Penn & Teller on the 1st Amendment

[almaty 19]

i agree..with racial slurs..and symbols of racial bias..also, a nazi symbol..has no place in american unless you are a member of the Arryan Brotherhood

i don't think racial slurs are protectec under the 1st ammendment.. or that not liking racial slurs is being PC

no..at times..labelled as hate crimes if an act of criminal behavior is attached

[russ 1]

i don't think racial slurs are protectec under the 1st ammendment.. or that not liking racial slurs is being PC

In most cases, they are. The major exceptions to the first amendment are obscenity, causing panic, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime and sedition.

Causing panic is the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater," defamation has a very tough legal standard in the US (libel or slander), and sedition is obvious as well (advocating the illegal overthrow of the US govt).

Incitement to crime is where racial slurs generally fall, but this requires that some crime is reasonably being incited. Saying "I don't like purple people" is not the same as saying "kill all purple people" which results in physical harm to a purple person.

I don't like the Catholic church. Is speech about why I don't like it considered hate speech? (There has been plenty of negative press about the Catholic church in recent years, I'm not alone here)

[Kevin and 10]

The Free Speech Clause is in place to limit The Government censoring citizens. Not to protect someone's sensitivities. You can't legislate emotion or ignorance.

Besides, if I was a purple person and someone was advocating the release of the Purple People Eaters. I'd just exercise my Second Amendment Rights.

[pedroh 21]

i don't think racial slurs are protectec under the 1st ammendment.. or that not liking racial slurs is being PC

In most cases, they are. The major exceptions to the first amendment are obscenity, causing panic, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime and sedition.

Causing panic is the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater," defamation has a very tough legal standard in the US (libel or slander), and sedition is obvious as well (advocating the illegal overthrow of the US govt).

Incitement to crime is where racial slurs generally fall, but this requires that some crime is reasonably being incited. Saying "I don't like purple people" is not the same as saying "kill all purple people" which results in physical harm to a purple person.

I don't like the Catholic church. Is speech about why I don't like it considered hate speech? (There has been plenty of negative press about the Catholic church in recent years, I'm not alone here)

but you say I don't like the catholic church, you dont say 'i dont like =slur for catholics or catholic church='.. the same with purple people, you say I don't like purple people, not saying I don't like -purple people racial slur-...

and, being protected unders the 1st amendment doesn't make it right. Yes, you have the freedom to say something, but also there are responsibilities and consequences to say something. I don't think common sense and PC have to be confused. freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to say something knowing that you will offend someone with your actions or words..

you can say 'i dont like black people' but you know the consequences of saying it so, and I don't think advocating any kind of tolerance would be being PC.. why would you promote something that doesn't benefit the society at all? letting someone say I dont like black people really doesn't help, rather than just let someone express an ignorant statement

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This morning on the radio, they were discussing a recent motion by the city council of LA to ban the word, 'n!gger'. There wouldn't be any fine for using the word, so it was just a gesture to denounce use of the word.

However, Earl Ofari Hutchinson stated quite accurately that we shouldn't be passing city ordinances in order to send the message to people that the word, 'n!gger' should not be acceptable to be used. I agree with Kevin - the 1st Amendment can and should protect all forms of speech, no matter how vile or disgusting it may be.

I'm curious though how many here agree with ACLU's protection of the 1st Amendment? Is it being PC to not want to protect freedom of speech in even the most vile of sources?

Edited November 7, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[pedroh 21]

This morning on the radio, they were discussing a recent motion by the city council of LA to ban the word, 'n!gger'. There wouldn't be any fine for using the word, so it was just a gesture to denounce use of the word.

However, Earl Ofari Hutchinson stated quite accurately that we shouldn't be passing city ordinances in order to send the message to people that the word, 'n!gger' should not be acceptable to be used. I agree with Kevin - the 1st Amendment can and should protect all forms of speech, no matter how vile or disgusting it may be.

I'm curious though how many here agree with ACLU's protection of the 1st Amendment? Is it being PC to not want to protect freedom of speech in even the most vile of sources?

I think any kind of denigration shouldn't be protected under the 1st amendment..

[russ 1]

freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to say something knowing that you will offend someone with your actions or words..

Freedom of speech does entitle me to offend people with my words.

I mostly choose not to, but is my right to offend anyone with what I have to say.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

This morning on the radio, they were discussing a recent motion by the city council of LA to ban the word, 'n!gger'. There wouldn't be any fine for using the word, so it was just a gesture to denounce use of the word.

