Yeah, I agree. It's a different quoestion should we allow free speech?
But if we want to make us feel good by allowing freedom of speech, we should really honor it. Otherwise we are just hypocricts (please spell this word for me)

The speech should be legal, provided that it is not falsely defamatory. There has to be a slander law, as well as protection of free speech.

I think somewhat as you guys do. I think that all speech should be protected, but there comes a point when hate speech will spawn hate crime.

At that point, I think everyone needs to be wary or the speaker.

Fred Phelps comes to mind doesn't he?
I'd love to hold people like Phelps responsable for the dumbass things he says, and it is clear what he's trying to incite. But the problem is, to a bunch of parents looking for a scapegoat it's also clear that The Insane Clown Posse told some kids to shoot up a school, or that video games told kids to steal cars. Its that sliding bar again. What is inciting? What is just speech-it seems clear when you use models like Phelps, but less clear down the line. We already determined that a similar standard, what is obscene (I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it) didn't work (The Bicycle Thief couldn't be shown because a kid peed on a wall, Howl by Allen Ginsberg was blocked for being obscene.) It's too easy to abuse, and we have to punish people for actions and not words. It's the only way it will work.

Yeah, I agree. It's a different quoestion should we allow free speech?
But if we want to make us feel good by allowing freedom of speech, we should really honor it. Otherwise we are just hypocricts (please spell this word for me)
hypocrites :)

(i think)

Yes: everyone has the freedom of speech, even if what is said isn't ... let's say... nice...

The speech should be legal, provided that it is not falsely defamatory. There has to be a slander law, as well as protection of free speech.


Sounds reasonable to me.

I am disturbed by the concept of free speech laws. All speech, with the exception of the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" type is an inheirent right of our existence. No laws concerning speech should be made in the first place. It should simply be excepted that I can say what I want, when I want. My right to free speech is not something granted by a government, they cannot grant the right to something they have no right to control in the first place.

hypocrites :)

(i think)


Thanks :)

I think somewhat as you guys do. I think that all speech should be protected, but there comes a point when hate speech will spawn hate crime.

The same can be said of anything; words breed actions.

I have to agree with Nadkor on this one.

I am disturbed by the concept of free speech laws. All speech, with the exception of the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" type is an inheirent right of our existence. No laws concerning speech should be made in the first place. It should simply be excepted that I can say what I want, when I want. My right to free speech is not something granted by a government, they cannot grant the right to something they have no right to control in the first place.


I like the way you think. You're up for a Postie nomination!

The same can be said of anything; words breed actions.

I have to agree with Nadkor on this one.

Well...maybe it's just the liberal in me talking. When people stop bitching about obsenity in the media and violence in video games, I'll quit bitching about hate crime.

Free Speech actually doesn't encompass all speech.

You cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Even though it is speech, it is a crime.

You cannot threaten someone with bodily harm. Even though it is speech, it is a crime.

You cannot tell someone else to cause bodily harm to another person. Even though it is speech, it is a crime.

You cannot incite a riot. Even though it is speech, it is a crime.

The US Supreme Court put out a rather comprehensive list of the kinds of speech not protected by the First Amendment.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

I like the way you think. You're up for a Postie nomination!


eh? Postie nomination?

Free Speech actually doesn't encompass all speech.

You cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Even though it is speech, it is a crime.

You cannot threaten someone with bodily harm. Even though it is speech, it is a crime.

You cannot tell someone else to cause bodily harm to another person. Even though it is speech, it is a crime.

You cannot incite a riot. Even though it is speech, it is a crime.

The US Supreme Court put out a rather comprehensive list of the kinds of speech not protected by the First Amendment.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

All this is really just saying how free speech itself must be limited. All of those acts are protected under absolute free speech, but in those cases the right to free speech must be suspended because a more important right is being harmed.

Hate speech isn't covered by this, though. The fact is that hate speech is the only tactic the people with power have to keep it. Civil Rights is really a power struggle, and what we need to realize is that in a power struggle neither side is inherently right. Being oppressed doesn't guarantee you protection, it just gives you more ability to persuade people to give you protection.

Hate speech must be protected except in the case of Slander, Death Threats, or anything of a similar nature.

In a sense, I'm saying Alien Born is the one who has already posted my point.

