Freedom of Speech -- When Does A Rally Cross The Line, If It Does?

[Mr Epee]

Speed dating is a Jewish invention.

Todd - is an Aryan at heart.

[ReverseLunge]

He is setting his sights on the master race but he look like he isn't pure Aryan. I've seen an Aryans with brown hair like Hitler's but I have never seen and Aryan with curly brown hair. I think Todd is an American style Aryan. You know how that is. 1/2 German, 1/4 Ukrainian, 1/8 Cheroke indian, 1/16 Hispanic etc....

[Mr Epee]

Gillian Anderson is probably in her 40's by now.

It's probably a last Huzzah!

[esskreemr]

Anytime Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton open their mouths the line's pretty much crossed....Farrakhan is the worst of the lot, tho...he recently said that the govt purposely breacked the levees in Louisiana during Katrina in order to flood out blacks in the area.

If ever there was someone deserving of having his 1st Amendment rights stripped, it's him.

I'm no fan of Farrakhan or Sharpton. Farrakhan is a nutjob. Do his speeches incite riots? I don't know, I rarely listen to him. Sharpton seems less rabid but still has his "wth!?" moments.

[esskreemr]

Everytime the guy speaks, it's basically to incite riots.

It's pretty funny how you bring this up, but since escrimer didnt like the answer, shot back that it didnt address the question, but came up with a couple of nice ones,

This is an open discussion. just because I shoot it down, doesn't meant someone else can't pick it up.

(one by the way that is a complete fabrication, as Ann Coulter never said The Emancipation Proclaimation should be repealed (man Esc, you really dont care how you slander someone ,do you?).

Those were quotes off of websites. I'm sure there is audio/video somewhere. Unless you can show it was a complete fabrication, the quote stands.

You are right, they are both inconsequential to this discussion. It was just to show that both sides of the fence lean against the 'crazy gate' every now and then.

[Slim]

I'm no fan of Farrakhan or Sharpton. Farrakhan is a nutjob. Do his speeches incite riots? I don't know, I rarely listen to him. Sharpton seems less rabid but still has his "wth!?" moments.

Maybe you should expand your mind and listen to what the nuts on both sides are saying.

[esskreemr]

Essy-pie,

must be horrifically popular at his local coffee shop.

Poetry at 11.

Who pushed the troll calling button?

[esskreemr]

Let me get this straight.

A handful of nazi idiots decide to have a "march." They announce that they're just going to walk down the sidewalk, nothing more, and they get all appropriate permissions from the civic authorities ahead of time. The "march" is to occur in a racially mixed area of town.

No actually, they were refused a parade permit so they decided to walk down the street.

When these few numbskulls gather in a city park before their stroll down the sidewalk, a bunch of locals show up and start throwing rocks at... police officers. The nazi dorks go home immediately.

Yes.

The locals then start trashing people's cars, breaking into stores, destroying private property. More than a hundred people are injured by the lawless out-of-control locals.

I'm not condoning the behavior, just trying to put another light on it.

So you're asking why don't we prohibit the nazi dorks from engaging in their political speech, because clearly the locals are of such a nature as to go on a rampage should the nazis do so?

Have I got this straight?

No. What is the line between political speech and hate speech?

Then let's ask the same question another way: suppose you wanted to hold a march for racial equality, but doing so was guaranteed to cause racist locals to engage in violence. Would it be proper to prohibit the political speech of the equal-rights marchers, because clearly the locals are of such a nature as to go on a rampage should they be allowed to march?

Depends on the nature of the racial equality march. Shouting " racial equality now" and carrying banners supporting racial equality is ALOT different than a bunch of white supremist getting together and 'marching' down a sidewalk in a black neighborhood shouting racial slurs.

I think the answer should be obvious, Ess.

[esskreemr]

Maybe you should expand your mind and listen to what the nuts on both sides are saying.

There's a huge difference between having an open mind that accepts new information and forms opinions based on that knowledge and experience and having an open mind that accepts any garbage that is thrown in. How can your mind trully be open if it is filled with garbage? Do you still retain the capacity to accept new ideas or do they fall to the ground like a rumpled up piece of paper bouncing off the top of the over-flowing trash?

[esskreemr]

Anytime Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton open their mouths the line's pretty much crossed....Farrakhan is the worst of the lot, tho...he recently said that the govt purposely breacked the levees in Louisiana during Katrina in order to flood out blacks in the area.

If ever there was someone deserving of having his 1st Amendment rights stripped, it's him.

