Hate Speech Laws & Another Cross For Christians

[Bonnie]

Hate Speech Laws: A New Cross For Christians To Bear
By Paul M. Weyrich (03/03/05)

When Pennsylvania was amending its “hate crimes” law, the Ethnic Intimidation and Institutional Vandalism Act, a few years ago, proponents readily dismissed the concerns expressed by Christians about the inclusion of protection for “sexual orientation.” The reason the advocates of traditional values protested was not because they wanted physically to bash homosexuals – believing Christians do not operate that way -- but because they realized that their own First Amendment rights easily could be jeopardized.

Such concerns were dismissed as the figment of overheated imaginations by those legislators and advocacy groups pushing for the hate crimes law. The idea of jailing the purveyors of tasteless jokes was derided; the amendment was about the throwing of sticks and stones, not name-calling. State Rep. Mark Cohen (D–Philadelphia) promised “This bill is not about what ministers or Sunday School teachers say. This bill is about what thugs, hooligans and murderers do.” It was about “blood in the streets” rather than bad jokes.

Then came the homosexual sponsored “Outfest” in Philadelphia last fall.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/6996

 

[SmarterThanYou]

wasn't this case dismissed though?

 

[no1tovote4]

wasn't this case dismissed though?

I believe that it was dismissed because they did not want the Constitutionality of the law questioned. If the SCOTUS was to rule on the law it would be rendered unConstitutional.

 

[Merlin1047]

Was anyone hurt when the ACLU stampeded to come to the aid of the Christians arrested for exercising their free speech rights?

 

[William Joyce]

The entire idea of "hate speech" as a separate category from all speech needs to be rejected. Basically, liberals just call political speech they don't like "hate speech," and then try to ban it. It couldn't be any clearer what's going on, but the Supreme Court Jesters have accepted "hate speech" as a distinct category, subject to censorship.

 

[MissileMan]

The entire idea of "hate speech" as a separate category from all speech needs to be rejected. Basically, liberals just call political speech they don't like "hate speech," and then try to ban it. It couldn't be any clearer what's going on, but the Supreme Court Jesters have accepted "hate speech" as a distinct category, subject to censorship.

Just as a distinction is made between a shotgun and an assault rifle, so should there be a distinction between rhetoric and hate speech. Hate speech is designed to harrass, belittle, frighten, and demean. There is nothing defensive about it, it is purely offensive. Our government is obligated to take steps to protect us from those who would verbally accost others.

 

[Merlin]

Just as a distinction is made between a shotgun and an assault rifle, so should there be a distinction between rhetoric and hate speech. Hate speech is designed to harrass, belittle, frighten, and demean. There is nothing defensive about it, it is purely offensive. Our government is obligated to take steps to protect us from those who would verbally accost others.

I disagree!! When my Government tells me what I can and can not say, that is where we split the sheets and the war begins!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MissileMan]

I disagree!! When my Government tells me what I can and can not say, that is where we split the sheets and the war begins!!!!!!!!!!

I think the hate speech laws are designed more to restrict when and where, not what is said. They are designed to prevent a person or group from being targeted for the sole purpose of harrassment. For instance, although hateful, signs that read "God hates fags" being carried in an anti-gay parade would not be hate speech. Carrying those same signs to a gay rally would be.

 

[William Joyce]

Just as a distinction is made between a shotgun and an assault rifle, so should there be a distinction between rhetoric and hate speech. Hate speech is designed to harrass, belittle, frighten, and demean. There is nothing defensive about it, it is purely offensive. Our government is obligated to take steps to protect us from those who would verbally accost others.

You must seriously be kidding. Free speech means NOTHING if you ban any speech that is "offensive." The best speech DOES OFFEND. It's MEANT to harass and frighten. That's what "free" speech is all about!

And anyway, WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION about what's "hate" speech and what's "legal" speech? All you have to do to censor your enemies is declare whatever they have to say 'hate speech'!

 

[Gem]

MissileMan Wrote:

I think the hate speech laws are designed more to restrict when and where, not what is said. They are designed to prevent a person or group from being targeted for the sole purpose of harrassment. For instance, although hateful, signs that read "God hates fags" being carried in an anti-gay parade would not be hate speech. Carrying those same signs to a gay rally would be.

So according to your version of "free speech," missileman, a person would be more than allowed to express their views that homosexuality is a sin...just so long as they were nowhere near a gay person?

How ludicrous.

No one has the right to not be offended. No one has the right to not see anything that might upset them. This sort of thing is not protected anywhere in the Constitution, MissileMan...what IS protected is YOUR right to say whatever crazy thing you want, no matter how offensive to me, and MY right to call it such.

