First Amendment

[Gunny]

I respect your opinion. However, I do not think that hate speech is what the founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. The founders also affirmed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Joyce’s, hideous racial comments stomp on those rights. OCA’s sexist remarks demean and hurt women. No one has the right to hurt others. With freedom of speech comes responsibility. And it is the responsibility of all of us to not hurt or damage others. Scooter has made the choice of the kind of board he wants. He owns the board and it is his right. He gets to set the rules, or lack thereof. Since, apparently, racist, sexist, and foul language remarks will not be moderated (while mistakenly, in my opinion, deferring to the First Amendment), we will not be surprised by a debased level of discourse.

I disagree. One of the first things I disagree with is using "the Founding Fathers intent" as justification. The founding fathers' opinions were like everyone else's.

Based on your interpretation, anything I deem hurtful is "hate speech" and should not be tolerated. "Hate speech" is defined by current societal popularity, not equality under the First Amendment.

The responsibility to "not hurt or damage others" is your personal ethic, and a commendable one. However, your standard of ethical conduct is not contained within the law.

 

[onedomino]

I disagree. One of the first things I disagree with is using "the Founding Fathers intent" as justification. The founding fathers' opinions were like everyone else's.

Based on your interpretation, anything I deem hurtful is "hate speech" and should not be tolerated. "Hate speech" is defined by current societal popularity, not equality under the First Amendment.

The responsibility to "not hurt or damage others" is your personal ethic, and a commendable one. However, your standard of ethical conduct is not contained within the law.

Many people agree that there is a definition of hate speech. Many countries have built laws to outlaw it. Such a definition includes the idea that hate speech seeks to denigrate and engender prejudice against particular groups based on race, sex, age, etc. The definition of hate speech is not burdened by some moving moral definition of its content. Rather, it is defined by the effect it produces. Clearly, Joyce’s continuous references and denigrating remarks based on race seek to engender prejudice. For example, immediately after the VT shooting Joyce posted this: http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48215 designed to engender prejudice against a particular group; namely, Koreans. He has posted hundreds of anti-Semitic diatribes. In many countries, including the UK, Canada, and Australia, he could be imprisoned for seeking to incite racial prejudice. Someone in another thread said that Joyce was just expressing his views. Over and over again hundreds of times? That is not expressing his view. Rather it is attempting to incite prejudice against other groups. Why is Joyce’s obvious racism tolerated on this board? I assume that you are aware of the fact that his nic refers to an individual executed by the British at the end of WW2 for being an anti-Semitic Nazi sympathizer and traitor.

I will skip discussing the disgusting remarks of OCA, they are too easy a target.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Please read what i wrote very carefully. I wrote some very offensive words to make a point only, I do not hate anyone.

Thank You

Many people agree that there is a definition of hate speech. Many countries have built laws to outlaw it. Such a definition includes the idea that hate speech seeks to denigrate and engender prejudice against particular groups based on race, sex, age, etc. The definition of hate speech is not burdened by some moving moral definition of its content. Rather, it is defined by the effect it produces. Clearly, Joyce’s continuous references and denigrating remarks based on race seek to engender prejudice. For example, immediately after the VT shooting Joyce posted this: http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48215 designed to engender prejudice against a particular group; namely, Koreans. He has posted hundreds of anti-Semitic diatribes. In many countries, including the UK, Canada, and Australia, he could be imprisoned for seeking to incite racial prejudice. Someone in another thread said that Joyce was just expressing his views. Over and over again hundreds of times? That is not expressing his view. Rather it is attempting to incite prejudice against other groups. Why is Joyce’s obvious racism tolerated on this board? I assume that you are aware of the fact that his nic refers to an individual executed by the British at the end of WW2 for being an anti-Semitic Nazi sympathizer and traitor.

I will skip discussing the disgusting remarks of OCA, they are too easy a target.

It is a very fine line. I read through everything he said. He is right when he said, we should not just let anyone in the country, we need to screen everyone who comes into the country to make sure they are not rapists, murderers, or worse. but their are racist overtones, and I dont think we should tolerate it anymore. It doesnt make this board any better. On the other hand, in america, we tolerate racism from minorities against white people, we tolerate double standards all the time, and that should stop. For example, it should not be ok for a black man to say ******, and not for a white man to say ******. It we be just as deplorable for me as a jew to say ****, and not allow you to say it. We live in a very politically correct world, and it has to stop. We have the race police in jesse jackson and al sharpton and its a joke, racism exists, but its not only white people against minorites, its everyone against everyone. The person who says, i have never uttered a racist word, or had a racist thought is the most racist. I believe everyone is atleast 1% racist and 1% prejudice, its what you do with the thoughts and feelings.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

do we prosecute people for feelings or actions?.

