Hate Speech

[Pure]

Though there are no US federal laws against 'hate speech' such laws are common in W. Europe and also found in Canada. All these countries are democratic and broadly guarantee freedom of speech, communication and expression.

The Canadian rationale of limitations on 'hate speech' was laid out in the Supreme Cr. decision re Keegstra (1990), found at

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990rcs3-697/1990rcs3-697.html

Germany is a good example since it experienced the consequences of speech that is not merely offensive or causative of 'hurt feelings', but that places [through attitudes and acts inspired] certain groups in danger or lessens respect for their dignity as citizens, and, more broadly, as human beings.

In Germany, the wording of the law is as follows, see below:

[it is prohibited to distribute documents]
inciting hatred against parts of the population or against groups determined by nationality, race, religion, or ethnic origin, or inviting to violent or arbitrary acts against these parts or groups, or attacking the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously ridiculing or defaming parts of the population or such a group,


wiki has a decent summary of the 'hate speech' issue and laws in various countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech


the following article in a German law journal lays out the rationale in some detail, and begins as follows:

http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=212
3 German Law Journal No. 12 (01 December 2002) - Public Law
The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional Law (Part I)
By Winfried Brugger
A. Introduction

[1] The way legal systems should deal with hate speech is a contested matter. The term "hate speech" itself suggests that it is a form of speech, and speech is generally protected in liberal states. However, this "speech" is either motivated by hatred or expresses hate, and such communication might not rise to the level of discourse that merits constitutional protection at all.

[2] One strong argument for very broad protections of hate speech is that such freedom of speech has traditionally been important to minorities wishing to express opinions seen by the majority as absurd or offensive. Voltaire, a prominent representative of the French Enlightenment, considered protection of offensive speech to be a moral duty.

His oft-cited philosophy was, "I might disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (1) This would seem to be an argument supporting a permissive attitude toward hate speech. However, by arguing in favor of limiting hate speech, one could also deny freedom of speech to those who would use this right to abolish the rights of others. (2) This view would mean that one could not freely use speech to silence another. Therefore, plausible arguments regarding the proper level of protection to afford hate speech range from advocating full and strong protection to advocating no protection at all.

[3] On the whole, neither modern constitutional law nor international law consistently permits or consistently prohibits hate speech. However, within this framework, two distinct tendencies in the law's treatment of hate speech can be observed. (3) One can loosely identify a group of countries that prioritize freedom of speech over most countervailing interests, even when the speech is filled with hatred. This group of nations generally follows doctrines reminiscent of the constitutional law of the United States, so this approach will be referred to as the American position.

The opposing view, shared by Germany, the member states of the Council of Europe, Canada, international law, and a minority of U.S. authors, (4) views hate-filled speech as forfeiting some or all of its free-speech protection. (5) This group of nations assigns a higher degree of protection to the dignity or equality of those who are attacked by hate speech than to the verbally aggressive speech used to attack them. Under this system, hate speech is not only unprotected, it is frequently punishable under criminal law, and individuals or groups who are the victims of hate speech frequently prevail in court. This article will focus on German constitutional law with occasional comparative observations of the American position.

[4] There are several good reasons for using Germany as a model and point of departure for this study. First, the Federal Republic of Germany was formed following the end of the Second World War to differentiate the government from the previous regime that had "distinguished" itself not only by its hate speech, but also by its horrendous hate crimes. Second, Germany's new constitution, the Basic Law (Grundgesetz or BL), (6) and Germany's Federal Constitutional Court have gained great international respect. (7) This international acclaim extends to Germany's treatment of hate speech, (8) which, on the whole, exemplifies the position taken by most European countries and by international law—hate speech must be effectively eliminated. (9)
----
[German Hate Speech Law reads as follows]
49) § 130 reads,

(1) Whosoever, in a manner liable to disturb public peace, (No. 1) incites hatred against parts of the population or invites violence or arbitrary acts against them, or (No. 2) attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously degrading or defaming parts of the population shall be punished with imprisonment of no less than three months and not exceeding five years.

