Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Nominee Kagan On Free Speech Issues
DesScorp submitted one of a few stories I've seen about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, whose confirmation hearings are supposed to start today (despite being a formality, given that she has the votes pretty much locked up). "SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan hasn't left much of a paper trail during her legal career, which may make gauging her ideas and opinions somewhat difficult. But there are some positions she has made clear statements on, among them, pornography and 'hate speech.' In a 1993 University of Chicago seminar on the subject, Kagan argued that the government wasn't doing enough about the spread of porn or hate speech. She argued that new approaches were needed to fight their spread, as well as taking a fresh look at old approaches, such as obscenity laws. Kagan included herself among 'those of us who favor some form of pornography and hate speech regulation,' and told participants that 'a great deal can be done very usefully' to crack down on such evils."
I knew there was a reason I voted for Obama, and not the Republicans.
Wait, what's the difference, again?
Dear Kagan, I hate you.
A court isn't supposed to be able to make policy decisions. That power should be reserved for the parliament (House/Senate in the US case), the ones that were actually elected by the public.
Don't mess with porn, it's the only thing keeping some people sane.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
They left out the comma, I think she means
""those of us who favor some form of pornography, and hate speech regulation"
There we go, now we're all on the same page.
I'm really looking forward to her hearing later today...there isn't much to go on about her, so I'm reserving judgement exclusively to how she handles herself during the questioning.
Living With a Nerd
supposed to start to day
I wonder when Slashdot will be burned down to the ground by English teachers.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
As an angry wanker, I find this very troubling.
Milton Diamond, The Scientist magazine, March 2010. "Porn: Good for Us?"
This opinion piece takes a look at scientific research around pornography. Higher consumption levels os correlated with lower abuse. Many studies have shown the opposite, but they tend to study abusers like rapists, find they use pornography, and say that porn is bad. You should be able to see the flawed methodology easily.
When you look at the entire population, the percentage of male porn users stays around 100% in countries where it is allowed and available, and abuse is low. In countries where it is not allowed or available, usage is obviously lower and abuse rates are higher.
People need an outlet, and if you don't want to see it you don't have to. But make your decisions based on what's best for the country, not your own moral stance. Outlawing alcohol was not intended to start the Chicago mob into overdrive, but it did, unintended consequence.
By restricting porn, you are essentially saying that men should satisfy their urges using real women instead of pictures or videos. Is that what you want Kagan? Are you that anti-female that you are calling for their abuse of a massive scale? I know it sounds like I'm twisting your words around, but given the evidence in question the law of unintended consequences makes it clear that's what you would prefer.
If I called for country-wide home schooling of kids, I would be calling for the death of America. Not every parent is capable of, nor interested in, schooling their own children, and the kids would not learn much. I don't mean for education to stop for most families, but that's what would happen. Unintended consequences, learn them.
She has the wrong mindset for a judge at any level. Her job is not to force her views and values down the public's throat, but to interpret the law as closely as the writers had in mind while trying to close the huge loopholes.
Any judge who speaks out in a professional manner about any activity's moral/ethical/philosophical components is not fit to rule. Those parts are reserved for the people to decide upon.
I guess my Nazi porn collection is completely unacceptable then?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
OTOH, I guess if you changed your thinking over the course of seventeen years, you're a weak-ass no-good hippie flip-flopper?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Freedom of speech means exactly that, freedom. And freedom is above the right, the rule or stature if you want me use the formal language. Freedom is irrevocable, as the base constitution says. So, even if there is a some stature that restrains it, it is invalid and void. And it is very important that every single person is aware of that fact.
Another egotistical prick who knows what's best for us and is all-too-willing to save us from ourselves.
Maybe once she saves us from looking at naked people and hearing mean comments we can move on to tackling other such pressing social ills like power-hungry sociopaths who systematically defraud an entire population of various liberties under the guise of protecting them.
Oh wait. Sorry, let me get back in line for my RFID chip and social reeducation. Did you guys SEE what happened on Cat the Midget Bounty Ghost Hunting Cake Survivor last night?
As a conservative, you would think I would be all for this, but no. How do you define what is or is not pornography or hate speech. One could argue the pornography may be easier to define based on the physical activities involved, but what about hate speech? Does Shawn Penn's comments qualify? David Duke? Rossie O'Donnell? This is right up there with defining racially motivated crime.