Now we have people, who have prejudice thoughts and feelings. Do we prosecute them?. Or do we wait till they say them?. and what exactly do they need to say?.

Now, in america. As my point illustrates, or try to. certain genders and races, can talk trash, and get away with it, while others cant. If your white, and you say, im white, and simply im proud to white. Everyone will accuse you or being racist. EVEN, if your note. But youre hispanic, you can say la raza, which is clearly racist, cause they claim to be "the race". Or you can say black pride, which seems racist too me. Why the hell does everyone seems so insecure they have to be proud of their race, big deal, you were born a color (white black asian etc), what do you have to be so proud of, what did you do?

women can call men pigs, and dogs, and its accepted, but if men call women bitches, they are women haters.

we have a lot of double standards, i could name more. but you get my point

If its not politically correct to say, you will be attacked for saying it

 

[Gunny]

Many people agree that there is a definition of hate speech. Many countries have built laws to outlaw it. Such a definition includes the idea that hate speech seeks to denigrate and engender prejudice against particular groups based on race, sex, age, etc. The definition of hate speech is not burdened by some moving moral definition of its content. Rather, it is defined by the effect it produces. Clearly, Joyce’s continuous references and denigrating remarks based on race seek to engender prejudice. For example, immediately after the VT shooting Joyce posted this: http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48215 designed to engender prejudice against a particular group; namely, Koreans. He has posted hundreds of anti-Semitic diatribes. In many countries, including the UK, Canada, and Australia, he could be imprisoned for seeking to incite racial prejudice. Someone in another thread said that Joyce was just expressing his views. Over and over again hundreds of times? That is not expressing his view. Rather it is attempting to incite prejudice against other groups. Why is Joyce’s obvious racism tolerated on this board? I assume that you are aware of the fact that his nic refers to an individual executed by the British at the end of WW2 for being an anti-Semitic Nazi sympathizer and traitor.

I will skip discussing the disgusting remarks of OCA, they are too easy a target.

If I censor WJ's remarks, do I then censor YOURS for your hate speech against his expressing his beliefs? Then I can censor anything Al Sharpton, Jess Jackson and/or Louis farrakham have to say. How about the hate speech between left and right?

I do not share WJ's views. However, I see NO difference between any speech denigrating others because of their race than I do speech denigrating others because of their ideals, religion, etc. Intolerance is intolerance.

The definition of "hate speech" you refer to is arbitrary and selective based on perception and opinion, and yes, it has changed greatly just since I was a child. The politically correct definition of "hate speech" is every bit as intolerant as any white/black/other supremist speech.

The laws that you state exist in these other nations restrict freedom of speech, and would be unconstitutional in this country. You can't legislate away ideals. It's failed in almost every case.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

If I censor WJ's remarks, do I then censor YOURS for your hate speech against his expressing his beliefs? Then I can censor anything Al Sharpton, Jess Jackson and/or Louis farrakham have to say. How about the hate speech between left and right?

I do not share WJ's views. However, I see NO difference between any speech denigrating others because of their race than I do speech denigrating others because of their ideals, religion, etc. Intolerance is intolerance.

The definition of "hate speech" you refer to is arbitrary and selective based on perception and opinion, and yes, it has changed greatly just since I was a child. The politically correct definition of "hate speech" is every bit as intolerant as any white/black/other supremist speech.

The laws that you state exist in these other nations restrict freedom of speech, and would be unconstitutional in this country. You can't legislate away ideals. It's failed in almost every case.

For the record, I do not share wj's views and I do not think what i said was hate speech, because I used it in the context of making a point, however you would be within your right, to censor it, because it is provocative. I was simply asking a question, where do we draw the line. I did not mean to offend, but i thought using the n word and the k word were neccesary to make a point. Im sorry if i was out of line to do so. As far as censoring hate speech, I think we should do it because if we allow it to fester it will become cancerous, and we must call people on it.

In other words, i agree with everything you said.

 

[Gunny]

For the record, I do not share wj's views and I do not think what i said was hate speech, because I used it in the context of making a point, however you would be within your right, to censor it, because it is provocative. I was simply asking a question, where do we draw the line. I did not mean to offend, but i thought using the n word and the k word were neccesary to make a point. Im sorry if i was out of line to do so. As far as censoring hate speech, I think we should do it because if we allow it to fester it will become cancerous, and we must call people on it.

