COMMENTS:
There is a difference between hate speech and racist speech.
If someone's saying something racist, like to the effect of, "N***ers are bad," on the radio or another forum of mass distribution, they have the right to their opinion.
If they're advocating violence and/or murder on that same forum, that's different, and it should not be tolerated.
William Bennett's statement is borderline -- it seems to be more speculation on his part than a call to action, per se.
I don't think racism should be tolerated, but limiting what's said by some crackpot radio talk-show host isn't going to aid in improving that. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, and that should be Priority One.
I hate to say it, since the comment's so absurd, but I think that comment by Bill Bennett shouldn't be banned, as it seems more speculative in nature (and he added the caveat that it would be morally reprehensible to do so or something along that line).
A distinct difference should be noted between racism and encouragement of violence (regardless of motive of violence).
of course no, we need everyone to express themselves and let it all out so we'll know who's stuck in the last millennium
by Jyl on Tue Oct 04, 05 10:25pm
[+]
You either have to worry yourself with a bunch of david dukes running around, or with the government using it's new powers to limit legitimate speech that it dislikes.
okay, so you worry about the government controlling speech, as we all should, yet you dismiss the whole bush plan of using military and marshal law during what he deems "a national crisis."
herzog, i just don't get you. either you argue against things just to take the contrarian view for the hell of it, or you are so unpredictable that no one could ever figure you out. i mean, you are technically a libertarian, right??
Kev: there's a difference between one time, temporary government involvment during a crises, which is allowed by the constitution. And permanently rewritting the constitution to do away with some unpopular beliefs.
For instance, doctors give steroids to people recovering from certain diseases. Does this mean that it's a good idea to take steroids all the time for no reason? No, is this hypocritical to say? No, it simply means that it's an emergency treatment, better than the disease it is treating, but should be carefully monitored to not be abused, and immediately stopped when no longer necessary. Same with government involvment.
Personally I think being offended is one of the byproducts of a free society. If everyone can speak their mind, and you have more than one person in your society, eventually someone is going to say something that some other person takes offense to. This is a sacrifice I am willing to make to live in a free nation. It sure beats the alternative.
And I don't see how what william bennett said could be construed as hate speech. First of all he made it very clear that he opposed the idea. Second he was relating it to another subject (misuse of statistics) and not some attack on blacks. Third, how can abortion be seen as an act of violence? If so haven't millions of women been committing murder in the US for the past few decades? Seems a little hypocritical for the left to get pissed about this, it's not like they're people, just fetuses. It'd be no different from killing a bunch of bacteria, right?
It shouldn't be banned for the same reason it isn't banned. You can't determine hate speech from just speech because of America's great cultural differences. What one says might offend someone from a different cultural group and so on. That's why you can't determine it.
Are you asking us whether we think you should shut the fuck up, herzog?
That's an unequivocal "Yes".
Inciting would be the crime, not the speech used. Encouraging a crime to take place is more than just words, it is actions, gestures, environmental stimulus as well. So I think punishing inciters to violence is possible without banning any speech.
Excellent ballot herzog,to answer your questioin no I do not believe hate speech should be banned.The truth of the matter is that the 1st amendment was created to protect those forms of speech which are offensive and disgusting to the majority of people.You don't need the 1st amendment to protect ideas that are popular and are imbraced by everyone because everyone like's them, there is no conflict.In my opinion if we ban hate speech we destory the 1st amendment and our freedom.
I must say that I am shocked and disappointed at how many votes encourage banning offensive speech! Who is to decide what is offensive? Why are you willing to take away one of our rights? Who wants to be told what they can and can't say. I would not expect answers like that from a site where all we do is state our opinions whether offensive or not. You should be ashamed at being so soft that you are willing to give up a fundamental right so as not to upset someone. Shit happens and people are going to get upset. No one will ever be completely happy and to bannish some speech can only lead to more and more offensive things we can't say. For shame!
^offensive at the end should be in quotes, meaning what is deemed offensive and banned.