Conservative, mod down for violating
There is no such thing as hate speech only speech and its supposed to be free. Even advocationg violence I do not think meets the clear and presant danger test. As to hate crimes laws; its those laws that are biggoted. There is a very specific enumerated list in every state of when you are permitted to use violence against other citizens. Those are mostly when they are endangering your life or that of family member.
The rest of the cases its boolean matter or it should be. The issue is you beat someone half to death without one of the few good reasons we have listed. Why you specifically did it does not matter, it was wrong and equally so no matter weather it was because you hate gays or the guys dog defecated in your yard. It is an in excuseable crime. I don't think as a society we should go down the path deciding when its more or less ok to hurt someone. Its ok because you had not other legitimate choice or its not ok. Its unforgivable and you should be kept away from society forever if it was premeditated, and if it was a crime of passion well made some reform and you can rejoin the rest of us at some point.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Good call. If you're going to troll, take the parent post as an example of how to do so.
yet, STILL way out of your league.
> Kagan included herself among "those of us who favor some form of pornography and hate speech regulation"
- I favor some form of pornography; and I also hate regulation of speech! She sounds pretty good to me.
Crushing racism and sexism are more important to most American leftists than freedom of speech today. The ACLU, which is a left-wing organization, is in the minority of American leftists today in that it actually does still take a fairly left-libertarian stance. If it weren't for the first amendment, we'd long have had an official federal censorship system aimed at finding and prosecuting "hate speech" and pornography because both sides would've come together "in the spirit of bipartisanship."
The only people who actually give a rat's ass consistently about these things and want to leave people alone are libertarians. Right or left-wing, it's only the libertarian elements of the left and right that care about freedom today.
Back in 1995, Kagan said (widly reported .. and first link off google Vapid hollow)
When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce.
So it should be an interesting nomination
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
If you believe in Free Speech you will defend even those you disagree with.
However, not being able to shout fire in a full theatre is censorship that I have trouble arguing against.
Censorship of sexuality is what kept information about birth control from women in the 19th Century and Abortion in the early 20th.
Censorship of porn is censorship of women. Literally.
This woman is poison. Every. Single. View. That she has demonstrated has been contrary to the primary tenants of our country: free speech, peaceful assembly and security of our persons, the right to keep & bear arms, and so on. The only demographic she's appealing to is the "let's trample the rights and liberties of the populace" demographic.
She's got no history to speak of - 2 years of actual practice - and everything she has done has been "activist". She's a SC variant of Obama.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Kagan included herself among 'those of us who favor some form of pornography and hate speech regulation"
Me too. I am in favour of regular pornography and hate speech.
I also favor some form of pornography, and I also hate speech regulation.
Oh, wait...
What a depressingly stupid machine.
State,
I hate the way you incrementally take away my rights through seemingly humanitarian causes that historically go horribly wrong. But I understand, you do it because it works, you do it because an informed citizenry with rights is a real threat to political power.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I am a major proponent of free speech and I am Jewish. If someone wants to write speeches against me or my group, fine, it is their right to do so so long as speech is all that it is. One of the most important and cherished freedoms in the United States is free speech, even if it's racist or what people deem vile and disgusting. The best way to counter racism and hatred is not through laws that regulate its associated speech and expression, but through education. Combatting racism begins with education! I hate racism as much as any educated person but I realize that regulating speech leads down a slippery slope where there is no return. I can cite Governor Lester Maddox as a result. Lester Maddox was probably a last symbol of the bastion of Jim Crowism in America. As he got older and became more educated, he realized he was wrong and publicly admitted being so.
Finally, pornography does not need regulation beyond child pornography. Child pornography does exploit children and minors and needs to be rigorously enforced, but beyond that, the government need not further regulate/criminalize the industry. I see absolutely no harm in adult pornography. We as Americans are puritanical and hypocritical about sex and pornography - look at the Europeans and Japanese as they take a much more liberal stance. Overall, they have a healthier and less conflicted society.
I suppose it's just a wild coincidence that nearly every single time it's decided that "laws are ambiguous", the end result is more government and less freedom.
