Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 7:46

Post #126 of 221 (1610 views)

Quote:

This is pretty much what Dan said and to which you objected. Given your difficultly understanding this topic, I would say Dan was correct when he said it was a bit tricky.

I don't really think it's that tricky. Hate speech is obviously not specifically protected. However, SCOTUS has said multiple times that there is no exception to the First Amendment for hate speech, i.e. it is as protected as any other speech.

What's not protected is speech that is directed to incite violence or imminent illegal action and that is likely to indeed produce such violence or illegal action. That's not specific to hate speech. You could easily have speech that is directed to incite violence or illegal action that doesn't qualify as "hate speech."

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Re: Pardon my ignorance [slowguy] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 7:50

Post #127 of 221 (1606 views)

slowguy wrote:

Quote:

This is pretty much what Dan said and to which you objected. Given your difficultly understanding this topic, I would say Dan was correct when he said it was a bit tricky.

I don't really think it's that tricky. Hate speech is obviously not specifically protected. However, SCOTUS has said multiple times that there is no exception to the First Amendment for hate speech, i.e. it is as protected as any other speech.

What's not protected is speech that is directed to incite violence or imminent illegal action and that is likely to indeed produce such violence or illegal action. That's not specific to hate speech. You could easily have speech that is directed to incite violence or illegal action that doesn't qualify as "hate speech."

Hate speech statutes have been upheld wherein hate speech is specifically defined. Hateful speech is not unprotected hate speech as recognized by the courts. The issue is defining hate speech and distinguishing it from speech that is hateful.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 8:05

Post #128 of 221 (1594 views)

JSA wrote:

slowguy wrote:

Quote:

This is pretty much what Dan said and to which you objected. Given your difficultly understanding this topic, I would say Dan was correct when he said it was a bit tricky.

I don't really think it's that tricky. Hate speech is obviously not specifically protected. However, SCOTUS has said multiple times that there is no exception to the First Amendment for hate speech, i.e. it is as protected as any other speech.

What's not protected is speech that is directed to incite violence or imminent illegal action and that is likely to indeed produce such violence or illegal action. That's not specific to hate speech. You could easily have speech that is directed to incite violence or illegal action that doesn't qualify as "hate speech."

Hate speech statutes have been upheld wherein hate speech is specifically defined. Hateful speech is not unprotected hate speech as recognized by the courts. The issue is defining hate speech and distinguishing it from speech that is hateful.

Got it. Does that definition of "hate speech" include the component related to inciting violence or illegal action? If so, then I don't think that legal definition would match up with the common definition/understanding of hate speech.

For example, I'm pretty sure that most people here would consider "I hate all white people. They're evil and the world would be better off if white people didn't exist. White people are the devil.," to be hate speech. However, if the legal definition of "hate speech" includes intent to incite violence, then it certainly wouldn't qualify. That would lead to a significant disconnect between the common public discourse about hate speech and the legal definition.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Re: Pardon my ignorance [slowguy] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 8:09

Post #129 of 221 (1592 views)

I think some of this would fall under disorderly conduct laws such as inciting a riot and/or disturbing the peace. Being that the speech is protected but the result of the speech is not. The first amendment only protects you from government retaliation not individual retaliation.

Re: Pardon my ignorance [slowguy] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 8:13

Post #130 of 221 (1587 views)

slowguy wrote:

Got it. Does that definition of "hate speech" include the component related to inciting violence or illegal action? If so, then I don't think that legal definition would match up with the common definition/understanding of hate speech.

Ok, now I see what you are saying. Yes, that is true. There is that component.

slowguy wrote:

For example, I'm pretty sure that most people here would consider "I hate all white people. They're evil and the world would be better off if white people didn't exist. White people are the devil.," to be hate speech. However, if the legal definition of "hate speech" includes intent to incite violence, then it certainly wouldn't qualify. That would lead to a significant disconnect between the common public discourse about hate speech and the legal definition.

Yep, I'm tracking now. Correct. There is a difference between "hateful speech" and legally unprotected hate speech. But, common usage of the term "hate speech" would not make that distinction.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 8:34

Post #131 of 221 (1571 views)

isn't incitement a crime in the US independent of hate crime?

ie., if you said "we should all go burn down that movie theatre now," that's (to my eyes at least) clearly incitement but clearly not a hate crime.