Hate speech must be protected except in the case of Slander, Death Threats, or anything of a similar nature.

In a sense, I'm saying Alien Born is the one who has already posted my point.

Why stop death threats? I don't know about you, but I'd like to know if someone was planning to kill me beforehand.

Free speech was invented to protect that which nobody wants to hear! Also who determins "hate speech"?

If the only things that were allowed to be said were "nice things" then the civil right of free speech doesn't make much sense does it?

And if you want to ban racist remarks, then why not also ban remarks that insult a religion? I consider my faith MUCH more important than my race.

The Founders excluded "fighting words" from the speech protected from the First Amendment. I believe that fact could put a solid foundation under an argument that hate speech could be prohibited without any damage to our legitimate freedom. It would be good if we were as wise about distinguishing between freedom and license as our political forebeareres were. On the other hand, answering hate speech with the derision it deserves probably deters it more effectively that governmental prohibition could. After, laws really only speak effectively to reasonable, responsible people.

And if you want to ban racist remarks, then why not also ban remarks that insult a religion? I consider my faith MUCH more important than my race.

I imagine that would be included, if only for the Jews' sake.

As long as it doesn't incite violence I'm all for it. In those grey areas the courts can decide. Though the Constitution is pretty clear.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Notice that part?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Notice that part?

Well spoken.

free speech is free speech

you cant claim to promote free speech and then stop people saying stuff that you dont like

Here, here.

Another problem is defining hate speech. There are a lot of cases where people who don't support a given group's cause are automatically label as "hating" that cause. Gay rights, abotion rights, etc.

Who is going to define the line between vocally opposing a cause and hate speech?

As long as it doesn't incite violence I'm all for it. In those grey areas the courts can decide. Though the Constitution is pretty clear.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Notice that part?

This addressing your 1st line in your quote, "As long as it doesn't insite violence I'm all for it."

So what you're saying is, that freedom of speech should let oppressed individuals express themselves to promote a change, as long as there isn't any violence?

Isn't this how the American Revolution came about? Or the race marches in the 1960s. These events were allowed through freedom of speech or the oppression of it, and they turned violent by your reasoning they should not have happened.

Not everybody has the advantage of a government whose branches are separated like the U.S.'s and there by don't have the advantage of a court system like that in the U.S.

Dammit! I pressed the wrong one...

are you from florida by any chance?

Not if it is against a wgole people or religion..

Not something that can end up like the Holacost, even though with someone else beeing killed...

In the west now there seems to be like the things happening in germany are going to happen again, only on a little bit smaller scale, and not to jews but moslems......

Anyway nothing that is against a race or people, other then that i dont give a shit..

Like f.eks i should not be able to say I would like it if we killed all whites or made them slaves

The best thing I've noticed about freedom of speech in the US.

I've seen a lot of protests and protesters over the past few decades here in DC.

Allow people to protest and vent.

1. If what they're saying sounds stupid, people WILL be smart enough to ignore it.

2. Protesters who are stupid have a way of also doing stupid things.

3. After a while, no one even notices the stupid ones. And no one listens to a word they say.

By all means, let them speak.

It has been debated for as long as I can remember on whether or not hate speech should be protected under the 1st ammendment in the United States.

There are two sides that I can see.

1. "Hateful" comments are just that, comments; speech. A person has every right to say whatever they want. If people don't like what they're saying...then just don't listen.

2. On the other hand, when does it go too far? Hitler's anti-semitism started out as just hate speech, then grew into genocide. When does hate speech infringe on a persons right to live as they wish? When does it become "clear and present danger"?

What do you guys think?
all speech should be protected. freedom of speech is worthless if we allow the majority to pick and choose what gets to be free.

all speech should be protected. freedom of speech is worthless if we allow the majority to pick and choose what gets to be free.
well said. if you think about it, everyone HATES SOMETHING. what is hate speech? will it include my hatred of crickets? my hatred of printed fabric? i really hate those things.
one thing about living in the us i can say is.... we often reverse our views, values, laws, and liberties to fit circumstances. i can see where, at times, this is neccesary. however, the first amendment is most likely the most oft quoted freedom that we have. and to lessen it, or any other other constitutional freedom that we have, is a grave mistake.

having said that, i think freedom of speech is not taken to heart. i have seen people attack, heartlessly, the white supremacists and their affiliates on this very forum. the thread thatwhere i had asked for their views, laid out, was not answered in full by any of them. i had countless tgs from "nazis" on nation states offering to chat with me, or trade emails, but they would not allow themselves to be attacked and threatened any more on the general forum. after perusing some old threads, i found that to be very very true. seeing as i am a person who is the direct target of most hate speech in this country,it would be very easy for me to take that path, and harrass those guys in the interest of protecting myself. however,i consider myself to be an American through and through, and will continue to defend their rights.

sooooory for the long post.