I mean, I'm sure she is a great person and all and I respect her views and her right to them, and the constitution allows her to have those views and to speak them freely. But how can I be sure that her views will not influence her position as a supreme court justice and upholding the constitution, including the parts which are in complete opposition to her views?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
We didn't invade Iran like McCain promised. We're not staying in Iraq for "100 years if need be " as McCain promised. DADT is going away. He's gotten the federal gov't to lay off pot users where states have allowed pot us.
Obama is a moderate, we knew that when he campaigned, he was just the lesser of two evils.
Blar.
Constitution is optional these days if the people are scared enough about something.
Blar.
Courts have made policy decisions since time immemorial. When laws are ambiguous, somebody needs to decide what the fuck is supposed to happen, and those people are called "judges".
Not in the US legal system, at least not at the Federal High Court level. The three branches were designed not only to have their powers limited, but the scope of their duties as well. John Roberts is more right than wrong when he says a SCOTUS judge should be an umpire, calling balls and strikes. At SCOTUS, if you're doing anything other than declaring a law "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional", then you're infringing on the duties of the Congress. In messy reality, sometimes they do it anyway, but the point is they're not supposed to under the design of the US federal government. Not even John Marshall... arguably the most influential SCOTUS judge in history... thought that the bench should be legislating. "Saying what the law is" doesn't not include making legislation. That's Congress' job.
Now, lower courts are a bit different in America. Judges there have more of a traditional English Common Law duty, including decreeing specific remedies to specific problems. But the Constitution clearly lays out the duties of the SCOTUS, and unlike other courts, their scope of action was created from the start to be limited, for the sake of keeping limited government, and in the views of the Founders, preventing too much power in any branch. "Limited Government" doesn't just mean that three sets of bodies are balanced in power... it also means that what they can do is also limited in the American model of government.
People whining about "legislating from the bench" are invariably people without legal backgrounds (or deliberately hypocritical politicians, but then I repeat myself).
You don't need a legal background to understand how the United States government was designed to work. A basic civics class will do. Perhaps you need a refresher on the American concept of "seperation of powers".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Once the U.S. starts implementing "hate speech" laws, the concept of free speech will be dead. It already is in places like the UK and Canada. Someone will get to decide what speech is "hate." Freedom of speech is designed to protect speech we don't like. People wanting to regulate speech they don't like are, in fact, running contrary to the constitution.
"If someone wants to write speeches against me or my group, fine, it is their right to do so so long as speech is all that it is."
So you'd be fine if someone went around inciting other people to violence against you but never suffered any consequences himself because he never personally did anything other than talk?
Not sure whether I would side with the 'Higher consumption levels os correlated with lower abuse.' point - sure, abuse may be lower in 'western' nations, where porn is fairly freely available.
But, what makes you believe that there is a cause/effect relationship between them?
By the same argument you could say that nuclear power plants also lower abuse (most of them are in nations with lower abuse levels)...
More people having cars lowers abuse levels? (again, the wealthier nations with more people with car ownership are also among those with a higher percentage of people owning cars)...
I would agree, that porn might help relieve some, let's call it 'stresses' -- but that it is one of the bigger reasons for lower levels of abuse?
You don't think that a higher degree of education and higher prevalence of women's rights might have more to do with that?
The King of Queens is one of my favorite shows
The wierdest part of porn and prostitution is: It is illegal to sell what it is legal to give away.
They are not saying they are "Experts", doctors or such, where you are selling advice as an expert.
They are just doing a "service" that is ok when it is free, but if you give money, it becomes a crime.
If she gets on the court, you can go up and down the list of born with rights and start kissing them goodbye. Just today, with the important second amendment issue, that would have failed.
She is a Constitutional disaster and has NO business on the Supreme court..or any court for that matter.
There is no good single word equivalent of an extreme left wing fascist, but if it existed, her picture would be next to it in the dictionary.
John Roberts is more right than wrong when he says a SCOTUS judge should be an umpire, calling balls and strikes.
Would that be the same John Roberts who, when given a court case about the narrow legality of a certain case involving campaign contributions, declined to give a simple balls-or-strikes vote and instead called for a new hearing to decide whether or not the entire law should be overturned? (Link.) Whether or not you agree that the law was constitutional, you can't deny that this was an extraordinary step beyond the call of what the judges were asked to do. This is the problem that liberals have with your "umpire" analogy - that the people who call for judges to be umpires would not hesitate to advance their own ideologies if put on the court, same as everyone else.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Any of you editors care to post on the Bilski decision coming down earlier this morning... so Slashdot can kick off the firestorm about software patents effectively being upheld?