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Re: Pardon my ignorance [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 8:41

Post #132 of 221 (1567 views)

iron_mike wrote:

isn't incitement a crime in the US independent of hate crime?

ie., if you said "we should all go burn down that movie theatre now," that's (to my eyes at least) clearly incitement but clearly not a hate crime.

Yes. Depending on the jurisdiction, it can range from disorderly conduct to incitement of a riot as a specific charge. Hate crimes requiring a showing that the act was committed based on the protected class of the victim.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 8:56

Post #133 of 221 (1558 views)

Quote:

Yep, I'm tracking now. Correct. There is a difference between "hateful speech" and legally unprotected hate speech. But, common usage of the term "hate speech" would not make that distinction.

Exactly. I'm betting there was a shitload of what most people would consider "hate speech" at these demonstrations that would not necessarily fall into the category of speech that could be prosecuted.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:00

Post #134 of 221 (1553 views)

JSA wrote:

I'm going to have to start charging you for these education lessons.

Not all hateful speech is unprotected hate speech. As Dan correctly pointed out to you, speech that could reasonably be expected to elicit a volatile reaction is unprotected hate speech.

If a Klan group sets up in a public park and chants "white power," it is likely protected speech. If they enter a black church to do it, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a neo-Nazi places a Hitler sticker on his truck, it is likely protected speech. If he confronts a Jewish person on the street telling him Hitler should have finished the task, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a group sets up a rally saying god hates f_gs, it is likely protected speech. If a member of that group confronts a gay man and provokes him by saying, god hates you, f_ggot, it is unprotected hate speech.

This is pretty much what Dan said and to which you objected. Given your difficultly understanding this topic, I would say Dan was correct when he said it was a bit tricky.

Two of the three of your examples of unprotected hate speech would fall under either incitement of an unlawful act or fighting words. The third would be protected

Re: Pardon my ignorance [slowguy] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:03

Post #135 of 221 (1545 views)

slowguy wrote:

Quote:

This is pretty much what Dan said and to which you objected. Given your difficultly understanding this topic, I would say Dan was correct when he said it was a bit tricky.

I don't really think it's that tricky. Hate speech is obviously not specifically protected. However, SCOTUS has said multiple times that there is no exception to the First Amendment for hate speech, i.e. it is as protected as any other speech.

What's not protected is speech that is directed to incite violence or imminent illegal action and that is likely to indeed produce such violence or illegal action. That's not specific to hate speech. You could easily have speech that is directed to incite violence or illegal action that doesn't qualify as "hate speech."

what he said

Re: Pardon my ignorance [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:03

Post #136 of 221 (1545 views)

windywave wrote:

JSA wrote:

I'm going to have to start charging you for these education lessons.

Not all hateful speech is unprotected hate speech. As Dan correctly pointed out to you, speech that could reasonably be expected to elicit a volatile reaction is unprotected hate speech.

If a Klan group sets up in a public park and chants "white power," it is likely protected speech. If they enter a black church to do it, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a neo-Nazi places a Hitler sticker on his truck, it is likely protected speech. If he confronts a Jewish person on the street telling him Hitler should have finished the task, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a group sets up a rally saying god hates f_gs, it is likely protected speech. If a member of that group confronts a gay man and provokes him by saying, god hates you, f_ggot, it is unprotected hate speech.

This is pretty much what Dan said and to which you objected. Given your difficultly understanding this topic, I would say Dan was correct when he said it was a bit tricky.

Two of the three of your examples of unprotected hate speech would fall under either incitement of an unlawful act or fighting words. The third would be protected

No.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:06

Post #137 of 221 (1539 views)

JSA wrote:

slowguy wrote:

Got it. Does that definition of "hate speech" include the component related to inciting violence or illegal action? If so, then I don't think that legal definition would match up with the common definition/understanding of hate speech.

Ok, now I see what you are saying. Yes, that is true. There is that component.

slowguy wrote:

For example, I'm pretty sure that most people here would consider "I hate all white people. They're evil and the world would be better off if white people didn't exist. White people are the devil.," to be hate speech. However, if the legal definition of "hate speech" includes intent to incite violence, then it certainly wouldn't qualify. That would lead to a significant disconnect between the common public discourse about hate speech and the legal definition.

Yep, I'm tracking now. Correct. There is a difference between "hateful speech" and legally unprotected hate speech. But, common usage of the term "hate speech" would not make that distinction.