Blowing levees at specific places to reduce the overall pressure on the entire system is common practice. The Mississippi levees were blown before in 1927 and 1965. In 1927 they chose a poor area 13 miles South of New Orleans. The residents were promised restitution, but recieved little. After Hurricane Katrina hit there were many explosions heard before the flooding occurred. Two and two where put together and an conspiracy myth is born.

For the record, I don't think the levees were deliberately blown to disenfranchise the poor of New Orleans.

[Slim]

Blowing levees at specific places to reduce the overall pressure on the entire system is common practice. The Mississippi levees were blown before in 1927 and 1965. In 1927 they chose a poor area 13 miles South of New Orleans. The residents were promised restitution, but recieved little. After Hurricane Katrina hit there were many explosions heard before the flooding occurred. Two and two where put together and an conspiracy myth is born.

For the record, I don't think the levees were deliberately blown to disenfranchise the poor of New Orleans.

No. You had a very influential leader of the Black community suggesting to people that this is what really happend. It was nothing but an attempt and add fuel to the "GW hates black people" fire. It was not a theory born naturally. It was manufactured for a specific purpose.

[Epee_Pox]

No. What is the line between political speech and hate speech?

Depends on the nature of the racial equality march. Shouting " racial equality now" and carrying banners supporting racial equality is ALOT different than a bunch of white supremist getting together and 'marching' down a sidewalk in a black neighborhood shouting racial slurs.

I don't think that's right.

Your argument is based on the "fighting words" exception to the freedom of expression. You seemed to be implying that, when the expression of one's political beliefs would tend to anger the audience to the point of violence, then that expression should not be protected speech.

Fair enough. But that rule should apply regardless of the content of the speech. It is a results-based rule, not a limitation on content.

So HAY's counter-example seems apt. If it's bad for white supremacists to express their sincerely-held political beliefs, because it will result in violence, then it is equally bad for anyone else to express their own sincerely-held political beliefs if doing so will result in violence.

I get the impression that you're not making a distinction between your results-based rule for limiting speech, and content-based rules for limiting speech. There is a VERY big difference between restricting speech because it will cause rioting, and restricting speech because you find it morally repugnant.

I do think that speech should be limited if it is likely to incite violence. And in fact most states have laws against such speech. [Here in New York, for example, it is a crime to (1) urge people to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm; (2) gather with others with the purpose of engaging in such conduct; (3) join such an already-existing gathering; (4) advocate the overthrow of the government by violence; (5) publish sell or distribute any document advocating such violent overthrow; (6) joins an organization advocating such violent overthrow; and even (7) to make unreasonable noise or disturbance at a religious service or within 100 feet of one with the intent to cause annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk of it.]

Content-based restrictions, however, are precisely what the First Amendment is there to protect against. Be careful before you start advocating them, or you may wind up being just as bad or worse than those skinheads.

[esskreemr]

No. You had a very influential leader of the Black community suggesting to people that this is what really happend. It was nothing but an attempt and add fuel to the "GW hates black people" fire. It was not a theory born naturally. It was manufactured for a specific purpose.

Did you or your family feel directly threatened by intimations of violence? Did you feel your safety at risk? Was he in your neighborhood or on your street. There's incendiary political speech designed to incite the masses to action. Many parties partake in this, some 'better' than others.

Having a website called 'God Hates Fags' is considerably different than burning a cross outside of somebody's home. The one is expressing an opinion, which may contain violent speech. The other is a singular direct threat to the inhabitants of the home. Does that make one or the other 'right', no. It may make it protected speech.

[esskreemr]

I don't think that's right.

Your argument is based on the "fighting words" exception to the freedom of expression. You seemed to be implying that, when the expression of one's political beliefs would tend to anger the audience to the point of violence, then that expression should not be protected speech.

No, absolutely not. I'm more or less (apparently less) attempting to establish the line at which 'content-based' speech becomes 'result-based' speech. I'm not advocating barring groups such as the Neo-Nazis, KKK, Nation of Islam, Family Reseach Council, or other hate/religious groups from presenting their political views. Advocating a political view is different than acting on a political view. Attempting to degrade and humiliate people in their own neighborhood seems to be pushing the limits. What was the intended audience? What message were they attempting to get across? I understand that the inhabitants could have/should have reacted in a better manner, they took what would normally be a non-event of stone-age throwbacks venting their repugnant views and made it into a nationally spot-lighted event. They played the script that the Neo-Nazis wrote. However, if an organization that is based on hate, that has a history of violence enters your neighborhood and starts screaming derogatory epithets at you, your neighbors, and your children, do you have the right to defend yourself, with violence if necessary?

So HAY's counter-example seems apt. If it's bad for white supremacists to express their sincerely-held political beliefs, because it will result in violence, then it is equally bad for anyone else to express their own sincerely-held political beliefs if doing so will result in violence.