In other words, i agree with everything you said.

I would not be within my right to censor anything. I do not dictate board policy. I enforce it.

If the "line" is crossed, the offender will receive a PM requesting they desist. If they do not, further action will be taken, if necessary.

Censoring "hate speech," or any ideals for the matter, is what causes festering.

 

[William Joyce]

In many countries, including the UK, Canada, and Australia, he could be imprisoned for seeking to incite racial prejudice. Someone in another thread said that Joyce was just expressing his views. Over and over again hundreds of times? That is not expressing his view. Rather it is attempting to incite prejudice against other groups. Why is Joyce’s obvious racism tolerated on this board?

First, I would hope that the fact that "racist" remarks are punishable by law in Europe would cause you to question those laws, their supporters, and their motivations, instead of jumping in to say what a great idea it is. It's always been something of a relief to me that in America, both liberals and conservatives have a pretty strong commitment to free speech, and your failure to support that is bewildering. If you don't like what someone has to say, fire back. If I'm wrong about what I say, point out why. If my conclusions are invalid, say how. Don't be a child who demands to be protected from words you disagree with.

Second, I take exception to the assertion that I'm "inciting prejudice" against other groups. The better word is post-judice! The fact is, for instance, that Jews do have a disproportionate amount of control over the media, and blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. These are facts. If people conclude that this is a bad thing, are they so wrong? I think what this comes down to is the modern belief that "Ye Cannot Make Negative Group Generalizations." But you can, you can, you can! To say otherwise is to confound basic logic. If your concern is that "innocent" individuals would be adversely affected, I don't think that's illegitimate. But that's a cost of the position I concede. The untold harm accruing because of the absolute ban on generalizations goes unconceded.

Third, my main goal in posting on the Internet is to demonstrate that whites in America are becoming a hunted minority. Our numbers are dropping. We are losing political, cultural and economic power. Other racial and ethnic groups are standing in solidarity against us and making increasingly shrill demands. Meanwhile, we are too afraid to even think about fighting back. I think that's wrong. So, if sometimes carrying that message involves a little uncomfortable pointing to the facts about other groups, so be it. If whites were free to conduct their own affairs, I agree: it would be unseemly to point out that blacks have lower IQ's, etc. But we're not. And the constant insistence is that we're all equal, as races, and the only reason blacks don't do as well is because of white "racism." I believe this is dead wrong. Yet I and other whites suffer for it, through affirmative action, open borders, high taxes, general mayhem, etc.

This crap is rough and can be depressing, I know. And I am absolutely aware that simply talking about what's happening to whites is taboo. It's not like I can walk into my office and say, "Hey, Joe, we whites sure are getting screwed, huh?" I'd be reported to bosses and fired.

But they're important issues. I care very much whether whites have a good future or a bad. Right now I see us heading toward a bad one, so I speak.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with everything william joyce just said. And as a matter of fact, in canada if your a christan preacher and you say youre against homosexuality and gays are going to hell you can be jailed, its not so black and white, and that was my point, where do you draw the line.

I dont want to simply pick and choose who to shut up, based on who i dont like. If were going to shut up william joyce, we must shut up the al sharptons of the world, and those who discriminate against whites and men.

 

[jillian]

I agree with everything william joyce just said. And as a matter of fact, in canada if your a christan preacher and you say youre against homosexuality and gays are going to hell you can be jailed, its not so black and white, and that was my point, where do you draw the line.

I dont want to simply pick and choose who to shut up, based on who i dont like. If were going to shut up william joyce, we must shut up the al sharptons of the world, and those who discriminate against whites and men.

From a personal perspective, I have no problem with either a WJ or Al Sharpton shutting up. From a First Amendment perspective, there wouldn't be any need to protect pleasant speech. It's the vile stuff that people would try to shut down and which needs protection.

 

[Gunny]

From a personal perspective, I have no problem with either a WJ or Al Sharpton shutting up. From a First Amendment perspective, there wouldn't be any need to protect pleasant speech. It's the vile stuff that people would try to shut down and which needs protection.

IMO, bad behavior is more a problem than what's being said.

 

[Diuretic]

I can never walk past a First Amendment/Free Speech discussion.

I have to say, very interesting points thus far.

I don't want to go all retro but when the subject of freedom of expression comes up in a discussion I tend to go back to first principles. Why should it exist? Why should people have a right to freedom of expression?