Is there a legal definition of hate speech? I am unaware of it. Generally as far as I can tell your definition would fall under the doctrines I mentioned above.

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:18

Post #138 of 221 (1529 views)

JSA wrote:

Not all hateful speech is unprotected hate speech. As Dan correctly pointed out to you, speech that could reasonably be expected to elicit a volatile reaction is unprotected hate speech.

If a Klan group sets up in a public park and chants "white power," it is likely protected speech. If they enter a black church to do it, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a neo-Nazi places a Hitler sticker on his truck, it is likely protected speech. If he confronts a Jewish person on the street telling him Hitler should have finished the task, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a group sets up a rally saying god hates f_gs, it is likely protected speech. If a member of that group confronts a gay man and provokes him by saying, god hates you, f_ggot, it is unprotected hate speech.

Does it matter if the volatile reaction is legal, or where the speech occurs?

I immediately think back to the "pastor" in Florida who made a spectacle of burning the Koran on YouTube, IIRC. And, predictably, there was a violent reaction. The response was unreasonable--as is all violence outside of the law and not waged in defense of life or property--but the response was, unfortunately, reasonably expected. By that definition, how is burning a holy book not unprotected hate speech?

Trespassing and disorderly conduct, or something thereabouts, seem to me the appropriate charge in the first example. It's hard to imagine the latter two examples being unprotected speech in the absence of the threat or commission of actual physical violence.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Last edited by: sphere: Aug 14, 17 9:19

Re: Pardon my ignorance [sphere] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:26

Post #139 of 221 (1517 views)

It depends on the totality of the circumstances and one of the main factors is location. If the pastor burned a Koran in his own church or on his own private property, it is most likely protected. If he did it at a lawful rally in a public place - most likely protected. If he does it in the public parking area in front of a mosque, well, now we are getting into a grey area. If he walks up to a couple Muslims on the street and lights it "in their face," now he is crossing a line.

Keep in mind, none of this justifies or legalizes a violent response. There could be criminal charges against him and against the person who kicked his ass.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:28

Post #140 of 221 (1515 views)

JSA wrote:

windywave wrote:

JSA wrote:

I'm going to have to start charging you for these education lessons.

Not all hateful speech is unprotected hate speech. As Dan correctly pointed out to you, speech that could reasonably be expected to elicit a volatile reaction is unprotected hate speech.

If a Klan group sets up in a public park and chants "white power," it is likely protected speech. If they enter a black church to do it, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a neo-Nazi places a Hitler sticker on his truck, it is likely protected speech. If he confronts a Jewish person on the street telling him Hitler should have finished the task, it is unprotected hate speech.

If a group sets up a rally saying god hates f_gs, it is likely protected speech. If a member of that group confronts a gay man and provokes him by saying, god hates you, f_ggot, it is unprotected hate speech.

This is pretty much what Dan said and to which you objected. Given your difficultly understanding this topic, I would say Dan was correct when he said it was a bit tricky.

Two of the three of your examples of unprotected hate speech would fall under either incitement of an unlawful act or fighting words. The third would be protected

No.

Yes... explain how I'm wrong

Re: Pardon my ignorance [slowguy] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:40

Post #141 of 221 (1503 views)

slowguy wrote:

Personally, I fucking hate the concept of hate crimes legislation. Somehow, if this guy ran over pedestrians because he's a psycho, it's better than if he did it because he didn't like their skin color. Ridiculous.

I agree. We judge peoples actions. Their motives only matter in determining if something was an accident, or if it was a premeditated crime.

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:45

Post #142 of 221 (1496 views)

JSA wrote:

It depends on the totality of the circumstances and one of the main factors is location. If the pastor burned a Koran in his own church or on his own private property, it is most likely protected. If he did it at a lawful rally in a public place - most likely protected. If he does it in the public parking area in front of a mosque, well, now we are getting into a grey area. If he walks up to a couple Muslims on the street and lights it "in their face," now he is crossing a line.

Keep in mind, none of this justifies or legalizes a violent response. There could be criminal charges against him and against the person who kicked his ass.

How sure can anyone be of what is protected and what is not? If the Supreme Court ruled a cross burning in your African American neighbor's yard is protected speech, It hard to believe it is as clear as you say. That is a situation with a risk of escalated violence yet they say it was protected.