The freedom of speech should only extend as far as it does not infringe on any other, more important rights.

maybe the idea of the free speace is good, but it don't work for any countrey.
maybe with long tradition of democracy like europe and USA it work fine. maybe you don't have problem with the stupidity of other persons. in israel that different.
here any stupid comment would be heard by stupid listener. the words bring instigation and threats, and increase the hate. the instigation bring hateful acts, and the threats become real.
before 9 years itzhack rabin have been called traitors. pictures of him as terrorists and SS general was in the hands of protests. caricatures show him wash his hands with jewish blood, and some protests walked with coffin and gallows near his house. it end when he murdered by radical right winger in the 4th of november 1995.
now the same people called the prime-minister and his supporters nazis. they threat they use power against the soldiers that obey to the prime-minister. they plan to bomb the mountain of temple or kidnaped foreign ambassador. this is explsive barrel, but the judges let them be free because of "the right for free speach". do you think it right?

YOu have the right to be and proclaim your ignorance to the world. As long as it
is not encouraging people to attack or harm another group of people in a particulary harmful manner. That is all!

Hate speech, without the intent to cause harm should be protected. Saying, "Go out and lynch all them there negroes" is incitement. Saying, "I hate all them there negroes" is hate speech.

That being said, the freedom to NOT have to listen to such speech is important to me to. That means, I can change the radio station, or the tv channel and not listen to it. That means I can throw out hateful pamphlets stuffed in my mailbox. It means I don't go to cross burnings. I can't think of any instance where I would be FORCED to be exposed to hate speech, except in public, and in that case, I could leave the vicinity.

Banning hate speech doesn't solve anything. It doesn't protect anyone. Making actions that are hateful have consequences...that is different.

I guess that freedom to NOT be exposed to hate speech doesn't exist everywhere though...which is why such things should never be spouted by the government or made into official policies (ie. Official government position: All muslims are evil terrorists and under suspicion OR all whites are evil and under suspicion).

Hate speech, without the intent to cause harm should be protected. Saying, "Go out and lynch all them there negroes" is incitement. Saying, "I hate all them there negroes" is hate speech.
if you say to religious community that all the negroes are sinners" it will be hate speech by that definiton, but still they go to the street and kill negroes because "all the sinners had to die" by their view.
I don't think you should let people talk as they want when they intend to instigate against other group, and some people act because of this instigation.
the hate speakers always intend to harm the attacked group. they just less specific.

Sure!

But, let's then do profiling of everyone who makes any sort of hate speech public, you know, like the racial-profiling that we do of anyone from the Middle East. Free speech is free speech, no matter what is said, and profiling should be lavished out as equally!

I think that all speech should be protected. If someone uses their free speech to incite violence, and people actually listen, then the actions should be punished. Otherwise, it's just words, and people should have the right to say them. It's a slippery slope. If we ban all bigotted, hateful speech, who's to say that one day our freedom of speech won't be curtailed. Everyone hates something, i'm sure there are plenty of things i say that people hate. If we ban everything people don't like, they'll be nothing left to say. I would rather have people espouse their prejudicial beliefs, than have the rest of us lose our freedom of speech. As George Orwell once said: "if liberty means everything, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear."

The speech we disagree with the most should be protected the most. It was the canadia prime minister (I forget her name just off hand) who said that if we aren't offended by something someone says at least once a day, then we don't live in a free country.