Now, where you and I do agree, is when that speech becomes threatening, harrassing, or incites violence...it crosses free speech and becomes violence against another person. i.e. I don't have the "right" to cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater...nor does a person who is strongly against homosexuality have the right to say he is going to kill all gays while standing in front of a group of homosexuals. His statement would be making a threat...and we have laws about such things.

While I personally find the statement, "God Hates Fags," repugnant in so many ways....you have the right to say it, I have the right to say it, and the people who actually believe it have the right to carry a sign with those words and stand beside a gay person...they are not threatening them...they are expressing their belief that homosexuality is a sin...and that their God hates that sin....and they are using their right to Free Speech to express that opinion....now carrying a sign that says "Kill All Fags," is enciting violence and is another matter altogether...

To take away a persons right to disagree strongly, and perhaps offensively, with another person's views to their face, as you have suggested is to take away their right to free speech...and I find that as terrifying, if not more so, as an idiot with an offensive sign.

 

[MissileMan]

MissileMan Wrote:


So according to your version of "free speech," missileman, a person would be more than allowed to express their views that homosexuality is a sin...just so long as they were nowhere near a gay person?

How ludicrous.

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech guarantees your right to express your opinions and beliefs. However, freedom of speech is not a license to verbally assault someone.

 

[MissileMan]

You must seriously be kidding. Free speech means NOTHING if you ban any speech that is "offensive." The best speech DOES OFFEND. It's MEANT to harass and frighten. That's what "free" speech is all about!

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

 

[William Joyce]

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

From whose perspective? What inspires and informs and IDF solider might be offensive or frightening to a member of Hamas. What inspires and informs a member of Hamas might be offensive and frightening to an IDF soldier.

 

[MissileMan]

From whose perspective?

Clearly, from the perspective of the audience.

 

[William Joyce]

Clearly, from the perspective of the audience.

But that's backward. Free speech is about the rights of the speaker. The audience doesn't figure in. If they want to speak back, they may. But they cannot demand government censorship for "protection."

 

[Gem]

Missileman Wrote:

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech guarantees your right to express your opinions and beliefs. However, freedom of speech is not a license to verbally assault someone

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

Clearly, from the perspective of the audience.

I'm sorry, but from these statements and others you have made, you seem to have a VERY screwy notion of what "free speech" is.

Based on your examples, I should have the right in this nation to say whatever I want....just so long as my speech is informational and/or inspiring to whatever audience that happens to be listening...

Sorry...but that is remarkably almost entirely OPPOSITE of what freedom of speech exists for!! It has nothing to do with protecting you from my offensive thoughts and ideas...and everything to do with protecting my offensive thoughts and ideas from people like you, getting offended by them and trying to shut me up! Shocking isn't it? The Constitution is more interested in protecting my right to be a jerk than it is in protecting you from having to listen to me!!!

Bottom line, we DO have laws in this country to protect people from being verbally assaulted...look 'em up. An idiot on a street corner during a gaypride parade screaming "God Hates Fags" is just as within his rights as the idiot marching down the street screaming "We're here, We're Queer, Get Used to It!!:...and until one of those two idiots threatens the other, neither is breaking the law by offending the other...the Constitution doesn't care about how offensive each idiot is...and our nation has to protect their rights to be mutually idiotic.

 

[theim]

And anyway, WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION about what's "hate" speech and what's "legal" speech? All you have to do to censor your enemies is declare whatever they have to say 'hate speech'!

bingo.

 

[MissileMan]

Missileman Wrote:


Based on your examples, I should have the right in this nation to say whatever I want....just so long as my speech is informational and/or inspiring to whatever audience that happens to be listening...

First of all, I never implied that. What I said was that you should have the right to say anything you want as long as you aren't doing it to verbally assault someone.

Sorry...but that is remarkably almost entirely OPPOSITE of what freedom of speech exists for!! It has nothing to do with protecting you from my offensive thoughts and ideas...and everything to do with protecting my offensive thoughts and ideas from people like you, getting offended by them and trying to shut me up! Shocking isn't it? The Constitution is more interested in protecting my right to be a jerk than it is in protecting you from having to listen to me!!!

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.

You are limiting your definition of a verbal assault to a threat. I believe a verbal assault includes speech that demeans and harrasses also.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

Yes. I Think it was Ben Franklin that said "A nation without courtesy and decorum cannot stand." Oh wait, no, that was Ms. Manners.

 

[musicman]

Yes. I Think it was Ben Franklin that said "A nation without courtesy and decorum cannot stand." Oh wait, no, that was Ms. Manners.

You're incorrigible, RWA!

I'm trying to remember who said, "...that among these [inalienable rights} are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right not to have your feelings hurt". I just can't seem to place it....