Should the right to free speech be curbed?

Specifically, should speech which is deemed to be 'bullying' or 'hateful' be curbed?

For reference:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1635235&mesg_id=1635235

Edit: punctuation mark

I'm gay and my partner is trans and we don't like it when homophobes say hateful things. But. If you prosecute people it just sweeps the hate under the rug and under the surface and you're really not confronting it.

HOWEVER. If people are interfering with other people's right to assembly, using bullhorns, etc. that's a totally different story. And if RWers broadcast hateful shit on the air, we should monitor it and take them to task.

The problem isn't that they spew the hate they feel, the problem is that we roll over and say 'well, gosh, I guess everyone has a right to their opinion.' Yes, and everyone has the right to face the consequences of their ideologies. If they want to spew hate at my parades, why I am allowing their hateful church services to go uninterrupted?

I get right back in their faces, because I refuse to 'make nice' or live my life in fear.

:hug:

They're OUR airwaves. Telling only half the story doesn't inform us. Spewing unanswered hate is killing us.

incitement to violence or criminal activity, or what it commonly referred to legally as "fighting words" I believe is and should be legally restricted. These things need to be very narrowly defined, but I definitely don't think that I have any right to follow someone around screaming obscenities or slurs relating to their race or sexual orientation at them.

I also think that places like schools and workplaces should be able to institute some codes that restrict things like "hate speech", even if the speech wouldn't be considered illegal.

violent and abusive opinions. I don't hold anything against people who don't like gays, or blacks, or anything else they might not like. I do think they are living in another time and place. There are people who think we never went to to moon too. When it came out that Rock Hudson engaged in gay relationships, everybody freaked out and still some people don't believe it. It's a waste of breath to talk to them. I know a guy who is the biggest racist I have ever met and he wonders why he gets passed over for promotion every time. He has a right to his opinion but he has to take the consequences of expressing that opinion.

... by "curbed"?

Because I'm a true believer in civil liberties. I think people ought to be able to say whatever they want, with very few and very specific limitations (such as direct threats).

This is one place where I agree with many conservatives. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, from an opposing point of view. Of course, lately the Mepublicans have been taking a different tack, trying to shut everyone who disagrees with them up. But as we all know, the current crop of conservatives are really CINO.

:)

we have to stop all those meanies who say bad things about liberals! </sarcasm>

to a democratic society. Crushing free speech is the start of tyranny.

Slander, for example, is not protected.

Certain threatening speech is not protected.

Now we;re just dickering with the fine tuning.

And that is a big problem.

As is sexual harassment and other forms of speech.

if you are wealthy and powerful.

Edit to note: Slander is protected. Libel is not.

I'm not quite clear how that relates to what SHOULD be.

People have a right to a defense attorney in this country. Perhaps they should have a right to a civil attorney as well. As it is, people who are unjustly wronged and cannot afford to pursue it rely on organizations like the ACLU and the goodwill of pro-bono attorneys.

I would argue that just as a person has a right to defense against the state, so should a person have a right to defense against other people and corporations.

Certainly wealthy and powerful people are better able to skirt laws.

What I'm unclear on is your point about that in this context. Are you suggesting that laws that can be skirted by the powerful shouldn't exist?

I said that expense is a factor in whether people seek to combat conduct of individuals and corporations.

If the state provided representation in these cases, if a person had a right to defense against others, as is the case against the state, perhaps people and corporations would be a bit better to their fellow man.

Of course, it would cost a lot to do that, because currently a lot of wrong is going unlitigated.

I'm not suggesting changing the laws that can be skirted by the powerful...I'm suggesting changing the system that allows them to skirt the laws to make that more difficult by taking financial barriers out.

In the context of the question - should speech be curbed? - I'm not clear on the relevance of pointing out that laws can be skirted.

Maybe it's just a separate topic.

As I was told as a child by my beloved father, people may not agree with what I say, but I'll defend your right to object to my opinion to the end.

Free speech is not a civil right, in my mind it's a human right.

Yeah, I get all pissed off at the right wing rantings of Ann Coulter and others of her ilk, but then you just have to sit back and say "consider the source".

ask whether people think talk radio should be curbed/broken up/regulated/limited and the results will be inverted.

"Abusive speech" is considered a crime in domestic relationships.

"Abusive speech" is "bullying" which is no longer acceptable on school grounds.

"Abusive speech" is a form of emotional blackmail/manipulation and it creates an environment where people feel RESTRICTED RATHER THAN FREE to speak their hearts or minds.

And by a margin of 94%-6%, DUers disgree with your position.

Minority positions are not always wrong,...but rather, simply a minority position.

Correct?

When you get 90% of people agreeing about anything, chances are excellent that they're right.

,...that didn't make them right.

Like I said, I don't mind being in the minority. It's nothing new to me. However, if you are attempting to suppress my position, I suggest you just give it the freak up. 'kay?!?!

