Freedom of speech

[SMR 368]

The issue is that once "offensive" speech is is illegal, you have a legal framework for any speech to become illegal. What if I say that I hate suicide bombers, skinheads, or gangsters? I bet I can find someone offended by that. To the point of political speech, which is the point of the first amendment, what if I say that, Obamacare will destroy this country and those who designed it are incompetent and should be thrown out of office? I bet I can find offended for that one, too.

What if I say that Jesus loves you? I can find someone offended by that, too.

There is already a line both in the US and elsewhere, it's just a question of where it should be. In the US it's classically about shouting fire in a theatre.

Many countries have crafted laws that acknowledges people's rights to have any opinion and to speak their minds but forbids race hate and disorderly conduct via 'threatening and abusive language'

The impression I am getting is that many on VJ want no barriers - so that someone could stand outside say a southern baptist church and scream the filthiest racial language at people going in. Am I hearing it correctly that this is what people are in favor of in the US ?

People have died to prevent race hate too. Many more than died in the war of independence.

Only around 700,000 people lived in the colonies and supported independance in 1776 whereas 600,000 Americans died in the civil war against slavery and many against naziism.

Actually I suspected that many Americans on VJ would say they supported race hate and threatening and abusive language under the guise of free speech so the opinions on here are only confirmation of that.

I know there are others who think differently and deplore the violent and hateful speech, so it would be nice to hear from them too sometime

While the South left the Union partly because of fear that the slaves would eventually be freed by act of Congress, the North didn't go to war to free the slaves. The North fought in the name of the Union. The "Emancipation Proclamation" was signed as a war effort to weaken the South. That is, the key issue of the Civil War was not slavery but rather if a state actually had the right to leave the Union if it wanted to.

Even more preposterous is the assertion that World War II was about racial tension. It was about conquest. The allies were essentially ignorant of Hitler's racist policies until after the war. They even had strong racist tendencies and propaganda of their own. While there were no concentration camps, it's very dishonest or ignorant to claim that WWII was some type of effort to free those oppressed by the Nazis.

[Jenn! 918]

The impression I am getting is that many on VJ want no barriers - so that someone could stand outside say a southern baptist church and scream the filthiest racial language at people going in. Am I hearing it correctly that this is what people are in favor of in the US ?

Not me.

The "American" mentality seems to be, "I can say whatever the hell pops into my head at any moment and YOU are the one accountable for your reaction to it." I think that logic comes from the type of free speech laws that we have.

However, I do see the argument that there is no place to draw the line since surely it could be taken to the extreme. I think what we currently have is too far to the other extreme and it sounds like I would prefer what is in place in the UK (yes, I know, big surprise there).

[Gemmie 142]

I don't know if this has already been said, but you will not be arrested in the UK for standing at the side of the road and shouting "you are a fat #######". Do you know how many people I've seen that have public arguments or say these kind of things? I couldn't even count. If anything, you almost need to commit an act of violence to get arrested for anything.

First of all, there are different social rules between the countries. Americans are extremely polite and friendly, while Brits are blunt and generally act how they feel. How people interact is vastly different, and that includes friends or acquaintances using derogatory terms towards each other. Secondly, I think it's the opposite as you describe. I can say pretty much anything in the UK without worrying what people will think of me, but I don't feel that in the US. I don't mean racist terms because I wouldn't even want to say things like that anyway. But bad language, political opinions, banter etc is more prone in British streets, in my opinion. I believe freedom of speech is more alive in the UK.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

No, I would not be in favor of anything goes.

why do you hate expats?

[Captain Oates 911]

The issue is that once "offensive" speech is is illegal, you have a legal framework for any speech to become illegal. What if I say that I hate suicide bombers, skinheads, or gangsters? I bet I can find someone offended by that. To the point of political speech, which is the point of the first amendment, what if I say that, Obamacare will destroy this country and those who designed it are incompetent and should be thrown out of office? I bet I can find offended for that one, too.

What if I say that Jesus loves you? I can find someone offended by that, too.

While the South left the Union partly because of fear that the slaves would eventually be freed by act of Congress, the North didn't go to war to free the slaves. The North fought in the name of the Union. The "Emancipation Proclamation" was signed as a war effort to weaken the South. That is, the key issue of the Civil War was not slavery but rather if a state actually had the right to leave the Union if it wanted to.