However, Earl Ofari Hutchinson stated quite accurately that we shouldn't be passing city ordinances in order to send the message to people that the word, 'n!gger' should not be acceptable to be used. I agree with Kevin - the 1st Amendment can and should protect all forms of speech, no matter how vile or disgusting it may be.

I'm curious though how many here agree with ACLU's protection of the 1st Amendment? Is it being PC to not want to protect freedom of speech in even the most vile of sources?

steven, call them up and ask them to stop being so niggardly with their words, to tell us what they really think.

[russ 1]

I think any kind of denigration shouldn't be protected under the 1st amendment..

Denigration of public figures is essential to a free society. We already have laws against libel (which requires that what I say be both malicious and known to me to be false).

I will define denigration as being a belittling comment, or the act of expressing disapproval, or attacking their character. Do I have a right to do so towards public figures? I should certainly hope so. There is no reason that I can't say "I think Mr. Purple is an idiot. He is blundering his job. I don't like how he looks." ?

I can't say (in writting) "Mr Purple stole candy from babies on November 1st" if I know that not to be true and reasonable expect it will cause harm to him.

The first amendment primarly protects speech that would be considered denigration. Nice, polite, popular speech rarely requires any protection.

[Kevin and 10]

This morning on the radio, they were discussing a recent motion by the city council of LA to ban the word, 'n!gger'. There wouldn't be any fine for using the word, so it was just a gesture to denounce use of the word.

However, Earl Ofari Hutchinson stated quite accurately that we shouldn't be passing city ordinances in order to send the message to people that the word, 'n!gger' should not be acceptable to be used. I agree with Kevin - the 1st Amendment can and should protect all forms of speech, no matter how vile or disgusting it may be.

I'm curious though how many here agree with ACLU's protection of the 1st Amendment? Is it being PC to not want to protect freedom of speech in even the most vile of sources?

I think any kind of denigration shouldn't be protected under the 1st amendment..

Who is to say what types of speech is denigrating? Cigarettes are called fags across the pond, when they seal log cabins they are chinking, I've heard the term slope a number of times when I was taking math classes, the word n!gger is used in music, etc

MadTV, SNL, almost any comedy show pokes fun at some group and people may get offended. Are we going to censor them?

[pedroh 21]

there's a big problem, when it becomes a double standard..

most people will debate 'why can black people call among themselves n!gger and why can't white people do it to' although I understand among black people it removes the 'offensiveness' that White people tried to give to that word.. blacks didn't invented the word n!gger.. whites did with a single purpose, I don't see why it's hard to understand..

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

there's a big problem, when it becomes a double standard..

most people will debate 'why can black people call among themselves n!gger and why can't white people do it to' although I understand among black people it removes the 'offensiveness' that White people tried to give to that word.. blacks didn't invented the word n!gger.. whites did with a single purpose, I don't see why it's hard to understand..

ah pedroh, the word existed long before it became applied in a racial manner........

[russ 1]

there's a big problem, when it becomes a double standard..

Speech in the US is more than a double standard. I can think of at least 5 or 6 legal standards for speech depending on who you are speaking or writing about.

Public (elected) Officials: You can say pretty much anything you want.

Celebrities: Perhaps not as much as elected officials, but generally fair game in the press.

Private Individuals: Much easier to prove libel, more rights than public people.

Crime Victims: States often have laws restricting identification of them.

Minors (especially crime victims): Probably have the most protection, both legally an by the policies of news organizatons.

[pedroh 21]

but then.. are the public universities be better known to promote free speech, or to promote a safe environment for all students? you know that when you have such freedoms, as let racist organizations express themselves, conflicts are gonna arise... and such conflicts are not part of the university values

[russ 1]

but then.. are the public universities be better known to promote free speech, or to promote a safe environment for all students? you know that when you have such freedoms, as let racist organizations express themselves, conflicts are gonna arise... and such conflicts are not part of the university values

A very complicated question. Speech from tenured professors is different than from students, and generally they should not be penalized for publishing things that administrations don't like (at all schools).

For students, there is a difference between public and private universities. The policies restricing the speech of students have been short sighted though, and schools are probably better off letting existing laws handle things.

Private schools with religious affiliations get into trouble here, because they will either be prohibiting speech that their religious affiliation encourages, or end up being viewed as intolerat. No policy is probably best here.

Public universities probably should not be regulating the speech of students at all that would otherwise be legal, since they are funded principally by the government. It isn't much of a stretch to say that their rules are governmental in nature, since the administration of such schools is put in place by the legislature in most states.

Many schools that have such policies have been involved in lawsuits because of them.