No there has to be some other measure. I could walk through a bar and yell "I hate blondes" and would most likely be the reciever of a vicious, if not violent, action. Burning a cross on your personally owned property is considerably different than burning it outside of someone's house without their permission. One is an expression of a belief or view, the other is an expression of violence.

I get the impression that you're not making a distinction between your results-based rule for limiting speech, and content-based rules for limiting speech. There is a VERY big difference between restricting speech because it will cause rioting, and restricting speech because you find it morally repugnant.

I find quite a bit of speech morally repugnant. That's why I don't watch FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh and sometimes only glance over Slim's post. I may react, but I don't feel that they should be censored, countered yes, censored no. If Tom DeLay wants to write 100 newspaper articles on the benefits of DDT, I can react by countering. If he decides to spray it over my neighborhood, I feel that I should be able to defend myself and my family, with violence if necessary.

I do think that speech should be limited if it is likely to incite violence. And in fact most states have laws against such speech. [Here in New York, for example, it is a crime to (1) urge people to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm; (2) gather with others with the purpose of engaging in such conduct; (3) join such an already-existing gathering; (4) advocate the overthrow of the government by violence; (5) publish sell or distribute any document advocating such violent overthrow; (6) joins an organization advocating such violent overthrow; and even (7) to make unreasonable noise or disturbance at a religious service or within 100 feet of one with the intent to cause annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk of it.]

Content-based restrictions, however, are precisely what the First Amendment is there to protect against. Be careful before you start advocating them, or you may wind up being just as bad or worse than those skinheads.

I agree.

[Slim]

However, if an organization that is based on hate, that has a history of violence enters your neighborhood and starts screaming derogatory epithets at you, your neighbors, and your children, do you have the right to defend yourself, with violence if necessary?

If you feel a direct threat, you betcha! Now you're talking! You might actually feel right at home in down here in Florida now. If you feel that your safety or the safety of your family is under immediate threat, just lock, load, and commence firing my friend. It's a wonderful thing. C'mon down and I'll be happy to get you qual'd on some nice hardware.

[Philistine]

{snip} However, if an organization that is based on hate, that has a history of violence enters your neighborhood and starts screaming derogatory epithets at you, your neighbors, and your children, do you have the right to defend yourself, with violence if necessary?{snip}

Well. No. Not if, as was the case here, they are surrounded by police officers, making any potential for violence by them against you, exceedingly unlikely.

I'm not really sure from your posts what you're advocating here.

AIUI, the "demonstration" in question never got to the stage of marching or screaming derogatory epithets--it was broken up by the bystanders before it started.

I'm not sure if you're talking about a hypothetical situation here--but even if so, what are you suggesting? You seem to be conflating prior restraint with criminilization of speech, together with justification/self-defense.

Are you saying that the Nazis should have been stopped (by the authoraties) for marching because their message was inflammatory to its intended audience?

Are you saying that physical attacks on Nazis are proper if they are too obnoxious?

Are you saying that if they cross some sort of line in what they say, they should be subject to arrest? (This is actually the case, at least in most states).

--Philistine

[Bayou Bum]

I don't think that's right.
I do think that speech should be limited if it is likely to incite violence. And in fact most states have laws against such speech. [Here in New York, for example, it is a crime to (1) urge people to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm; (2) gather with others with the purpose of engaging in such conduct; (3) join such an already-existing gathering; (4) advocate the overthrow of the government by violence; (5) publish sell or distribute any document advocating such violent overthrow; (6) joins an organization advocating such violent overthrow; and even (7) to make unreasonable noise or disturbance at a religious service or within 100 feet of one with the intent to cause annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk of it.]

I'm not sure I agree with 4,5,6. After all, that is why we were given the right to bear arms. I believe the the ultimate checks and balances to the federal government, which is not taught in civics class, was our right to overthrow the government if necessary. This was almost the case in 1934 with the plot to overthrow FDR and the creation of the American Liberty League.

Content-based restrictions, however, are precisely what the First Amendment is there to protect against. Be careful before you start advocating them, or you may wind up being just as bad or worse than those skinheads.

I agree, but I also don't think it is the government's job to protect them with the police while they promote their hate message. How many of the Neo-Nazi ****heads would have shown up had there not been police officers protecting them from an angry crowd? Without police protection, I'm sure they would have chosen a safer place to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

If we restrict their rights, what's next:
Banning flag burning at a parade to honor Veterans?
Banning Right to Life protests at abortion clinics?
Banning anti-war protests at the Republican Convention?