I think it's because it's beneficial. I can see that freedom of expression is both a means and and ends. As a means it allows ideas to be expressed without fear of retribution. Galileo anyone? Both church and state in Europe before the Enlightenment crushed individuals who dared to speak out against received wisdom and dogma. If that situation had been allowed to continue then we wouldn't be here discussing ideas over this amazing technology called the internet. We'd probably still be huddled in the darkness (the darkness being metaphorical of course). Freedom of expression always challenges the status quo and it's by challenge to the status quo that we progress.

A personal touchstone for me is John Milton's great speech Areopagitica. The irony is that while Milton wrote the speech for the British Parliament of which he was a member (can you imagine someone like him in politics today?) he was doing so to protect the freedom of expression for a group with which he sympathise, the Protestant pamphlet printers; Milton thought the Catholic ones should be shut down (I didn't say he was perfect).

In Areopagitica Milton mounts, well from my point of view anyway, the greatest defence of freedom of expression in the English language.
This is my favourite passage:

Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned, that those confused seeds which were imposed upon Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out, and sort asunder, were not more intermixed. It was from out the rind of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evil, as two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evil, that is to say of knowing good by evil. As therefore the state of man now is; what wisdom can there be to choose, what continence to forbear without the knowledge of evil? He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain, and yet distinguish, and yet prefer that which is truly better, he is the true wayfaring Christian.
I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary. That virtue therefore which is but a youngling in the contemplation of evil, and knows not the utmost that vice promises to her followers, and rejects it, is but a blank virtue, not a pure; her whiteness is but an excremental whiteness. Which was the reason why our sage and serious poet Spenser, whom I dare be known to think a better teacher than Scotus or Aquinas, describing true temperance under the person of Guion, brings him in with his palmer through the cave of Mammon, and the bower of earthly bliss, that he might see and know, and yet abstain. Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates and hearing all manner of reason? And this is the benefit which may be had of books promiscuously read.

For me that's as good reason for the existence of freedom of expression as I've ever read (the whole speech is worth reading, you can find the full text in many places on the internet, I got my copy from Leon's in SLO, great bookshop - ahem, sorry for the ad).

Now, to the ends. I think freedom of expression is simply a human right. I don't believe in god but you're quite entitlted to call it God-given (tolerant little lib aren't I ). I think when freedom of expression is taken away from an individual then all of us are, as the saying goes, diminished in some way.

 

[Gunny]

I can never walk past a First Amendment/Free Speech discussion.

I have to say, very interesting points thus far.

I don't want to go all retro but when the subject of freedom of expression comes up in a discussion I tend to go back to first principles. Why should it exist? Why should people have a right to freedom of expression?

I think it's because it's beneficial. I can see that freedom of expression is both a means and and ends. As a means it allows ideas to be expressed without fear of retribution. Galileo anyone? Both church and state in Europe before the Enlightenment crushed individuals who dared to speak out against received wisdom and dogma. If that situation had been allowed to continue then we wouldn't be here discussing ideas over this amazing technology called the internet. We'd probably still be huddled in the darkness (the darkness being metaphorical of course). Freedom of expression always challenges the status quo and it's by challenge to the status quo that we progress.

A personal touchstone for me is John Milton's great speech Areopagitica. The irony is that while Milton wrote the speech for the British Parliament of which he was a member (can you imagine someone like him in politics today?) he was doing so to protect the freedom of expression for a group with which he sympathise, the Protestant pamphlet printers; Milton thought the Catholic ones should be shut down (I didn't say he was perfect).

In Areopagitica Milton mounts, well from my point of view anyway, the greatest defence of freedom of expression in the English language.
This is my favourite passage:



For me that's as good reason for the existence of freedom of expression as I've ever read (the whole speech is worth reading, you can find the full text in many places on the internet, I got my copy from Leon's in SLO, great bookshop - ahem, sorry for the ad).

Now, to the ends. I think freedom of expression is simply a human right. I don't believe in god but you're quite entitlted to call it God-given (tolerant little lib aren't I ). I think when freedom of expression is taken away from an individual then all of us are, as the saying goes, diminished in some way.

I almost agree completely; however, I do not believe in a "human right," God-given or no. Rights are a collection of ideals, that must be fought for to maintain, given Mankind's penchant for killing anything that disagrees with it.

So regardless the origin of the ideal, it's only as good as the sword backing it up.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I disagree. One of the first things I disagree with is using "the Founding Fathers intent" as justification. The founding fathers' opinions were like everyone else's.

Based on your interpretation, anything I deem hurtful is "hate speech" and should not be tolerated. "Hate speech" is defined by current societal popularity, not equality under the First Amendment.