... have a nice day.

agree with.

How about cross burnings? Protected speech or threat?

Painting swastikas on Jew's door?

Labelling abortion providers?

..the propsition that free speech should not be curbed, simply because that speech is deemed by the recipient to be 'bullying', etc. .

Your question - and the answers - do not take into account the many variables.

Is it simply hateful? Is it harassing? Is there a power imbalance?

I think you'll find most people will support the right of people to express offensive positions.

I suspect you'll find less support for kids bullying or harassing fellow students, or employers creating an intimidating work place.

Did you not check the link?

:shrug:

"Bullying" and "hateful" are ill defined, and don't distinguish between different sets of circumstance.

That way you could have a question and a poll that would be perfectly-suited to your rheotrical requirements.

I remember the many newsreels during the civil rights movement of adult white males shouting racial epithets at small black children. Or the Nazis waving swastika flags and shouting "Juden Raus".

Anyone who advocates that as "Free Speech" is naive.

We already recognize that not all speech is protected. The question is where the lines are drawn.

who decides where the line is drawn.

That's how it's been decided so far.

messing with the right to free speech. It scares me but the wackos scare me too. I said no because I am afraid if we start messing with it it will become political and be changed over and over again with each change of party in power.

When I say scare I do not mean personally. I have just had the lesson of being on the other side of the Phelps group. The messages on my phone would make anyones hair curl but you have to let it slide and just know that you are right and their words are only that, words.

On Edit When I said let it slide I did not mention that letting it slide does not mean that you do not counter it with the truth. I have learned that to be convincing of your point you must stay calm, unemotional and present the facts. In order to be able to do that you must let their lies slide and not become upset by them no matter how horrible they are. Just mark them down and counter them with the truth.

If Jerry Falwell says gays are evil and mentally ill, should it be illegal? No.

If a school teacher says it about a gay kid in class TO THE CLASS should it be illegal? Yes.

But she should and probably would lose her job.

Should they be eliminated?

They curb intimidation and harassment from a place of power in the private sector, and even then, they simply enforce the workplace's lax enforcement of fair labor practices.

The case you are defending is irrelevant because state laws already mandate punishment for teachers as state employees in that kind of scenario.

It's not like sexual harassment is considered criminal...no one even goes to jail for it. Sexual harassment laws simply hold private offices to a non-discrimination standard that should be obvious for all employers, but has been lax because of the boys' club of employment that has prevailed in American society.

It's only different in that it is necessary to make laws for the private workplace in the case of sexual harassment. In a school, it will likely be dealt with through state educational policies...i.e.: you say harassing, bigoted things to kids like that, and you will be severely disciplined or fired.

It's the difference between the private workplace and a government one. And if you were talking about a private school, then the case would be a whole lot different, now wouldn't it?

What you are saying is almost the same as saying extortion or death threat laws are limiting free speech. If you honestly believe that the framers wanted to protect the right to use information or intimidation tactics when they wrote the First Amendment, then I think you are throwing out a lot of precedent. The Supreme Court has ruled that harmful speech is not legal over and over again.

And the question here is what SHOULD be curbed, not what IS curbed.

We accept that some speech is in fact illegal because it is intimidating, etc.

So we are now dickering with the fine tuning - when is it harassment to a degree that should be illegal, when is simply offensive?

Saying the kid is mentally ill is wrong. Saying the kid has to do something to prove his is mentally ill and humiliate himself in front of the class...forcing action with a threat of retribution...is illegal.

Saying something false is wrong. Publishing something false about someone else, and having that person be damaged as a result is illegal.

Saying someone is sexy in the workplace is wrong, and can get people fired if they do it often enough. Saying someone who is a subordinate is sexy and attempting to use a position of power to get flirtation or sexual gratification is illegal.

The words generally aren't the issue. It's the harm that is implied by them.

Some hate speech or bullying is simply words, and I think you'd find not many people who would support curbing that.

Some implies actual harm.

The murky area is the implied threat of harm. There are plenty of ways to imply threats of harm in ways that can be plausibly denied.

That's why, as I keep saying, we all* agree that speech can ands should be curbed in some ways, but we are now dickering with the fine tuning.


(*All as in "virtually all". There are a few who don't believe in any curbing no matter what is said.)

so much as the circumstances. It's illegal to yell fire in a crowded venue. Not illegal to yell fire in your house.

Illegal to malign someone else in a public forum and cause them harm. Not illegal to talk nasty bullshit about someone behind their back unless it gets around and actually hurts their reputation.

You could say the same thing about someone, and the circumstances are what determine the legality, not the words themselves.

Personally, I thought John Kerry should have sued President Bush for libel over the "global test" bullshit. It fits every criteria for libel...publication, damage, demonstrably false.