I HATE people who fuck with my PORN
It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
I don't have an official position on pornography. I like to switch between multiple positions.
Canada has had hate-speach laws for decades, last I checked our civilzation has yet to end.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
But they have somehow decided that "Congress shall make no law..." somehow means that non-Congress (i.e. the states) are bound to the same constraint. Unlike the 2nd, the first doesn't advise that "the people" have any rights to be free from state religion, or free speech. The first advises rights of petition and assembly.
I think separation is good. I think free speech is a right. But neither is supported by the text. Free speech could be found in the 9th, but that one has always been ignored, along with the 10th.
Words mean things, and there's no way to avoid the qualifier "Congress shall..." without disingenuous rationalization.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
No good will come of that, just a second Iraq. They're going to get nukes no matter what we do.
Blar.
Did you notice her use of the word "regulation"? If so, you need get a dictionary, because it does not mean the same thing as "ban".
Not that I'm with Kagan on this issue. But then, I'm an extremist: I feel the same way about the 1st amendment that Charlton Heston felt about the 2nd. But I know I'm an extremist, and respect more nuanced opinions.
And no, banning kiddie porn and hate speech (which I don't put in quotes: some text, such as "kill the niggers" is clearly hate speech) is not the first step down a slippery slope. People tend to see slippery slopes in every trend they don't like. They're actually pretty rare.
The 1st Amendment has so few friends.. There's very little point in discussing whether anything is constitutional anymore. The blatant violations we so willingly accept, and demand actually, has made it virtually irrelevant.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Obush?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
agreed.
"We didn't invade Iran like McCain promised."
He promised we'd take military action if neccessary, and that he'son the record saying that he would attack Iran “if it’s a provable direct threat” involving nuclear weapons, and he’d need “a whole lot of other information about Iranian intentions.”
Isn't that pretty much Barack Obama's policy as well?
"We're not staying in Iraq for "100 years if need be " as McCain promised"
You yourself summed it up. "If need be". It's obvious that we won't need to. So why is McCain at fault in that statement? Further, that statement was misconstrued as a promise to stay "100 years", irregardless of circumstances. MoveOn's commercial... the one with the mother and baby saying "you can't have him"... was the biggest example of this fallacy.
"DADT is going away"
Maybe, maybe not. But that's not up to the President. That's up to Congress.
"He's gotten the federal gov't to lay off pot users where states have allowed pot us."
"Lay Off" is stretching things a bit. The Attorney General said that prosecuting pot users wouldn't have as high a priority, not that it would stop. And Obama reaffirmed his objection to legalization. And he certainly hasn't opposed California authorities cracking down on pot dispensers.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
It should be outlawed to show skin other than hands and the area around the eyes in public.
Then maybe this bitch will see how her stupid ideas DO NOT reduce hate, sex crimes, or any sort of problems.
Points of evidence: Places that embrace sexuality have fewer sex crimes, places that disallow free speech have more violence.
I am SOOO sick of religious people trying to force their views on others. Whatever happened to judge not, I thought it was god that was supposed to judge not man.
I've seen way too many things online that I shouldn't have. It's because Internet is like the world in every sense, only everything is at most a block away. If you're inquisitive, or just live long enough in this city, you're bound to get to know its dark alleys. And they're pretty darned scary.
These things should be regulated. Obscene material isn't sold to kids in RL, so it shouldn't be available to them online so easily as it is today. There should be clear warnings about content, and illegal stuff should be taken off. You may not have seen all that I have, so keep that in mind. And no, there is no chance in hell I'm giving you links (yes it's that easy).
I am a bit concerned for the implications of this however: Will these supposedly coming laws be precedents to more restrictive Internet otherwise? I hope not. But this has gone far enough. There needs to be a fine balance between free speech and moral. Not one that benefits the government, but one that benefits people - sure.
When did we decide that SCOTUS was a good acronym for the ultimate judicial body part? I can't read that without giggling.
My good friend, John Wirenius some time ago published a book on free speech called "First Amendment, First Principles: Verbal Acts and Freedom of Speech." The book is kind of hard-going, so unless you're interested in carefully-researched legal argument covering the subject, you're in for a slow read.