I'm a bit on the fence here. While censorship is not too nice a thought in what should be a democracy, I think when you just allow people to promote any view they want, particularly via the media you're eventually just going to get a morally confused society never sure of which role model to admire and aspire to or whose philosophy to follow. Time and time again, nothing seems to get done in this world because nobody can seem to agree on anything, there is no ideological cohesion other than "our democracy is great because it means I can do whatever I want" and yet what is it worth? The world's poverty gap continues to grow, the environment is being ravaged, our culture is in a sorry state of artistic and intellectual decline and you people re-elected a government that is going to do NOTHING, sweet f.a. about it all thanks to the fact that you grew up in a Western neo-liberal culture where self-interest takes precedence over all other considerations, where you will claim to hate powerful politicians because of their corruption when in reality you just hate being told what to do. What's wrong with bringing people up in a system where they feel ashamed or afraid of doing the wrong thing and good for doing the right thing?

I'm a bit on the fence here. While censorship is not too nice a thought in what should be a democracy, I think when you just allow people to promote any view they want, particularly via the media you're eventually just going to get a morally confused society never sure of which role model to admire and aspire to or whose philosophy to follow. Time and time again, nothing seems to get done in this world because nobody can seem to agree on anything, there is no ideological cohesion other than "our democracy is great because it means I can do whatever I want" and yet what is it worth? The world's poverty gap continues to grow, the environment is being ravaged, our culture is in a sorry state of artistic and intellectual decline and you people re-elected a government that is going to do NOTHING, sweet f.a. about it all thanks to the fact that you grew up in a Western neo-liberal culture where self-interest takes precedence over all other considerations, where you will claim to hate powerful politicians because of their corruption when in reality you just hate being told what to do. What's wrong with bringing people up in a system where they feel ashamed or afraid of doing the wrong thing and good for doing the right thing?
Please forgive me if this sounds rude, but it sounds like you're saying, "Perish the thought that people should be exposed to a variety of thought and have to think them through."

That sounds exactly like what he's saying.

It has been debated for as long as I can remember on whether or not hate speech should be protected under the 1st ammendment in the United States.

There are two sides that I can see.

1. "Hateful" comments are just that, comments; speech. A person has every right to say whatever they want. If people don't like what they're saying...then just don't listen.

2. On the other hand, when does it go too far? Hitler's anti-semitism started out as just hate speech, then grew into genocide. When does hate speech infringe on a persons right to live as they wish? When does it become "clear and present danger"?

What do you guys think?

Hitler's hate speech didn't cause anti-semetism. If you take a look at what Hitler wrote about his own plans for rising to power you'll see that he plotted his use of anti-semetism, but what really brought him to power was the miserable state that Germany was in.

If Germany had a decent economy and didn't have such a horribly corrupt partisan government then Hitler never would have come to power. Or at least never have gotten people to hand over the power that he did.

That's why so many people these days keep comparing current Republican tactics to those of the Nazi's. It's not a hyberbolic reference to genocide, but rather the underhanded political tactics used to encourage a scared populace into placing too much power in the hands of one central figure.

Note how often Republicans criticize Democrats for being "obstructionists." What sort of bullshit is that? Criticizing them for voting against Republicans is somehow an underhanded tactic? But that's just what the Nazi's did when they were trying to get the Reichstag to give Hitler the power to act without them.

Note how often Republicans criticize Democrats for being "obstructionists." What sort of bullshit is that? Criticizing them for voting against Republicans is somehow an underhanded tactic? But that's just what the Nazi's did when they were trying to get the Reichstag to give Hitler the power to act without them.


I've noticed that quite often. It's just like what the British were doing when the South Africans revolted.

The South Africans were using imported German Mauser rifles, trench tactics, and general Guerilla warfare which the Brits had no experience against, and this was an "outrage" to them.

They were saying that basically, the South Africans should have been letting them win! Fucking ridiculous!

This addressing your 1st line in your quote, "As long as it doesn't insite violence I'm all for it."

So what you're saying is, that freedom of speech should let oppressed individuals express themselves to promote a change, as long as there isn't any violence?

Isn't this how the American Revolution came about? Or the race marches in the 1960s. These events were allowed through freedom of speech or the oppression of it, and they turned violent by your reasoning they should not have happened.

Not everybody has the advantage of a government whose branches are separated like the U.S.'s and there by don't have the advantage of a court system like that in the U.S.


There are some things that one can reasonably expect to incite violence. There are other things one reasonably would not expect to incite violence. If the intent is in dispute, we do have courts. They aren't perfect, but no system is. You can always appeal.

As for other countries, they can make their own rules. What works here may not work for everyone, but I think it's a good system. I certainly would encourage other nations to try it.