Even more preposterous is the assertion that World War II was about racial tension. It was about conquest. The allies were essentially ignorant of Hitler's racist policies until after the war. They even had strong racist tendencies and propaganda of their own. While there were no concentration camps, it's very dishonest or ignorant to claim that WWII was some type of effort to free those oppressed by the Nazis.

I didn't say world war two (the second world war ) was about racial tension - I said it was about Nazism which in English is Nationalism.

If you say that the civil war was not about slavery then you are at odds with your own USCIS.

I have just learned the hundred USCIS questions -

check this: question 74

74. Name one problem that led to the Civil War. Question 74 Audio (274KB MP3)

slavery

economic reasons

states’ rights

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=88086338b3281210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=7a649ddf801b3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

If the USCIS accept 'slavery' as an answer, then why don't you ?

I am afraid you have misread this entire discussion - we are not discussing freedom of opinion and freedom of expression which is taken as read in western democracies - we are discussing threatening, abusive, racist language which is tolerated to a greater degree in the US than virtually all other first world countries. The citizens of those countries do not feel as though they live in a police state where they are not allowed free expression.

In the contrary, they welcome the law intervening so that their only remedy is not violence.

As I understand it, if I had a 7 year old daughter and a skinhead stuck his face up to hers and called her an ugly little N word, you are suggesting that should not be an offence ?

I am sure you would not tolerate it happening to your daughter, so would you advocate violence as the way to deal with such situations ? Or would you shrug and write it off to free speech ?

Edited August 18, 2010 by saywhat

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't know if this has already been said, but you will not be arrested in the UK for standing at the side of the road and shouting "you are a fat #######". Do you know how many people I've seen that have public arguments or say these kind of things? I couldn't even count. If anything, you almost need to commit an act of violence to get arrested for anything.

First of all, there are different social rules between the countries. Americans are extremely polite and friendly, while Brits are blunt and generally act how they feel. How people interact is vastly different, and that includes friends or acquaintances using derogatory terms towards each other. Secondly, I think it's the opposite as you describe. I can say pretty much anything in the UK without worrying what people will think of me, but I don't feel that in the US. I don't mean racist terms because I wouldn't even want to say things like that anyway. But bad language, political opinions, banter etc is more prone in British streets, in my opinion. I believe freedom of speech is more alive in the UK.

That's my impression as well. I think it's partly because of the way the police operate in potentially threatening situations, all be it because the threat of violence from a guy with fists or a knife is not the same as threats from potentially armed citizens. It is what it is, but I know where I feel safer when things get dodgy.

[Captain Oates 911]

I don't know if this has already been said, but you will not be arrested in the UK for standing at the side of the road and shouting "you are a fat #######". Do you know how many people I've seen that have public arguments or say these kind of things? I couldn't even count. If anything, you almost need to commit an act of violence to get arrested for anything.

First of all, there are different social rules between the countries. Americans are extremely polite and friendly, while Brits are blunt and generally act how they feel. How people interact is vastly different, and that includes friends or acquaintances using derogatory terms towards each other. Secondly, I think it's the opposite as you describe. I can say pretty much anything in the UK without worrying what people will think of me, but I don't feel that in the US. I don't mean racist terms because I wouldn't even want to say things like that anyway. But bad language, political opinions, banter etc is more prone in British streets, in my opinion. I believe freedom of speech is more alive in the UK.

You would be arrested in the UK for shouting 'you fat #######' in a situation where it could be seen as 'threatening or abusive language' or 'disorderly conduct'. If you go up to a police office in London and shout that in his face then you will have your collar felt. It's nothing to do with free speech - it's more about keeping order in the streets. The offense is not in the words or the thoughts or ideas but in the intent. If the intent is to provoke violence or disorderly conduct then it becomes an offense.

This thing where crazy christian nuts can go to the funeral of a US soldier and scream insults at his parents is disgraceful. The US could have law against that without in any way curtailing free speech or thought or expression.

Once again the US is held back and damaged as a society by clinging to this outmoded constitution in it's literal sense. A bit like extreme christians clinging to the idea that the world is 6 thousand years old and people rode dinosaurs. Most churches have now updated their teachings and the constitution needs a make over too. There are 27 amendments so we know it can be done.

