If you can prove that my use of the phrase "I hate niggers" inflicted a financial loss on you then I guess you are welcome to try and sue me to recover your damages.
I'm really growing weary of explaining this to you. Libel/slander suits are civil torts, not criminal affairs. You are perfectly free to run around town telling everybody that I'm a cheat and liar. The Government will not attempt to stop you. All I can do is sue you for my provable economic losses.
Threats ("Kill the nigger!") are illegal because they deprive other people of their liberty. Hate speech ("I hate niggers") absent any threats is not and should not be illegal.
Hate-speech is not a discussion, or even an argument, it is speech of NO value
Show me the part of the 1st amendment that says speech needs to have "value" (as determined by you of course) in order to qualify for protection.
No, I see that unfettered free speech can have negative consequences. I just think that a free society should be willing to accept those consequences.
We accept the fact that criminals sometimes get away with their crimes when the police screw up and violate their rights. We accept the fact that we can't try them a second time even when compelling new evidence is uncovered. One could make the argument that restricting the rights contained within the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments could be beneficial for society as a whole but such a policy is a non-starter in our system.
Free speech is absolute. The 1st amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of that speech but the speech itself is still absolute. The rest of your arguments are just hair splitting and not worth addressing.
Slander and libel are civil torts in the United States, not criminal matters. The Government won't throw me in jail if I run around town telling everybody that AK Marc is a child molester. You can sue me for the financial damages that I've caused you but you can't put me in jail for it.
How about "We should kill niggers who have sex with white women."? Or "We should kill Morgan Freeman because he's an uppity Nigger." Or "Hey, George, Bill and I are going to go downtown tomorrow with handguns and shoot all the niggers we see, wanna come?"
Threats are already illegal, no need for hate speech laws.
There is no "useful" part to hate speech
I must have missed the part of the 1st amendment that says speech needs to be "useful" in order to be protected. Can you point it out for me?
And the fact of the matter is we don't have free speech now in that you can't lie to harm other's reputation
Yes you can. Libel/defamation is not illegal in the United States. It might get you sued but that's a different matter.
it doesn't change the face that the speach that enspired those actions is in fact the cause of them being taken.
Irrelevant.
where are your laws that prevent harm to GLBT people?
They are protected by the same laws that protect everyone else. Murder is illegal regardless of sexual orientation. Ditto for assault. Ditto for rape. Ditto for robbery.
You can pull examples out of your ass until it bleeds, it's not going to change the fact that WORDS can't take away your rights. The ACTION that those words inspire might be able to do so, but we already have laws against ACTIONS that cause harm to others.
also on gun rights, which may have to do with their much lower murder rate
Crime isn't driven by the availability of guns. It's driven by socio-economic factors. There are jurisdictions with liberal gun laws (Vermont, Switzerland) and low crime rates. There are also jurisdictions with tight gun laws (Russia, New York) and high crime rates. The availability of guns has little to do with crime.
but the fact remains that Canadians suffer from less infringement on their rights than 80% of the world's population.
Good for them. I'd still rather live somewhere that has real free speech.
Of course free speech is a privilege and immunity of American citizenship but that's besides the point. The 1st amendment has been incorporated against the states. The states are obligated to follow it. SCOTUS didn't nitpick over the fact that it begins with "Congress shall make no law" -- if a state infringes on any of the rights protected by the 1st amendment it will be struck down on that basis.
I twisted nothing. She went on to advocate in favor of laws that would prohibit the hiring of women for commercial purposes to engage in sexual activities. That would effectively ban pornography, at least of the commercial variety.
She's also on record as saying that speech is only protected if the "value" of that speech exceeds it's "societal cost".
"I don't like Y's" or even "I really hate those damn Y's!" is not hate speach, it never has been.
That's not what your own law says:
It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Try saying "I have a bomb" at an airport
That's a threat. "Kill the niggers" is likewise a threat. "I hate niggers" is not.
or "I want to kill the pres" anywhere in DC
Again, that's a threat. It's perfectly legal to say "I think we'd be better off if someone shot the President." It's not legal to say "I'm going to shoot the President."
Whether or not banning hate speech is a "slippery slope" is quite irrelevant. The fact is that we don't have free speech if I can't say "I hate niggers" without fear of legal consequences.
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.
Have you read the same 1st amendment that I have?
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
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.
SCOTUS didn't decide that. Congress and the State Legislatures decided that via the 14th amendment.
It's Republicans that want more state control of peoples' personal lives
So do Democrats. I'm not to be allowed to determine for myself whether or not I want to carry health insurance. I'm also not to be allowed to purchase health insurance unless it meets with the approval of some HHS bureaucrat.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can prove that my use of the phrase "I hate niggers" inflicted a financial loss on you then I guess you are welcome to try and sue me to recover your damages.
Good luck getting 38 states to sign off on changing the 1st amendment for the purpose of outlawing bad words.
Understanding is a three edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth.
I'm really growing weary of explaining this to you. Libel/slander suits are civil torts, not criminal affairs. You are perfectly free to run around town telling everybody that I'm a cheat and liar. The Government will not attempt to stop you. All I can do is sue you for my provable economic losses.
