Poll: Is homophobia, racism etc. free speech? - Page 2

KareBear

Its free speech, unless it turns into actions or it incites violent behavior. For example its not "illegal" to be a white supremacist, but if they're speeches lead to committing crimes against other races or tells their members to commit violent acts or engage in discriminatory behavior... then its not protected speech. Like saying "I hate Muslims"(I dont) is protected. But you can't say "Death to all Muslims" or deny them services like jobs or housing

Scandal & Media

Lol sure you're allowed to have stupid opinions like that but don't be surprised when you (rightfully) get called out and/or prosecuted for it when you make it public or act out on those thoughts. "Freedom of speech" is a two way street. Thank god I live in Canada where there are amazing hate speech/crime and anti-discrimination laws set in place.

DripDrip

The freedom of speech isn't and black and white as many people who hear it think

There are many regulations that the Supreme Court has passed on it. Homophobia and Racism can be put under "Fighting Words"

Quote:

Inflammatory words that are either injurious by themselves or might cause the hearer to immediately retaliate or breach the peace. Use of such words is not necessarily protected "free speech" under the First Amendment.

Kim Kardashian

deadautumncrow

"You have the right to free speech as long as you're not putting someone in danger". If your racial/homophobic slurs are threatening to an individual/put someone's life in danger you can be arrested and/or taken to court.

Reeawna

Quote:

Originally posted by Repo

Absolutely. I also think that the rest of the world has the right to call them out on being ignorant, vile, and homophobic/racist/whatever under free speech.

It's an amazing thing

.

that G.U.Y.

Free speech refers to the public's criticism of the government.

It means the government cannot take lawful action against you for saying something.

Your hate speech is noT protected.

Did the people who voted 'yes' skip Government class or what?

deadautumncrow

Quote:

Originally posted by that G.U.Y.

Free speech refers to the public's criticism of the government.

It means the government cannot take lawful action against you for saying something.

Your hate speech is noT protected.

Did the people who voted 'yes' skip Government class or what?

Apparently! Amen to this^

henryevil

Quote:

Originally posted by that G.U.Y.

Free speech refers to the public's criticism of the government.

It means the government cannot take lawful action against you for saying something.

Your hate speech is noT protected.

Did the people who voted 'yes' skip Government class or what?

One more time for those in the back

Bey_Rihstan

Yes. You're technically allowed to be trash as long as you're not hurting anyone

Repo

Quote:

Originally posted by that G.U.Y.

Free speech refers to the public's criticism of the government.

It means the government cannot take lawful action against you for saying something.

Your hate speech is noT protected.

Did the people who voted 'yes' skip Government class or what?

That's a major part of it, but it applies to speech in general. Though people are right when saying that there's limits to free speech, but being hateful isn't one. Free speech is limited when it involves slander/libel (spreading false, damaging rumors about a person's reputation) or puts others at risk. Thus why a person is allowed to say "I hate Gays" but CANNOT start a campaign to actually kill all gays. Likewise, you can't scream "Bomb" in an airport as this leads to panic and a waste of police time, the former can lead to injuries while the latter is illegal in its own.

Hate speech is protected under the first amendment to a degree, thus why westboro is able to function with no lawsuit and no government interference. As long as you fall in the confines of free speech, you can say anything you want no matter how hateful or vile.

We weren't absent during government class, you just don't understand how limitations of free speech work but want to sound really koooool, edgy, progressive, and knowledgable so you spout out nonsense claims with ZERO facts or basis beyond "Because I said so! Y'all need to take another government class!"

Chucko

Quote:

Originally posted by that G.U.Y.

Free speech refers to the public's criticism of the government.

It means the government cannot take lawful action against you for saying something.

Your hate speech is noT protected.

Did the people who voted 'yes' skip Government class or what?

So explain Westboro Baptist Church. Clearly you need to go back to class.

Hate speech is protected First Amendment with the except of the fighting words which would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken.

An example, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), Mitchell and several black youth were outside a movie theater after viewing Mississippi Burning, in which several blacks are beaten. A white youth happened to walk by, and Mitchell yelled, “There goes a white boy; go get him!” Mitchell and the others attacked and beat the boy.