My point is this (and John makes it in detail): Immediately upon the adoption of our current Constitution here in the United States, the Supreme Court began hacking away at this First Amendment -- and with a really large axe, rather than an ice pick. There are current definitions for what one may present or do or say that consider speech a "verbal act" that may be Constitutionally limited. It is this tortured creation of an action from one's words that really defies any and all logic.
Everyone is familiar with the "limitation" on "free speech" that is described thusly:
Something like this is, presently no problem for the Supreme Court, as saying that word in that situation is re-defined, not as "speech" but as a "verbal act," and thus, not protected by the First Amendment. So, I don't really see Elena Kagan as proposing anything different than what has been going on in the United States for 200 plus years. The definition of "Free Speech" versus "verbal act" is one that is entirely subject to interpretation of any Court, be it local, federal, a court of original jurisdiction or an appellate court.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
The problem with the "people need an outlet" argument is that it's fundamental disrespectful to the individual on a basic level. People are not simply a collection of insatiable urges that must be controlled or managed or released. Viewing people that way objectifies them whether you think their urges should be controlled or satisfied.
In reality it is always wrong to view people as objects. We need to accept people as willful individuals who cannot be controlled or satisfied. Until we can recognize this, all our efforts to help will be in vain.
I just remembered a nice sci-fi book "Alice's World" - Sam Lundwall, in which he says, in the near future, you could advertise EVERYTHING (pin intended) only and only if it is true. When i read it, i was surprised how simple and effective a law could be, don't you agree? No complicated "fire somewhere" exceptions, no "free to give, but illegal to pay porno", just a simple and "one sentence" only law.
And if she REALLY wants to regulate porn and hate speech, thats a fascist policy if there ever was one. Nobody has a right to tell you how to think and to regulate porn is thought control, as well as a free speech issue, and free expression issue. To regulate hate speech is also thought control.
Instead of calling people evil based on how they think, lets call people evil based on what they do. I'm sure many people think her thoughts on porn and hate speech are evil. Do we really want someone on the court who thinks in good and evil? Laws aren't about good and evil, it's not the bible. Maybe her quotes are taken out of context, everyone says a stupid thing over the years. Maybe she was young and didn't mean what she said.
But if she believes in the words she said there is no way I can support her confirmation because I don't believe she is going to be a strong leader on the court. To attack pornography and hate speech? That is what they consider important? To regulate thoughts?
please, for the sake of the internet, read a history book! Hell, I will even be easy on you, read an American history book!
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
I wonder if these politicians have some kind of plot to make young people miserable by banning all entertainment that they dislike. If we have a problem with people who hate women, ban those people from buying violent games and from buying porn. But to punish everybody, including the people who defend women and womens rights is not justifiable.
This is thought control and it's wrong.
In specific a left libertarian. Another crypto-fascist on the court is not going to improve quality of life in this country. In fact it's going to be the main cause of many Americans fleeing to Canada. You can thank the thought police for that.
The truth is there are only two sides. The crypto-fascists and everybody else. I don't really care if we disagree on as long as you don't want to regulate my life. Liberty is what allows for the pursuit if happiness.
The individuals who want to regulate our thoughts are making it more difficult or more expensive to be happy. It's not about hate speech, it's not about rap or rock music, it's not about video games, it's not about pornography, it's really as simple as some people just being born more violent than others. Violence is a genetic trait, it has nothing to do with what you are exposed to or what you watch on TV.
I watched horror movies when I was a 6 year old. Nightmare on Elmstreet, Terminator, Rambo. I watched porn when I was 13. I've never been violent, I've never hit a woman. If they want to be scientific about this why don't they ban violent people from buying violent movies and leave the normal people alone?
Of course it's the law around here. If it's not the law then who the hell is running this country? Does it run itself? Is it run by the Shadow government? Some director of some top secret agency?
Or are they both authoritarians who hate liberty? Maybe a combination of both?
As far as I'm concerned liberty is the basis of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" which could have been defined as the "pursuit of liberty" or the "pursuit of profit" which in other words is the pursuit of liberty.
To remove rights directly conflicts with an individuals ability to pursue happiness. You cannot be happy if you don't have any liberty. No you wont find many happy prisoners.
If you have dozens of people proposing at different times and places that people should head off and kill Jews, and someone does, who gets blamed?