Threats ("Kill the nigger!") are illegal because they deprive other people of their liberty. Hate speech ("I hate niggers") absent any threats is not and should not be illegal.
Hate-speech is not a discussion, or even an argument, it is speech of NO value
Show me the part of the 1st amendment that says speech needs to have "value" (as determined by you of course) in order to qualify for protection.
No, I see that unfettered free speech can have negative consequences. I just think that a free society should be willing to accept those consequences.
We accept the fact that criminals sometimes get away with their crimes when the police screw up and violate their rights. We accept the fact that we can't try them a second time even when compelling new evidence is uncovered. One could make the argument that restricting the rights contained within the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments could be beneficial for society as a whole but such a policy is a non-starter in our system.
Wow, you are really rambling. We've gone from free speech to gay equality and now the wars in the Middle East.
Free speech is absolute. The 1st amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of that speech but the speech itself is still absolute. The rest of your arguments are just hair splitting and not worth addressing.
So you find slander and libel to be legitimate?
Slander and libel are civil torts in the United States, not criminal matters. The Government won't throw me in jail if I run around town telling everybody that AK Marc is a child molester. You can sue me for the financial damages that I've caused you but you can't put me in jail for it.
How about "We should kill niggers who have sex with white women."? Or "We should kill Morgan Freeman because he's an uppity Nigger." Or "Hey, George, Bill and I are going to go downtown tomorrow with handguns and shoot all the niggers we see, wanna come?"
Threats are already illegal, no need for hate speech laws.
There is no "useful" part to hate speech
I must have missed the part of the 1st amendment that says speech needs to be "useful" in order to be protected. Can you point it out for me?
And the fact of the matter is we don't have free speech now in that you can't lie to harm other's reputation
Yes you can. Libel/defamation is not illegal in the United States. It might get you sued but that's a different matter.
it doesn't change the face that the speach that enspired those actions is in fact the cause of them being taken.
Irrelevant.
where are your laws that prevent harm to GLBT people?
They are protected by the same laws that protect everyone else. Murder is illegal regardless of sexual orientation. Ditto for assault. Ditto for rape. Ditto for robbery.
You can pull examples out of your ass until it bleeds, it's not going to change the fact that WORDS can't take away your rights. The ACTION that those words inspire might be able to do so, but we already have laws against ACTIONS that cause harm to others.
also on gun rights, which may have to do with their much lower murder rate
Crime isn't driven by the availability of guns. It's driven by socio-economic factors. There are jurisdictions with liberal gun laws (Vermont, Switzerland) and low crime rates. There are also jurisdictions with tight gun laws (Russia, New York) and high crime rates. The availability of guns has little to do with crime.
but the fact remains that Canadians suffer from less infringement on their rights than 80% of the world's population.
Good for them. I'd still rather live somewhere that has real free speech.
I've read lots of history books. Hitler didn't kill the Jews with words. He killed them with gas and bullets. Nice try.
Someone can not take away your human rights merely by exercising their freedom of speech.
Which country (accounting for population) has higher incidents of racial violence?
Irrelevant.
Of course free speech is a privilege and immunity of American citizenship but that's besides the point. The 1st amendment has been incorporated against the states. The states are obligated to follow it. SCOTUS didn't nitpick over the fact that it begins with "Congress shall make no law" -- if a state infringes on any of the rights protected by the 1st amendment it will be struck down on that basis.
Others have disagreed with your rosy view of things.
I twisted nothing. She went on to advocate in favor of laws that would prohibit the hiring of women for commercial purposes to engage in sexual activities. That would effectively ban pornography, at least of the commercial variety.
She's also on record as saying that speech is only protected if the "value" of that speech exceeds it's "societal cost".
His point is that the Constitution only prohibits Congress (i.e. federal power) from restricting your freedom of speech, not state governments
And he's wrong. You have heard of the 14th amendment, right?
"I don't like Y's" or even "I really hate those damn Y's!" is not hate speach, it never has been.
That's not what your own law says:
It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Try saying "I have a bomb" at an airport
That's a threat. "Kill the niggers" is likewise a threat. "I hate niggers" is not.
or "I want to kill the pres" anywhere in DC
Again, that's a threat. It's perfectly legal to say "I think we'd be better off if someone shot the President." It's not legal to say "I'm going to shoot the President."
Save your smug superiority for a different conservation -- the fact remains that you don't have true free speech.
Whether or not banning hate speech is a "slippery slope" is quite irrelevant. The fact is that we don't have free speech if I can't say "I hate niggers" without fear of legal consequences.
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.
Have you read the same 1st amendment that I have?
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
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.
SCOTUS didn't decide that. Congress and the State Legislatures decided that via the 14th amendment.
That's your standard for judging whether or not something infringes on civil liberties, whether or not it ends civilization? Your kidding, right?
I'm not interested in talking about Canada but it's clear that you don't enjoy the same free speech rights that we do. More's the pity.
It's Republicans that want more state control of peoples' personal lives
So do Democrats. I'm not to be allowed to determine for myself whether or not I want to carry health insurance. I'm also not to be allowed to purchase health insurance unless it meets with the approval of some HHS bureaucrat.