The responsibility to "not hurt or damage others" is your personal ethic, and a commendable one. However, your standard of ethical conduct is not contained within the law.

It should also be noted that curbing offensive speech, like the crap Fred Phelps Sr. and his band of inbred freaks spout, simply drives it underground where it festers like some hidden, purulent lesion, which ultimately poisons and sickens the body, in this case society. Or the asinine, jingoistic and all together noxious rhetoric of the Neal Boortz's, Rush Limbaugh's, Michael Savage-Weiner's and Anne Coulter's of the world, serving only to sow divisiveness and intolerance, which should also be protected. In either case, to limit such speech, hateful and hurtful though it may be, keeps it from the light of day and the scorn and ridicule which it so richly deserves. Giving such speech its voice ultimately shows it for the rubbish it is allowing us to dismiss it and move on. Treating such speech as somehow newsworthy only gives its purveyors a credibility they would otherwise be unable to attain.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I almost agree completely; however, I do not believe in a "human right," God-given or no. Rights are a collection of ideals, that must be fought for to maintain, given Mankind's penchant for killing anything that disagrees with it.

So regardless the origin of the ideal, it's only as good as the sword backing it up.

And keep that sword sharp!

 

[William Joyce]

So regardless the origin of the ideal, it's only as good as the sword backing it up.

Indeed. I think free speech is actually a pretty revolutionary idea. I think someone who is truly interested in attaining and holding power, or otherwise achieving a political goal, would be NUTS to allow free speech.

How has it survived in our society? I think it may be because once you want to force people to shut up, those people get wise to you very fast --- they see that you're now willing to act against their very bodies (your keyboard fingers, your mouth) to get their way. This makes even timid people want to fight back. So, would-be censors only "go there" as a last resort.

If anything "positive" (and this requires some imagination!) can be said about would-be censors, it's that they are demonstrating a serious commitment to their goal. Because speech is really what underlies the action, and there's often a short line between the two. This is what animates some (not all) desire to censor. Those who seek to criminalize Holocaust denial really do think that Israel would lose legitimacy if it were allowed --- and they're probably right.

 

[Diuretic]

I almost agree completely; however, I do not believe in a "human right," God-given or no. Rights are a collection of ideals, that must be fought for to maintain, given Mankind's penchant for killing anything that disagrees with it.

So regardless the origin of the ideal, it's only as good as the sword backing it up.

I'd probably agree with that. I don't see human rights as being given by God but I also don't see human rights as something we can assume. I understand then the US Constitution was framed it was on the assumption that certain - inalienable - human rights existed and I have to say, that was a stroke of genius. In that sense then, it doesn't matter where they come from. I have been told many times that the Constitution didn't grant rights, that's complete anathema to the idea of human rights existing irrespective of any government, the Constitution merely acknowledged those pre-existing rights and make sure government was constrained from unreasonably restricting those rights.

 

[pegwinn]

Free speech is a right bestowed by the first amendment. What that means is that the .gov cannot censor you without legal cause. Example: Security Classifications. IF something is classified, the first amendment doesn't apply. IF you run your mouth you can go to jail unless you are a newspaper of course.

There is no commercial freedom of speech. A lot of people don't get this. Your employer can tell you exactly what you will or won't say as a condition of employment. This message board can censor your posts at will.

So, when one runs his or her suck (rosie, imus, etc) at the wrong time and place they can be punished w/o violations of thier 1st Amendment rights.

And, the first amendment may guarantee you the right to speak by the .gov but it doesn't guarantee an audience.

 

[Diuretic]

Free speech is a right bestowed by the first amendment. What that means is that the .gov cannot censor you without legal cause. Example: Security Classifications. IF something is classified, the first amendment doesn't apply. IF you run your mouth you can go to jail unless you are a newspaper of course.

There is no commercial freedom of speech. A lot of people don't get this. Your employer can tell you exactly what you will or won't say as a condition of employment. This message board can censor your posts at will.

So, when one runs his or her suck (rosie, imus, etc) at the wrong time and place they can be punished w/o violations of thier 1st Amendment rights.

And, the first amendment may guarantee you the right to speak by the .gov but it doesn't guarantee an audience.

It's not bestowed by the First Amendment. If that was the case then it could be taken away simply by a constitutional amendment. The government doesn't grant you that right - get that idea out of your head immediately. It's dangerous.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think our rights as it says are endowed by our creator, whether you believe in god or not, for the very purpose that the government cannot take them away.