(2) Imprisonment, not exceeding five years, or fine will be the punishment for whoever (No. 1) (a) distributes, (b) makes available to the public, (c) makes available to persons of less than 18 years, or (d) produces, stores or offers for use as mentioned in letters (a) to (c) documents inciting hatred against parts of the population or against groups determined by nationality, race, religion, or ethnic origin, or inviting to violent or arbitrary acts against these parts or groups, or attacking the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously ridiculing or defaming parts of the population or such a group, or (No. 2) distributes a message of the kind described in No. 1 by broadcast.

(3) Imprisonment, not exceeding five years, or a fine, will be the punishment for whoever, in public or in an assembly, approves, denies or minimizes an act described in § 220 a (1) committed under National Socialism, in a manner which is liable to disturb the public peace. (50) [...]

[33] In sum, these provisions in the Penal Code establish a far-reaching criminalization of hate speech that is directed against individuals and groups and that is further secured by norms protecting public peace and the constitutional order. In enacting these provisions, Germany satisfied its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (51)


[Basic freedom of communication as guaranteed in German constitutional law]

B. Freedoms of Communication in German Constitutional Law

[6] Freedoms of communication are guaranteed by several articles in the Basic Law, (10) with Art. 5 providing the most important of these norms. Art. 5 (1) BL covers the freedoms of speech, information, press, and broadcasts and films and also bans censorship. The article reads, "Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It all sounds warm and fuzzy, but when you get down to enforcement it's inherently contradictory, arbitrary and subjective. Very quickly it become Orwellian, as in the Canadian law you cited in my "OMG!" thread:

"(1) - No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate or is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of race, etc.

"(2) - Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject."

The statute infringes political speech by making it a potential thought crime, but then assures "no interference in free expression on any subject." The contradiction and Orwellian associations are rich.

Ultimately these are thought crime laws. The Enlightenment from which the modern iteration of the principle of free speech sprang was in large part a reaction against 150 years of violence generated by a particular form of such laws, ones based on religion.

