On one of the posts, someone mentioned that they didn't find political correctness to be much of a threat to individual freedoms...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php
Given the opinions stated in the article, it certainly wouldn't take much to "reinterpret" the 1st Amendment to exclude "hate speech" as protected speech (bringing the US more in line with other Western countires where criminal prosecutions of "unacceptable" speech are becoming more commonplace...
Bill
As much as I may not appreciate it, I consider so-called "hate speech" to be protected by the first ammendment.. really I can't see how you can interpret ANY exception to the first ammendment.
There are already multiple "exceptions" to Constitutionally protected speech... the precedent is already there...
The classic exseption is yelling fire in a crouded building... your first anendment will not hold up in court.
Not that I want to defend hate speach(and related things like hate groups such as the american Nazi movement) but the more you try to repress it the more power you give it. But if you let them their 15 minets in the spotlight most people with half a brain will be able to legitimatly dismis it as the garbage it really is. The down side is the ignorant ones who buy into it, but that is mostly a different topic.
See, heres the thing: I don't understand how hate can be illegal. Its entirely contained within your mind. You cannot legislate thought.
If you want to be a closed-minded, sexist, racist, homophobic bigot, it is your right as an American to do so... as long as you are not ACTING on your prejudices in a way that intentionally harms others.
I guess something like "let's organize on this date and kill some faggots" would be hate speech that might require some looking-into.
I dunno--there is a LOT of hate speech out there that's left alone.
gamby wrote: I guess something like "let's organize on this date and kill some faggots" would be hate speech that might require some looking-into.
No, it would be conspiracy to homicide. The speech is legal, the implied action is not.
Here's the article in question: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898
It brings up some interesting points about the world we will soon be living in.
Times article, on the same subject...
Walking into the crowded streets of Baltimore, in the hood, and yelling the, well, you know, that word. That might get you arrested, but not for violation of speech. Instead, you'll probably get arrested for 1.) your own damn protection and 2.) Inciting a riot or violence.
Wowak wrote: See, heres the thing: I don't understand how hate can be illegal. Its entirely contained within your mind. You cannot legislate thought.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what leftists/statists are doing all around the world... and would like to do in the US if they can get that pesky Constitution reinterpreted... something routinely done by their chosen judges/justices whenever possible.
The (non-liberal) right would also not mind legislating their own brand of political correctness, but since they more typically don't see the Constitution as a "living" document subject to the whims of current society, they are less likely/able to do any actual Constutional damage via judcial activism.
Bill
wcelliot wrote: they are less likely/able to do any actual Constutional damage via judcial activism. Bill
They choose other methods to do their constitutional damage, and have been quite good at it.
I'm in the camp that believes that you should be allowed to say pretty much what every you want, but you should also have to deal with the repercussions. If you go out and start spouting racial slurs, you should pretty much expect to get your ass beat down.
I'm in the camp that believes that you should be allowed to say pretty much what every you want, but you should also have to deal with the repercussions. If you go out and start spouting racial slurs, you should pretty much expect to get your ass beat down.
I'm in that camp, too.
16vCorey wrote: I'm in the camp that believes that you should be allowed to say pretty much what every you want, but you should also have to deal with the repercussions. If you go out and start spouting racial slurs, you should pretty much expect to get your ass beat down.
So in your opinion, is being "insulted" by speech an adequate defense for beating somebody up?
Can you give me a single example of how Conservatives have done "Constutional damage"? A favorite charge are Bush's signing statements... used by Presidents for generations and carrying absolutely no legal weight....
They have screwed up Government in numerous ways, but none that seem to directly effect the Constitution in the same ways that judicial activism has.
Bill
So in your opinion, is being "insulted" by speech an adequate defense for beating somebody up?
No. But you should recognize that what you say might very well make a number of people immediately around you very unhappy, and they are welcome to express their opinion of you verbally.
If you're using your 'free speech' to make threats, you can expect people to thereby feel threatened, and deal with the threat physically.
Exactly. I'm not saying that people have the right to beat the crap out of someone for insulting them. I said "If you go out and start spouting racial slurs, you should pretty much expect to get your ass beat down.", not "If you go out and start spouting racial slurs, people have the right to beat your ass." All I'm saying is that if you provoke people, someone's eventually going to take the bait and possibly punch you in the face, so don't act surprised when it happens.