Re: Pardon my ignorance [patf] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 9:54

Post #143 of 221 (1487 views)

patf wrote:

How sure can anyone be of what is protected and what is not? If the Supreme Court ruled a cross burning in your African American neighbor's yard is protected speech, It hard to believe it is as clear as you say. That is a situation with a risk of escalated violence yet they say it was protected.

Unless your African American neighbor planted the cross and set it on fire, SCOTUS has not deemed that protected.

It's like porn - you know it when you see it.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 10:01

Post #144 of 221 (1483 views)

JSA wrote:

patf wrote:

How sure can anyone be of what is protected and what is not? If the Supreme Court ruled a cross burning in your African American neighbor's yard is protected speech, It hard to believe it is as clear as you say. That is a situation with a risk of escalated violence yet they say it was protected.

Unless your African American neighbor planted the cross and set it on fire, SCOTUS has not deemed that protected.

It's like porn - you know it when you see it.

That was one of the examples in the link you posted. https://www.americanbar.org/...ion/debate_hate.html
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.

so his act may have been illegal under some other law, but the law outlawing cross burning was unconstitutional and violated his First Amendment rights.

Re: Pardon my ignorance [patf] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 10:22

Post #145 of 221 (1461 views)

That's not exactly what SCOTUS said. SCOTUS struck down a local ordinance because it was overbroad. It pertained to displays that may cause "resentment" in others, which means it was not limited to "fighting words" that would reasonably be expect to incite a violent response. So, the case does not say the act was protected speech. It wasn't. The offenders were charged and convicted for their conduct. But, SCOTUS struck down the charge for violation of the ordinance b/c it was overbroad.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 10:37

Post #146 of 221 (1446 views)

JSA wrote:

patf wrote:

How sure can anyone be of what is protected and what is not? If the Supreme Court ruled a cross burning in your African American neighbor's yard is protected speech, It hard to believe it is as clear as you say. That is a situation with a risk of escalated violence yet they say it was protected.

Unless your African American neighbor planted the cross and set it on fire, SCOTUS has not deemed that protected.

It's like porn - you know it when you see it.

The fucking article YOU posted said it was.

Re: Pardon my ignorance [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 10:45

Post #147 of 221 (1435 views)

windywave wrote:

JSA wrote:

patf wrote:

How sure can anyone be of what is protected and what is not? If the Supreme Court ruled a cross burning in your African American neighbor's yard is protected speech, It hard to believe it is as clear as you say. That is a situation with a risk of escalated violence yet they say it was protected.

Unless your African American neighbor planted the cross and set it on fire, SCOTUS has not deemed that protected.

It's like porn - you know it when you see it.

The fucking article YOU posted said it was.

No, it really doesn't. I just explained why. Go read the case.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 10:51

Post #148 of 221 (1427 views)

JSA wrote:

windywave wrote:

JSA wrote:

patf wrote:

How sure can anyone be of what is protected and what is not? If the Supreme Court ruled a cross burning in your African American neighbor's yard is protected speech, It hard to believe it is as clear as you say. That is a situation with a risk of escalated violence yet they say it was protected.

Unless your African American neighbor planted the cross and set it on fire, SCOTUS has not deemed that protected.

It's like porn - you know it when you see it.

The fucking article YOU posted said it was.

No, it really doesn't. I just explained why. Go read the case.

Grumble grumble fine

Re: Pardon my ignorance [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 11:11

Post #149 of 221 (1415 views)

Sometimes "free speech" has consequences.

White nationalists who participated in the deadly rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend are being identified on social media, and at least one man has lost his job as a result.
Top Dog, a hot-dog restaurant in Berkeley, California, said it fired Cole White on Saturday after the man was named by a Twitter account devoted to outing rally participants.
"Effective Saturday 12th August, Cole White no longer works at Top Dog," read a sign posted outside the restaurant on Sunday. "The actions of those in Charlottesville are not supported by Top Dog. We believe in individual freedom and voluntary association for everyone."

https://www.yahoo.com/...o-him-141546570.html

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Re: Pardon my ignorance [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Aug 14, 17 11:25

Post #150 of 221 (1400 views)

I'm following a doxing situation on FB presently. A guy from nearby my old residence has been identified in a photo standing next to the accused killer. A quick view of his FB page left little doubt as to his identity and sympathies. He listed his current employer on that page, which is now being reviewed on FB and Google with poor ratings and "If you want a Nazi building your stuff, this is the place" type comments.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about how this plays out, even presuming they have identified the right guy and the business doesn't take a hit.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.