How do you prove which (if any) of those dozens *actually* incited the crime?
We haven't invaded Iran yet but we probably will. We will probably be in Iraq for longer than 100 years, especially if we invade Iran. We wont get rid of DADT. We wont legalize pot. We wont do anything except win the war and MAYBE just MAYBE fix healthcare.
So far Obama passed his healthcare bill. He passed a college loan bill(which doesn't go very far), but he and the congress in general never passes anything which increases liberty. There aren't enough libertarians on the left or the right.
The left likes to call libertarians "anarchists", even when the libertarians are socialists. The right likes to call libertarians the "fringe" or they get the leadership to sell out like Ron Paul has done and go along with supporting big oil.
There are not enough libertarians. There are too many crypto-fascists. They are some socialists but they are the Stalin/Soviet kind of socialist rather than the kind we need.
Our options are Authoritarian Socialism vs Crypto-Fascism.
They are not fascists. They are not like Hitler. They are the left but the authoritarian left. The authoritarian left leads to socialism of the kind that can result in secret prisons very much like what the Soviets had under the Communist regime. Once liberty is taken away you can't get it back without a fight.
So while the Democrats give you socialism and social programs, they take away your rights while they do it. Republicans just take away your rights and don't give you shit. I guess it's better to vote for the Democrats considering the options.
Beastiality has to be regulated because a dog or horse cannot give consent. Child porn has to be regulated because a child cannot give consent.
We don't have to regulate the pornography. We just have to make it illegal to have sex with a non-human animal or a child. It has nothing to do with regulating speech or regulating the porn. It's the creation of the porn that is the problem not the people who watch it.
Anyone who wants to restrict speech is my enemy. And it is twice as bad when they want to spend tax dollars on endless fat assed creeps sitting on their lazy asses deciding when speech has gone "too far". The edge of the law is forever unclear in speech issues and it is simply time to stop wasting money on this nonsense.
It's better not to make those objects angry, sad, or upset because their behavior becomes unpredictable and uncontrollable. It's also just plain wrong to abuse an object by constantly beating on it, complaining about it, punishing it in all kinds of ways, taking away it's entertainment (porn), taking away its video games, taking away it's movies, taking away it's rock and rap music, taking away, taking away, taxing, taxing, taking, prison, removing, banning, restricting.
Then you wonder why those objects with feelings can't trust you anymore.
Hate speech does not harm others. It's annoying but it doesn't harm.
We will have nazi's and other haters talking in code because they don't want to be labeled a hate criminal. This only will make them smarter and harder to deal with.
I've read lots of history books. Hitler didn't kill the Jews with words. He killed them with gas and bullets. Nice try.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I vaguely remember one of your early famous southern politicians saying something along the lines of "[African Americans] are not people, the are property. Giving them the vote is as stupid as giving it to a horse, for they would use it about as wisely." A speach, given to your congress, used to deny rights.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
There is no restriction on free speech that says you can't yell "fire" in a theater.
It isn't yelling "fire" that will get you arrested, it's causing a panic that will get you arrested.
Similarly, if you're arrested for hiring someone for murder, you won't be arrested because of what you chose to say to the person, but because of what you hired the person to do.
I wish everyone would put an end to this dumb fuck "yelling fire in a crowded theater" bullshit. It just makes people think there is a need for some limits on free speech when there isn't at all, but instead, it's just that too many fucking people are too fucking stupid to understand which of the many aspects of an action are illegal and which aren't.
Was the guy who induced a panic in a theater also wearing underwear? Well, apparently it's also illegal to wear underwear in a theater. Damn clothing laws.
It ain't what you say, it's what you do. Doesn't matter what you say or if you say anything at all when you induce that panic in a crowded theater, you'll still be arrested for it.
Jesus fuck, why the hell don't people understand this. Motherfucker.
What is her definition of "hate speech?" If I carry a sign with a picture of Tux and the caption "Linux Rules!" outside of the Microsoft Offices in Redmond, WA. would she consider that hate speech?
As always, just my $0.02 worth.
> From what I can tell (roughly) at least half of /. is civil libertarian, and at least half of /. is against spam. Therefore, by pidgeonhole principal, at least one person on /. is a hypocrite.
I'm sorry, but one of those two groups has to be strictly greater than half of Slashdot for the principle to apply.