As I've said again and again, these are too broad to have a useful determination about whether they should be illegal or not.

Hate speech might be offensive in some circumstances. In others it may be implied threat.

A better question might be: Should speech that is offensive but does not imply any threat of harm be curbed?

Should speech that carries an implied threat of harm be curbed?

It is not illegal to hate or to say hateful things. It is illegal to cause or threaten harm in the process of doing so.

And sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, which is why police protection becomes an issue when hateful statements have been made.

Obviously, no one wants to assume someone is just saying something and then have a dead person on their conscience for not having done anything.

Ultimately, harm has to result in order for a crime to have been committed.

That is why these suspected terrorist cases are such a boondoggle...they are trying people for things they haven't done yet. It raises serious questions about what constitutes a crime.

Look at the cross burning case.

Or the no-masks law intended to curb the KKK.

Or the anti choice hit list.

These all involve implied threats, and they are all cases in which both sides could be argued.

It's not true that "ultimately, harm has to result in order for a crime to have been committed."

And some of those determinations are recent, and not long standing.

In fact the very interesting thing to me about Virginia's law prohibiting cross burning is that in a time when it was probably more of a REAL threat it was legal - in a time when it's less likely to convey a physical threat but is more about intimidation, it's illegal.

Go figure.

That removes the 'too broad' charge.

Sexual harassment laws curb free speech - how many believe those should be abolished?

That way you could have a question and a poll that would be perfectly-suited to your rheotrical requirements.

:eyes:

question for those who care.

:eyes:

But if you want greater clarity, aim for it.

I obviously have no business posting here, and yield to my rhetorical superior.

:eyes:

But while you want to be a drama queen you're on your own.

So far, your posts have merely carped about the way the poll and referned post are worded. Clearly, you think you could do a beter job at it, so please, post your OWN fucking poll and question.

Apparently this feedback is something you're sensitive to, and consider an affront of some sort.

I don't expect DU posters to perceive honest inquiry as an insult - that's more of a repub mindset, usually.

But again, as soon as you're prepared to engage in a sincere dialogue I will gladly participate in kind.

Riiiiight.

No one else seems to have had any trouble participating on the basis of my miserable question, so far.

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Posting that you sent one is also a rule violation.

I'm having a disagreement with someone.

:eyes:

information it would be more helpful to get something other than broad answers you can use to fit any argument. :-)

Pettifogging and nitpicking about the question is pedantic.

I surely do.

He committed suicide with Hitler. But both were very fond of using the radio to "express their opinions". They didn't tell people to kill the Jews over the radio.

How about the "free speech" of Radio Rwanda that led up to the genocide there and then directed the Hutus to kill the Tutsis?

"In person and on the radio, Shingiro Mbonyumutwa of MRD-Power, son of the president of the first Rwandan Republic, used his considerable prestige to whip up fear and hatred of the Tutsi. In a use of the now-familiar “accusation in a mirror,” he told Radio Rwanda listeners that Tutsi intended to carry out a genocide of the Hutu:

"They are going to exterminate, exterminate, exterminate, exterminate ...They are going to exterminate you until they are the only ones left in this country, so that the power which their fathers kept for four hundred years, they can keep for a thousand years!"

From Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno4-7-03.htm

(b) The protections the First Amendment affords speech and expressive conduct are not absolute. This Court has long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. See, e.g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571—572. For example, the First Amendment permits a State to ban “true threats,” e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (per curiam), which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals, see, e.g., id., at 708. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the disruption that fear engenders, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. R. A. V., supra, at 388. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Respondents do not contest that some cross burnings fit within this meaning of intimidating speech, and rightly so. As the history of cross burning in this country shows, that act is often intimidating, intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of violence. Pp. 11—14.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZS.html

Emphasis added

There is I believe a series of concentric circles in the law that illustrates the protection afforded to certain types of speech. Obviously, political speech is in the middle.

I'm not convinced 100% that all mere verbal utterances should be protected. In my opinion, the term 'speech' has a deeper meaning in the Constitution. The old 'Fire in a Theater' example still illustrates the point nicely for me. I don't feel that such was what was meant to be protected by the 1st Amend.

Although, I am skeptical of people attempting to draw the line - would rather default to allowing some harmful speech than to perhaps going to far and damaging Free Speech.

only would lead to book burning and I think we all know where that leads.:kick:

...I defend to the death your right to say it.

While we may take offense at things other people say, laws to curb so-called "hate speech" can too easily be used against folks like our Howard Dean, who said he hated republicans and was met with a load of false outrage.

For real hate speech, look at Fred Phelps, who is the subject of another thread this evening. That man's really really crazy and hateful, but I'm just tickled at the thought of some good Christian republican woman having to explain to her 8 pure, blonde, innocent, homeschooled children what a "fag" is and why Phelps' protest sign shows two men having sex.

:kick: