Hate Speech Laws & Another Cross For Christians

[rtwngAvngr]

I remember the story of jesus overturning the tables of the tactless outside the temple in jerusalem, however.

 

[musicman]

I remember the story of jesus overturning the tables of the tactless outside the temple in jerusalem, however.

"Get out of my Father's house - and don't come back until you can keep a civil tongue in your head!"

 

[musicman]

On behalf of RWA, I'd like to thank you all very much. You've been a GREAT audience.

We're here all week...

 

[Bonnie]

The best forms of speech inform and inspire, without being offensive or frightening.

Tell that to the dwellers in Greenwich Village and most college campuses, and the Democratic Underground, and Mike Moore..............

Missile Man

So while this nation was founded on Christian morals, concepts like courtesy, decorum, and the Golden Rule are waivable...how convenient. I wonder how the founding fathers would feel about your interpretation of free speech.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[MissileMan]

Tell that to the dwellers in Greenwich Village and most college campuses, and the Democratic Underground, and Mike Moore..............

Missile Man


Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The founders were trying to protect political dissent. The courts, who most of you gripe about making law, have expanded freedom of speech to include expressions through art or symbols, etc. I'm quite sure the founders never intended freedom of speech to be used as a license to get in someone's face and hurl an endless stream of insults at them. There are forms of speech that are not protected, including defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words. Hate speech seems to fall into the fighting words category.

 

[musicman]

The founders were trying to protect political dissent. The courts, who most of you gripe about making law, have expanded freedom of speech to include expressions through art or symbols, etc. I'm quite sure the founders never intended freedom of speech to be used as a license to get in someone's face and hurl an endless stream of insults at them. There are forms of speech that are not protected, including defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words. Hate speech seems to fall into the fighting words category.

Is Nelson Serranto's work of "art", "Piss Christ" ( a photograph of an upside-down crucifix immersed in a jar of urine) protected speech? I find it quite insulting and deeply offensive on a personal level - yet, not only is it out there - my tax dollars are subsidizing it. Don't Christians enjoy that "special" right not to have their feelings hurt?

 

[no1tovote4]

Is Nelson Serranto's work of "art", "Piss Christ" ( a photograph of an upside-down crucifix immersed in a jar of urine) protected speech? I find it quite insulting and deeply offensive on a personal level - yet, not only is it out there - my tax dollars are subsidizing it. Don't Christians enjoy that "special" right not to have their feelings hurt?

It isn't just the right not to be offended that is most aggregious here, the fact that an anti-religious expression is being subsidized by the taxpayer is in direct conflict with the establishment clause.

The person has every right to attempt to sell that as art, but it is not a right of the Government to subsidize the effort to insult a particular brand of religion any more than the Government has a right to establish a religion. This is another attempt at setting Secular Humanism as the only expression of religion in public society, by allowing this expression but not subsidizing pro-religious works is in conflict with SCOTUS ruling of the past. However the ACLU is not likely to take up that Cross and there are few groups willing to protect that particular right in any other context than the removal of religion from the public domain, not the protection of religion in the public domain.

 

[Bonnie]

The founders were trying to protect political dissent. The courts, who most of you gripe about making law, have expanded freedom of speech to include expressions through art or symbols, etc. I'm quite sure the founders never intended freedom of speech to be used as a license to get in someone's face and hurl an endless stream of insults at them. There are forms of speech that are not protected, including defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words. Hate speech seems to fall into the fighting words category.

Tell you what........Here's an open invitation to find instances in which someone gets fired for making anti-Christian remarks, or hateful remarks about those that are pro-life. Or even asked to apologize???

I believe the founding fathers meant for people to make judgements for themselves as to how to censor themselves and what constitutes good manners. It's called common sense. A remark against Gays is not an incitement to riot, it comes under the realm of bad taste but still protected by free speech. Much different than someone standing up in public and organizing assaults against gay people.

 

[MissileMan]

Is Nelson Serranto's work of "art", "Piss Christ" ( a photograph of an upside-down crucifix immersed in a jar of urine) protected speech? I find it quite insulting and deeply offensive on a personal level - yet, not only is it out there - my tax dollars are subsidizing it. Don't Christians enjoy that "special" right not to have their feelings hurt?

I'm an atheist and I would consider that offensive. And trust me, I'm not crazy about my tax dollars funding crap like that either.

 

[MissileMan]

It isn't just the right not to be offended that is most aggregious here, the fact that an anti-religious expression is being subsidized by the taxpayer is in direct conflict with the establishment clause.

The person has every right to attempt to sell that as art, but it is not a right of the Government to subsidize the effort to insult a particular brand of religion any more than the Government has a right to establish a religion. This is another attempt at setting Secular Humanism as the only expression of religion in public society, by allowing this expression but not subsidizing pro-religious works is in conflict with SCOTUS ruling of the past. However the ACLU is not likely to take up that Cross and there are few groups willing to protect that particular right in any other context than the removal of religion from the public domain, not the protection of religion in the public domain.

Do you have any links that support the contention that pro-religious artists are being denied government grants? I'd like to read them.