The subtitle of the "OMG!" thread is "Most powerful free speech statement ever," which is perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but the subject is an extraordinarily articulate explication of the contradictions, absurdities and dangers of such laws by Canadian publisher Ezra Levant that far exceeds anything I could acheive here. I'll let Ezra speak for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8&feature=related
~~~~~~

PS. I think I listened to all eight Levant clips, and I don't think he addresses the historical context for prohibiting the government from infringing political speech. That essentially boils down to this: Whatever danger and discomfort free speech may cause, that is always less than the threat to political liberty generated by allowing the government to infringe it. Perhaps someone else could expand on that here.

 

[Pure]

lots of rhetoric, rox, not much in fact or argument. the phrase--which doesn't apply--of 'thought crime' substitutes for thinking and reasoning.

you miss a key phrase, as one might expect.

Can law: is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of race, etc.

i doubt you've read boissoin, either, to which your hero Levant, vociferously objects.

the concept is that groups are *endangered* by certain speech. if you have trouble with this one, read some German history, or that of the US South.

a bit about boissoin, a far right xian minister with a spiel about gays, who got convicted and iirc, fined.

the Boissoin decision, against which Levant speaks is at

http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/legi..._decisLund.pdf

the decision held that statements like the following, from Xian pastor Boissoin, in a letter to the editor of an Alberta paper, crossed over the line of licit free speech, into the area delimited above

1. “Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.”
2. “My banner has now been raised and war has been declared, so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume.”
3. “Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage you have caused.”
4. “It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness...”

 

[Oblimo]

I have to admit, I find the idea of using Germany's hate speech laws as a model for other countries absurd. Germany's position in the 20th century was unique. The country adopted its rather stark laws against freedom of expression from pressure (internal as well as external) to prevent it from ever happening again.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

a bit about boissoin, a far right xian minister with a spiel about gays, who got convicted and iirc, fined.

the Boissoin decision, against which Levant speaks is at

http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/legi..._decisLund.pdf

the decision held that statements like the following, from Xain pastor Boissoin, in a letter to the editor of an Alberta paper, crossed over the line of licit free speech, into the area delimited above

1. “Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.”
2. “My banner has now been raised and war has been declared, so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume.”
3. “Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage you have caused.”
4. “It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness...”

Well there you go. Canada's political and governmental elites favor homosexuals as a class and despise Christian conservatives, so we have a prosecution against the one, but no prosecutions against those who issue all manner of screeds against Christian conservatives - examples of which are occassionally seen right here, in fact. Not that I don't think some of those screeds have some merit (most are just ignorant bile), but that's irrelevent. If you wouldn't want the government censoring the one, then you should not favor it censoring the other.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There is no way that I should be the only one defending free speech on this thread.

 

[Weird Harold]

There is no way that I should be the only one defending free speech on this thread.

Why not, you're doing just fine.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Why not, you're doing just fine.

You're very kind , but in most threads where I'm making the case for and doing consciousness raising about counter-intuitive and often unpopular positions I don't mind so much that it's me and perhaps one or two others against the world. But if we have reached the point where the case for free speech has also become "counterintuitive and unpopular" then it just makes me want to give up.

 

[cantdog]

Rationalization is the enemy here.

Would I get to point out that some person of religion was a hypocrite? Like so:

--You liars, you hypocrites, you mealy-mouthed swine--

Provided I indicate where the hypocrisy lies?

It seems clear that I could not freely say, in the public print "These liars, these hypocrites, these mealy-mouthed swine ought to be buttfucked to death in a pillory in the public square before City Hall! True men, men with the best interests of all at heart, out to get started on this admirable program!" if we followed the German model.

I am completely sure, though, that were the German model adopted here, that distinction would not last long, because "religion" is in the list, there, of groups who must not be singled out. Race, ethnic origin, and religion, among others, in every line.

And that would be construed in America to license the religious to go about the place terrorizing any and all anti-religious speech.