[Peikko 1,575]

You would be arrested in the UK for shouting 'you fat #######' in a situation where it could be seen as 'threatening or abusive language' or 'disorderly conduct'. If you go up to a police office in London and shout that in his face then you will have your collar felt. It's nothing to do with free speech - it's more about keeping order in the streets. The offense is not in the words or the thoughts or ideas but in the intent. If the intent is to provoke violence or disorderly conduct then it becomes an offense.

This thing where crazy christian nuts can go to the funeral of a US soldier and scream insults at his parents is disgraceful. The US could have law against that without in any way curtailing free speech or thought or expression.

Once again the US is held back and damaged as a society by clinging to this outmoded constitution in it's literal sense. A bit like extreme christians clinging to the idea that the world is 6 thousand years old and people rode dinosaurs. Most churches have now updated their teachings and the constitution needs a make over too. There are 27 amendments so we know it can be done.

I highly doubt that. UK police hardly ever feel physically threatened by people who hurl obscenities and it is that which would provoke arrest not the words themselves. You would be more likely to be arrested in the states for such behaviour because the US police generally find the public more threatening because they 'might' be armed.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[SMR 368]

I didn't say world war two (the second world war ) was about racial tension - I said it was about Nazism which in English is Nationalism.

If you say that the civil war was not about slavery then you are at odds with your own USCIS.

I have just learned the hundred USCIS questions -

check this: question 74

74. Name one problem that led to the Civil War. Question 74 Audio (274KB MP3)

slavery

economic reasons

states’ rights

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=88086338b3281210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=7a649ddf801b3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

If the USCIS accept 'slavery' as an answer, then why don't you ?

I am afraid you have misread this entire discussion - we are not discussing freedom of opinion and freedom of expression which is taken as read in western democracies - we are discussing threatening, abusive, racist language which is tolerated to a greater degree in the US than virtually all other first world countries. The citizens of those countries do not feel as though they live in a police state where they are not allowed free expression.

In the contrary, they welcome the law intervening so that their only remedy is not violence.

As I understand it, if I had a 7 year old daughter and a skinhead stuck his face up to hers and called her an ugly little N word, you are suggesting that should not be an offence ?

I am sure you would not tolerate it happening to your daughter, so would you advocate violence as the way to deal with such situations ? Or would you shrug and write it off to free speech ?

You cited people that died in the Civil War and WW2 as people that died to prevent race hate. You're correct that both of these wars involved racial tensions and disagreement. But in neither instance was racial equality an underlying value that motivated the common soldiers who bled and died in these wars. Both of these wars were about economic control (political control being a type of economic control). In reality, so was the War of Independence.

[Captain Oates 911]

I highly doubt that. UK police hardly ever feel physically threatened by people who hurl obscenities and it is that which would provoke arrest not the words themselves. You would be more likely to be arrested in the states for such behaviour because the US police generally find the public more threatening because they 'might' be armed.

I have arrested plenty of people for similar conduct between 1968 and 1974 - and got 100% convictions too.

Disorderly conduct doesn't need an element of threat and nor does 'breach of the peace'

It would help to rock forward on their toes with one's hobnails, which would induce them to commit addition offenses - but that's something I would never do of course

[Captain Oates 911]

You cited people that died in the Civil War and WW2 as people that died to prevent race hate. You're correct that both of these wars involved racial tensions and disagreement. But in neither instance was racial equality an underlying value that motivated the common soldiers who bled and died in these wars. Both of these wars were about economic control (political control being a type of economic control). In reality, so was the War of Independence.

I didn't quote ww2 as being about race hate. It was about unifying german speaking peoples at the time of it's inception - although Britain feared it was going to lead to a greater expansionism

It's pretty irrelevant to this subject which is whether the US needs stiffer laws against hate/race/threatening speech

I am citing a 7 year old girl who was abused in the street and the parents of a US soldier who were offended at 'protesters' turning up at his funeral and turning it into a circus.

I think these should not be excused as 'free speech'

[Peikko 1,575]

All wars are about politics and land, religion is used as the excuse and underlying justification but no religion demands expansionism (land mass) or political control.

[Gemmie 142]

I have arrested plenty of people for similar conduct between 1968 and 1974 - and got 100% convictions too.

Maybe times have changed since then, I don't know. I always see people using what you COULD call threatening language. Granted, a police officer isn't always present, but it just seems like the norm there now.