Instead of making laws to restrict speech, laws have been put in place to restrict actions. An example, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), involved the juvenile court proceeding of a white 14-year-old who burned a cross on the front lawn of the only black family in a St. Paul, Minn., neighborhood. Burning a cross is a very hateful thing to do: it is one of the symbols of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has spread hatred and harm throughout this country. The burning cross clearly demonstrated to this family that at least this youth did not welcome them in the neighborhood. The family brought charges, and the boy was prosecuted under a Minnesota criminal law that made it illegal to place, on public or private property, a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse “anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional because it violated the youth’s First Amendment free speech rights.

Note that the Court did not rule that the act itself, burning a cross on the family’s front lawn, was legal. In fact, the youth could have been held criminally responsible for damaging property or for threatening or intimidating the family. Instead, the law was defective because it improperly focused on the motivation for, the thinking that results in, criminal behavior rather than on criminal behavior itself. It attempted to punish the youth for the content of his message, not for his actions.

Domination

Homophobia/racism/etc. are free speech as long as they aren't fighting words.

UFO

Yes, but it can be hate speech.

Repo

Quote:

Originally posted by Chucko

So explain Westboro Baptist Church. Clearly you need to go back to class.

Hate speech is protected First Amendment with the except of the fighting words which would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken.

An example, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), Mitchell and several black youth were outside a movie theater after viewing Mississippi Burning, in which several blacks are beaten. A white youth happened to walk by, and Mitchell yelled, “There goes a white boy; go get him!” Mitchell and the others attacked and beat the boy.

Instead of making laws to restrict speech, laws have been put in place to restrict actions. An example, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), involved the juvenile court proceeding of a white 14-year-old who burned a cross on the front lawn of the only black family in a St. Paul, Minn., neighborhood. Burning a cross is a very hateful thing to do: it is one of the symbols of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has spread hatred and harm throughout this country. The burning cross clearly demonstrated to this family that at least this youth did not welcome them in the neighborhood. The family brought charges, and the boy was prosecuted under a Minnesota criminal law that made it illegal to place, on public or private property, a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse “anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional because it violated the youth’s First Amendment free speech rights.

Note that the Court did not rule that the act itself, burning a cross on the family’s front lawn, was legal. In fact, the youth could have been held criminally responsible for damaging property or for threatening or intimidating the family. Instead, the law was defective because it improperly focused on the motivation for, the thinking that results in, criminal behavior rather than on criminal behavior itself. It attempted to punish the youth for the content of his message, not for his actions.

The accuracy

You explained it far better than I did

Domination

Quote:

Originally posted by Chucko

So explain Westboro Baptist Church. Clearly you need to go back to class.

Hate speech is protected First Amendment with the except of the fighting words which would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken.

An example, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), Mitchell and several black youth were outside a movie theater after viewing Mississippi Burning, in which several blacks are beaten. A white youth happened to walk by, and Mitchell yelled, “There goes a white boy; go get him!” Mitchell and the others attacked and beat the boy.

Instead of making laws to restrict speech, laws have been put in place to restrict actions. An example, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), involved the juvenile court proceeding of a white 14-year-old who burned a cross on the front lawn of the only black family in a St. Paul, Minn., neighborhood. Burning a cross is a very hateful thing to do: it is one of the symbols of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has spread hatred and harm throughout this country. The burning cross clearly demonstrated to this family that at least this youth did not welcome them in the neighborhood. The family brought charges, and the boy was prosecuted under a Minnesota criminal law that made it illegal to place, on public or private property, a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse “anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional because it violated the youth’s First Amendment free speech rights.

Note that the Court did not rule that the act itself, burning a cross on the family’s front lawn, was legal. In fact, the youth could have been held criminally responsible for damaging property or for threatening or intimidating the family. Instead, the law was defective because it improperly focused on the motivation for, the thinking that results in, criminal behavior rather than on criminal behavior itself. It attempted to punish the youth for the content of his message, not for his actions.

Slain by this post. Lemme bookmark.

Eternium

Quote:

Originally posted by Wotamin

As long as something hurts and offends other people's existence, it isn't free speech

Sis, equal rights (i.e. black rights, gay rights, etc.) have been considered offensive by the general public since the early days of America.

If offensive speeches were illegal, we would never have had Martin Luther King Jr. offend the outdated sensibilities of the U.S. and knock some sense in to our general public

Diarrhoea

Yeah.