Because the clear implication of anti-religious speech is that religious ideas, being wacko irrational, are dangerous. Advocacy, for instance, that the government ought to stop throwing public money at the indoctrination of children with these dangerous and irrational divisive ideas (ought to cease to subsidize Sunday schools and religious schools) may be snatched up by some Falwell or other. Lawsuits and fines would follow, and I'm afraid a ruling against Sunday schools isn't going to come from the American bench any too often.

The effect in short order would be a ban de facto on freethinker speech, in this priest-ridden country at this time in history.

Pure, I know that the constitution of this republic has some flaws which were corrected by later constitutions in later republics. But for reasons like the above, I am NOT in favor of a new constitutional convention. Too many polls have shown that people consider, in America, nearly every one of the Bill of Rights freedoms to be dangerous. If we adopt a new constitution we will not improve it, but lose everything worthwhile in it. People are sheep, and the government is very royalist right now. The Presidency has arrogated every right short of Divine Right to itself, and Bush is on record saying that God Himself wanted him to be President.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . and Bush is on record saying that God Himself wanted him to be President.

Well, not a sparrow falls but . . . oh never mind.

 

[cantdog]

I'd like to point out that wickedness abounds everywhere, in defense of Boissoin. It therefore abounds wherever there are homosexuals, as well as wherever else.

Know that we will defeat you-- it seems to me Churchill said that about the Axis. A statement of determined opposition, group against group, is common as eggs.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Rationalization is the enemy here.

Would I get to point out that some person of religion was a hypocrite? Like so:

--You liars, you hypocrites, you mealy-mouthed swine--

Provided I indicate where the hypocrisy lies?

It seems clear that I could not freely say, in the public print "These liars, these hypocrites, these mealy-mouthed swine ought to be buttfucked to death in a pillory in the public square before City Hall! True men, men with the best interests of all at heart, out to get started on this admirable program!" if we followed the German model.

I am completely sure, though, that were the German model adopted here, that distinction would not last long, because "religion" is in the list, there, of groups who must not be singled out. Race, ethnic origin, and religion, among others, in every line.

And that would be construed in America to license the religious to go about the place terrorizing any and all anti-religious speech.

Because the clear implication of anti-religious speech is that religious ideas, being wacko irrational, are dangerous. Advocacy, for instance, that the government ought to stop throwing public money at the indoctrination of children with these dangerous and irrational divisive ideas (ought to cease to subsidize Sunday schools and religious schools) may be snatched up by some Falwell or other. Lawsuits and fines would follow, and I'm afraid a ruling against Sunday schools isn't going to come from the American bench any too often.

The effect in short order would be a ban de facto on freethinker speech, in this priest-ridden country at this time in history.

Pure, I know that the constitution of this republic has some flaws which were corrected by later constitutions in later republics. But for reasons like the above, I am NOT in favor of a new constitutional convention. Too many polls have shown that people consider, in America, nearly every one of the Bill of Rights freedoms to be dangerous. If we adopt a new constitution we will not improve it, but lose everything worthwhile in it. People are sheep, and the government is very royalist right now. The Presidency has arrogated every right short of Divine Right to itself, and Bush is on record saying that God Himself wanted him to be President.

W has every right to say that God wanted him to be pres. I don't believe him and I don't believe many others do, but he has a right to say it.

However, I agree that if we are to have freedom of speech, it must be all speech, not just somebody speaking in favor of Baseball, hot dogs and motherhood. I, and everybody else should have a right to be as non-PC as I can.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

No! No! No! The problem with outlawing "hateful" speech is simple; who gets to define "hateful?" We have enough trouble defending freedom of speech now. No way in hell do I want to chance that power falling into the hands of a law and order fanatic, some bleeeding heart liberal, or a religious zealot.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[WRJames]

We aspire to virtue, but true freedom includes the freedom to sin.

The argument here is just one example of that paradox. Which is more important -- virtue or freedom? Is there a happy medium?

One answer is that the pursuit of virtue, if it is pursued at all, should be a private matter, not regulated by law. But, clearly, when our non-virtuous activities harm others, some regulation is required.

But what about evil thoughts and evil words? Do these cause enough harm to need regulation? Too often, evil words lead to evil deeds -- would cutting off the words have prevented the deeds? Is it up to the government to enforce virtue?

History suggests that state enforcement of virtue leads to horrors -- the Inquistion, the Terror, Christians thrown to lions in the arena. But of course, we have seen hateful speech lead to lynchings, acts of terror, the Holocaust.