I think the better question is why should people tolerate hate speech? It seems to me that anyone who is advocating hate speech is not doing so out of any desire to protect constitutional freedom, but more so to have tacit approval to be able to say anything they want, no matter how destructive, hateful or hurtful. There may not be an answer to this one and I know that it is an area that generages much debate and controversy.
Patch you are missing the point. Who would decide what constitues hate speech? As Herzog points out it is a slippery slope, because once you ban some speech there will be more to follow. We shouldn't be told what we can and cannot say. Then atheists would say any mention of God was offensive, and liberals would say anything that is conservative is offensive and on and on. It will lead to a complete obstruction to our freedom. Why isn't that obvious?
Ceejj, I'm not missing the point at all. I understand fully what the point is. That does not mean I have an answer, as none of us do, ultimately. My comment is applicable because this issue raises more questions than can be answered. :)
I think the better question is why should people tolerate hate speech?
by patch22us on Oct 05, 2005 12:41pm
This is maybe why you think I am "missing the point." Read it again and you'll see that what I am asking is this: who defines what constitutes hate speech? Once a definition is arrived at, who determines when hate speech goes too far, and stirs people to civil unrest, violence, etc. And ultimately, my question is why should I, you, or anyone tolerate hate speech? If you are Jewish and I make a derogotory comment about you and make statements that are not fact based, but hate based, why should you tolerate it? Won't you speak up, correct the wrong sterotypes and if need be, pursue the matter further? Of course you (the general you) will. Its human nature. So, why should anyone tolerate it? It may be protected, but so is your/our right to speak up against someone making hate speech.
That's my point and I'm sticking to it :)
And, this issue has been debated by some of the greatest legal minds in the world, including the Supreme Court and if they are still not firm on this issue, I sincerely doubt one of us is going to solve this issue on this ballot :)
Being (thankfully) an American I strongly believe freedom of speech (no matter whose) is vital to the well being of our country & our rights. It's hard to imagine life any other way, for me at least. But yes freedom of speech seems to me to be the cornerstone of all freedoms really.
Yes, I missed your point Patch, sorry.
I think the people who voted in favor of censorship aren't really thinking too indepth on this subject. They're looking at it from a very simplistic approach of 'well why should clearly evil people be allowed to talk'. They don't realize how quickly and horribly wrong this will go.
For instance, you love jesus? Great, so does the majority of americans. But if you don't you'd better keep your sick and hate filled opinions to yourself, or else face jail time for intentionally saying things that offend the majority. You and your bigoted friends can say whatever you want about christianity in the privacy of your own homes but once you step outside you will publicly declare your love for jesus, or keep your mouth shut. Sounds like a great country to live in doesn't it?
And that's just one example, take any emotionally charged issue where one side has a slight numerical advantage; abortion, the death penalty, the war in iraq, healthcare, etc. How long until a politician realizes he can use this precedent to his advantage by appeasing a majority of his supporters?
Oh but that would never happen, politicians have no desire to be reelected and are genuinely motivated only by the purest desires, right?
Jyl makes a great point. by banning any kind of speech you don't stop people from thinknig like that you just make them feel persecuted and then they go underground. Incitement to violence is not free speech though.
But what this ^ fucktard wasn't bright enough to realise is that making murder illegal doesn't stop people from thinking about murdering people, but it does drastically reduce the number of actual murders.
Dung: you could do lots of things to limit crime. For instance, install cameras in everyone home. Require ID to travel outside of your city. Have military checkpoints everywhere, as well as mandatory curfews for everyone, etc.
All these things would limit crime, should we do it?
The difference between outlawing murder and outlawing speech is that murder actually affects someone else in an undeniable way. Does speech? If I yell at you will you be physically harmed?
Besides which, the right to murder is not included in the constitution, is the right to freedom of speech (I'll give you a hint, yes it is).
So you are again trying to compare two things that are not at all alike.
No, free speech is in the constitution:
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
You cant limit free speech. Either its free for all or its not really free speech. Trying to limit it would be the first step towards fascism.
by seon on Sat Oct 08, 05 7:51am
[+]
|
user created polls & quizzes 