I'm completely on the same page with you (that you should expect to be held responsible for your words), but I needed to clarify.
More than once recently being insulted by speech or other non-physical actions has been used as a defense of beating up the allegeded offender... and that position has seemed to be validated in the press (if not necessarily the courts. Yet.).
Just making sure that wasn't the "politically correct" position being taken here...
Bill
neon4891 wrote: The classic exseption is yelling fire in a crouded building... your first anendment will not hold up in court.
"Against the argument that you cannot cry fire in a crowded theatre: Oh yes you can — you must, if in your considered view there is a fire. In that case there is a duty to cry fire." - Julian Porter, QC, speaking at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on Friday
Live blog of the Macleans/Steyn trial: http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/02/liveblogging-the-bc-human-rights-tribunal%e2%80%94part-i/
Aside from the issue of free speech rights is the practical matter of setting the standard for what is allowable speech, proof of actual harm, and who is to sit in judgement - as this kangaroo court makes abundantly clear.
Steyn's website: http://www.steynonline.com/
Funny i was just going to post the NYtimes article. This is one way in which America is truly unique from the rest of the developed world and I'm glad for it.
Looking at this particular case, over the question of how much harm it causes, I don't think there is much harm because it puts these ideas out there so they now can be refuted. The ideas were already there but now they are more open to criticism. Also when some one publishes dangerous ideas, it exposes them as dangerous thinkers.
gamby wrote: I guess something like "let's organize on this date and kill some faggots" would be hate speech that might require some looking-into. I dunno--there is a LOT of hate speech out there that's left alone.
from what I understand, this is incitement and is not protected under the first in the U.S.
seann wrote: Funny i was just going to post the NYtimes article. This is one way in which America is truly unique from the rest of the developed world and I'm glad for it. .
Someone from the Canadian Human Rights Commission is quoted in the NY Post as saying "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value"
Wally wrote:seann wrote: Funny i was just going to post the NYtimes article. This is one way in which America is truly unique from the rest of the developed world and I'm glad for it. .Someone from the Canadian Human Rights Commission is quoted in the NY Post as saying "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value"
Funny for two reasons:
what a really stupid thing to say, and another example of the Post really getting down to the heart of the discussion. It's in the NY Post, so I don't give it any value.
How can you question the Post's newsworthyness
wcelliot wrote: The (non-liberal) right would also not mind legislating their own brand of political correctness, but since they more typically don't see the Constitution as a "living" document subject to the whims of current society, they are less likely/able to do any actual Constutional damage via judcial activism.
OK, ok. I call complete bull shiate on that.
The prevailing politically right controlled government has done plenty to dismantle any protection they deem as obstructing their ideas of due process and freedom.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Imprisonment without due process
Violation of search and seizure laws
..that's just to name a few.
I will agree that the left has done their share to craft laws to thwart the consitution as well. Seems that it's a failing of all of our current government.
But to say it's mostly "those guys" as opposed to "your guys" is patently ridiculous. Especially considering the Patriot Act and such.
Also, to get on the politically correct language box...the current administration is on that band wagon as well.
Patriot Act - PC name for an act that, I would think, that is most unpatriotic as it runs counter to the Constitution and Bill of Rights all in one fell swoop.
Extreme Rendition - hey, call it kidnapping and be done with it.
Detention Center - prison camp
There are many, many more. To say this is a "left" problem is being foolish by only looking at half of the problem.
All of your points are excellent examples of where this Administration has done things that were (arguably in some cases) Unconstitutional. I won't contest that.
But none of those things changed case law or the historic interpretation of the Constituion.
There is a HUGE difference between behaving unConstitutionally (where the balance of power/checks and balances could intervene... witness the Supreme Court decision today) and in subverting the interpretation of the Constitution to suddenly make your behavior completely acceptable legally.
The latter has long term if not permanent implications while the former (as with the abuse of signing statements) carry no lasting legal precedent.
That was my point...
This Administration is certainly not "my guys"... and I'm not an apologist for them. (The things they've done are bad enough without the addition of inaccurate charges that they've forever changed the Constitution or Constitutional balance of powers. They may have exceeded them, but they've not changed them.)
I am however, a libertarian student of Constutional law and history...
Bill
You'll need to log in to post.