Personally, I would prefer freedom. But I can understand that there are valid arguments the other direction.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Well there you go. Canada's political and governmental elites favor homosexuals as a class and despise Christian conservatives, so we have a prosecution against the one, but no prosecutions against those who issue all manner of screeds against Christian conservatives - examples of which are occassionally seen right here, in fact. Not that I don't think some of those screeds have some merit (most are just ignorant bile), but that's irrelevent. If you wouldn't want the government censoring the one, then you should not favor it censoring the other.

(emphasis mine)
I'm not sure what you mean by this, other than parroting the perpetual victimhood of the class of people forming the majority of the elected representatives throughout American (and Canadian, I would imagine) history. The government LURVES Xtian conservatives. Even though it seems Xtain conservatives hate lots of other people.
I think there's a difference between mocking one's religious or political beliefs, even in profane terms, and inciting hatred over something that is an hereditary trait. And in the sense of Judaism being a religion, I would argue that, historically, I don't see Judaism being a proselytizing (ie, conquering) religion in the way that Christianity and Islam have been. So 'the Jews' is as much a bloodline as a religion, and has generally been understood as a race throughout much of history.

 

[Liar]

To kill, hurt, harass and discriminate against people is illegal.

1. Private speech, aimed at a specific audience (Bob, Jimmy and Harriet), with the intent to make them do those things, is incetement, which is also illegal.

2. Public speech or mass media publication, aimed at a non-specific audience (the crowd, or the magazine's readers), in order to make some of them do those things... is that incetement?

3. Public speech or mass media publication, which might inspire some of the audience to do those things... is that incetement?

Wherever you draw the line, you will have a grey zone of both people who complain that they are being hurt, harassed, and discrimiated against because of it, and people who complain that their free speech rights are being shat upon.

There's no magic formula.

 

[Weird Harold]

The argument here is just one example of that paradox. Which is more important -- virtue or freedom? Is there a happy medium?

One answer is that the pursuit of virtue, if it is pursued at all, should be a private matter, not regulated by law. But, clearly, when our non-virtuous activities harm others, some regulation is required.

Just a radical thought here, but the Bill of Rights says nothing about freedom of amplification, so prohibiting Hate Speech from being processed by any electrical or electronic device should pass Constitutional muster -- it leaves the Haters free to speak or write whatever they wish, but limits their audience to the range of their voice or capacity of obsolete printing technology.

That leaves us with the problem of who gets to define "Hate Speech" but the existing laws are fairly decent definitions for the national contexts they were written for.

A US Law limiting the amplification or electronic transmission of speech advocating or inciting, the violation an individual or group's constitutional rights should work just fine. (not that that kind of wording would ever get passed because it would severely limit many of the special interest groups interested in passing laws to violate the first and second ammendments; like "Hate Speech" laws. )

 

[Oblimo]

freedom of amplification

Hehehe: Words don't hurt people; bullhorns hurt people!

 

[Oblimo]

There is no way that I should be the only one defending free speech on this thread.

You're not. There's a disconnect as to what constitutes protectable speech, and the cost/benefit analysis of casting an overbroad protective (or restrictive) net.

We can start with the basics (and bore everyone to tears, which I seem prone to do): Would say that my offering $200 to cantog to slash Pure's tires is protected speech?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just a radical thought here, but the Bill of Rights says nothing about freedom of amplification, so prohibiting Hate Speech from being processed by any electrical or electronic device should pass Constitutional muster -- it leaves the Haters free to speak or write whatever they wish, but limits their audience to the range of their voice or capacity of obsolete printing technology.

That leaves us with the problem of who gets to define "Hate Speech" but the existing laws are fairly decent definitions for the national contexts they were written for.

A US Law limiting the amplification or electronic transmission of speech advocating or inciting, the violation an individual or group's constitutional rights should work just fine. (not that that kind of wording would ever get passed because it would severely limit many of the special interest groups interested in passing laws to violate the first and second ammendments; like "Hate Speech" laws. )

I can't cite you any examples, but I am certain that the courts have ruled that radio shows or TV shows or movies are also protected under the First Amendment.

 

[elsol]

There is no way that I should be the only one defending free speech on this thread.

*shrug*

If someone doesn't understand that censorship is double-edge sword without a hilt then what's there to argue about?

 