When I was 14, my parents called the police because the old man across the street said sexual things to me at the bus-stop, and they 'had a word' with him and went on their way. The other day my brother called the police because he and his neighbours had caught a man looking through their windows. The police arrested him but then released him the same day because technically he hadn't done anything yet.

Every day you read in the paper that so-and-so happened, but the police weren't able to do a thing. We have a 'yob' culture where kids carry knives to school and teenagers mug the elderly. Politicians talk about giving the police more power. Citizens talk about how they wish things were like they are in the US where people actually get convicted and imprisoned without chance of parole.

I know that's not about 'free speech' but times really have changed when it comes to 'threatening behaviour'.

[SMR 368]

I didn't quote ww2 as being about race hate. It was about unifying german speaking peoples at the time of it's inception - although Britain feared it was going to lead to a greater expansionism

It's pretty irrelevant to this subject which is whether the US needs stiffer laws against hate/race/threatening speech

I am citing a 7 year old girl who was abused in the street and the parents of a US soldier who were offended at 'protesters' turning up at his funeral and turning it into a circus.

I think these should not be excused as 'free speech'

Your original statement was,

"People have died to prevent race hate too. Many more than died in the war of independence.

Only around 700,000 people lived in the colonies and supported independance in 1776 whereas 600,000 Americans died in the civil war against slavery and many against naziism."

You used the example of people who died against naziism to support the claim that more people have died to prevent race hate than died in the War of Independence. Either you were claiming that those who died against Naziism died to prevent race hate or you juxtaposed several statements in a way that implies their interconnectedness but in fact admit the statements are not connected. Sort of like saying,"More people like chicken than beef. Oh, and many people died fighting naziism."

In regards to your original example of the 7-year old girl, I have seen very similar things perpetrated against people of my religion. While I disagreed with it, the thought never crossed my mind that it should be illegal. They have the right to say it and I have the right to ignore. My life hasn't ended and I feel fine. The children involved live on, too. If you haven't the right to insult and offend, you really haven't got the right to speak.

[Captain Oates 911]

Maybe times have changed since then, I don't know. I always see people using what you COULD call threatening language. Granted, a police officer isn't always present, but it just seems like the norm there now.

When I was 14, my parents called the police because the old man across the street said sexual things to me at the bus-stop, and they 'had a word' with him and went on their way. The other day my brother called the police because he and his neighbours had caught a man looking through their windows. The police arrested him but then released him the same day because technically he hadn't done anything yet.

Every day you read in the paper that so-and-so happened, but the police weren't able to do a thing. We have a 'yob' culture where kids carry knives to school and teenagers mug the elderly. Politicians talk about giving the police more power. Citizens talk about how they wish things were like they are in the US where people actually get convicted and imprisoned without chance of parole.

I know that's not about 'free speech' but times really have changed when it comes to 'threatening behaviour'.

oh I don't know - the 'offences aginst the person act 1953' was brought in because so many people were carrying flick knives and using them. When I was 10 I saw an older kid cut a cross on another kids forehead with a flick knife. The teddy boy time was pretty violent though I was too young and just an observer. The cutter ended up as chief architect at Leeds City Council !

The vagrancy act 1824 is still used for many offenses - it was brought in when the victorious army from Waterloo was turned loose in the streets with no food or shelter. One of the offenses is 'exposing wounds or deformities to gain alms', ie showing your leg stumps to beg for money. Those were violent times too.

The Police in the UK need no new laws - they have plenty. They are too busy with drug fuelled crime to mess about with peeping toms.

I am afraid there is little hope for society in the US because easy guns plus no curbs on hate speech = murder and/or disorder

I say that as someone who owns 4 rifles and 3 pistols and bought the ammo in Walmart like it was sweeties.

The main problem is this strutting, violent 'I can do and say anything to anyone' attitude so common in certain social classes in US society especially online. It really leaves one with only one remedy and that is violence.

I think the people on here who say they would ignore someone screaming insults in the face of their 7 year old daughter because it's free speech, are not telling the truth. The people on here who say they would shrug off crazies screaming insults at their dead son while they were burying him are not telling the truth either. It's because there are inadequate laws in this area that they WOULD resort to violence. I know I would.

Fortunately my daughter lives in a country with laws against hate speech so I don't expect an issue.

Edited August 18, 2010 by saywhat