More specifically, it's necessary that # of civil libertarians on Slashdot + # against spam on Slashdot is strictly greater than # of Slashdotters. Otherwise, you leave open the possibility that exactly half are on each side and no one is a hypocrite.
You can't invoke the pigeonhole principle until you have more pigeons than holes.
The problem is that we've gone too far in being accommodating of hate speech.
We haven't "accommodated" it, it has always been legal, and for good reason. The only thing that should get you into trouble, speech wise, are libel, slander, and threats, and only if directed against specific, identifiable persons.
Under these free speech laws, slavery ended, women got voting rights, and Jews, Mormons, Catholics, homosexuals, and other minorities integrated into mainstream society. They could do this because free speech was possible, because people could challenge the status quo even if that did upset a lot of people. With a track record like that, why would you want to change US free speech laws? There is not a shred of evidence that hate speech laws lead to more civil liberties or protect minorities.
On the other hand, the prospect of having the government decide what is and isn't legitimate free speech is truly frightening. Totalitarian regimes engage in that kind of government censorship; the US should not.
A lot of it is just made up like like those bigoted Barrack Husein Obama posters. And the folks that claim that giving equal rights to the GLBT community is somehow undermining their rights. These are not people engaging in legitimate free speech
You're totally naive if you think that hate speech laws with be used to protect presidential candidates from attacks by right wing nuts, or to protect homosexuals from the kind of hate speech that is preached daily by Catholic priests and Muslim clerics. What hate speech laws are commonly used for is to protect established, powerful religious interests from criticism and ridicule.
But, what makes you believe that there is a cause/effect relationship between them?
Proponents of anti-pornography laws are justifying those laws by (often implicitly) postulating a causal relationship between pornography and sex crimes. Not only is there little proof of such a causal relationship, the observation of a negative correlation between pornography consumption and sex crimes contradicts such a causal relationship.
I would agree, that porn might help relieve some, let's call it 'stresses' -- but that it is one of the bigger reasons for lower levels of abuse?
Who knows? Who cares? People advocating free speech don't have to prove anything, people attempting to restrict it have to come up with convincing arguments and data, and so far they haven't.
B.S.
People like Kagan and her ilk could care less about children hate speech or pr0n.
The only thing these people want is power and will use whatever "Championed Cause of the Day" to get it.
Just like the Oil Spill SPIN. Nothing is being done about it too maximize the disaster so a world wide carbon tax scheme can be put into place with the excuse that OIL is too dangerous.
The World Bank (IMF) MUST HAVE a world tax and its preferred choice is the carbon credits system, if it is to succeed in creating and funding a world governing body.
They will create ANY disaster they require to get there including world war iii or destroy every nations currency on earth with "fake debts" they create for nations to pay them back using "austerity measures".
If history can offer any perspective, these power hungry goons like Kagan, Bush, Obama, Cheney Lieberman will ultimately succeed, only to be brought to justice at a horrendous cost in human capital.
But right now, most Americans are too fat and complacent to see history repeating itself around them as the banks rape, loot and pillage every nation on earth.
It will all end very badly and we are all DAMNED for for letting it happen.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Damn it ! Why am I always the last one to be updated on such topics ?
Well bye bye Brazzers. I'll miss you.
Playwhat? Oh, the one people claim to read "for the articles?" ;-)
is it perfictly legal to fire someone for being gay? yup. As someone who was out of work for 13 months I can tell you that denying someone a stable income (and things like medical benifits) can do a lot of harm.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
and yet, your speech is also not free. You have laws against libel/slander, threats, what you can and can not freely say and where you can and can not say it. You have MANY laws already in place to protect individuals against speech that harms them, hate-speech laws simply applies that to a group.
The irony is, were I to say "Shakrai is a no good cheat and a liar and should be shunned until he/she is homeless on the street" I could be sued for slander, but if I said "[group to which Sharai belongs] are all no good cheats and liars and they all should be shunned until they are homeless on the street." you can not touch me.
Hate-speech is not a discussion, or even an argument, it is speech of NO value other than to incite discrimination/harm against a demographic. It does not have an "up side", it doesn't pass on knowledge or open up lines of questioning, it is simply verbal diarrhea of the worst sort. There is no perk to society as a whole to allow discrimination, there is no perk to allowing the advocassy of discrimination.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.