[Pure]

here's the pose; note to oblimo

Rox There is no way that I should be the only one defending free speech on this thread.

rox's contribution to the debate is to say that she favors 'free speech' and pure and the Germans, Canadians etc don't favor it, or even favor its suppression. nice pose! perhaps less than worthy as a debate tactic, but hey, if you've got nothing else. BUT WAIT

elsewhere we have rox talking about 'no absolute rights' and--reminisnicent of Rand-- equating that absolutism with 'nihilism.'

and elsewhere saying that context is all important.

and elsewhere endorsing mr levant's list of proper restrictions on free speech including incitement to riot, conspiracy [discussing and planning crime, moving towards its execution], revelation of 'official secrets', libel and defamation laws [speech or writing that brings an individual into public contempt, harms him through ruining his reputation].

oh, i know the explanation: consistency is the hobgloblin of small minds.
---

btw, when did mr levant, no smalltime hatemonger himself, get to be God's prophet as to what the law should say?

roxanne and mr levant and THEIR approved restrictions make them PRO free speech; pure and the Germans and Canadian and THEIR approved restrictions are ANTI free speech. why is that, one may wonder. oh, yes, i remember: whatever Rox claims is self evidently true and rational.

===
to oblimo:

obl //I have to admit, I find the idea of using Germany's hate speech laws as a model for other countries absurd. Germany's position in the 20th century was unique. The country adopted its rather stark laws against freedom of expression from pressure (internal as well as external) to prevent it from ever happening again. //

i'm not sure about all countries--now surely over a dozen-- using German LAW as the model. is it too much to believe they too saw a problem and wrote similar laws to address it? that said, Canada's [and other country's] *seeing the problem* likely had something to so with seeing events in Germany's history, its exterminating jew, gypsies and homosexuals while the world looked on-- or assisted.

this brings me to your point about Germany being 'unique,' in one sense, yes. but as far as lethal jew hatred, hardly. the German's chose Poland as a site for many of there death camps: why? because of the jew hatred in Poland. Germany was not criticized by the Pope for its actions, why? Catholic anti semitism, and offshoot of xian antisemitism.

oh, and there is that little thing about how Britain, Canada, and US-- not to say Switzerland and other countries found there was simply no room for Jewish refugees, including even the kids.

in a word, the Germans had LOTS of help, and where not 'help', will ful turning a blind eye.

So it does not surprise me that Canada, looking at its own complicity--e.g. in not accepting refugees, early on-- passed anti 'hate speech' laws. And the Keegstra case which i've referenced, was about a Canadian home grown nazi, who lost his case before the Canadian Supreme court.

 

[Frank Noir]

There is no way that I should be the only one defending free speech on this thread.

Nope. I'm right there with you.

I have no problem with hate speech. Bigots usually give themselves away.

I do however have a problem with laws against hate speech - they invariably get used against people who just have unpopular opinions.

And I don't think any crimes against humanity were ever caused by allowing people to voice their opinions. Quite the contrary, in fact.

 

[Pure]

UK law on libel and defamation.

I know Roxanne, and a few "America is God's Country" folks believe that the US law is superior to all others, in all matters, but for the discussion with others, the British laws about libel and defamation are interesting as being curbs on absolute 'free speech.' (Of course, 'silly Brits, 'some will say, 'what do THEY know about rights?')

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394

[start quoted verbatim excerpts]

How to avoid libel and defamation

This page was created by the BBC.
Updated: 23 Apr 2004
Created 11 Sep 2003

By BBC Action Network team

1. What are defamation and libel?
2. Get your facts right
3. Three tips for writing
4. Common mistakes and assumptions
5. Defences against libel
6. If a complaint is made
7. Feedback and comments



1. What are defamation and libel?

Defamation is any published material that damages the reputation of an individual or an organisation. This covers material on the internet as well as radio and television broadcasts - so even drama and fiction can be defamatory if they damage someone’s reputation. You can only publish defamatory material if it comes within one of the recognised legal defences. If it doesn’t, the publication will amount to libel and you may have to pay substantial damages.

Libel online


[[Slander is 'defamation by word of mouth']]

Internet sites are not exempt from any libel laws. If you are publishing on the internet you are bound by the same libel laws as print publishers.

In a significant ruling in 2002, the Australian high court ruled that mining magnate Joseph Gutnick could sue publisher Dow Jones under Australian law for alleged libel online. The judge deemed that the web was no different from newspapers or television.

In the UK, internet service providers are coming under increasing pressure to close sites containing defamatory allegations. You also have to be careful about the comments others post on your site. There have been cases where individuals have sued online publishers for libel over customer book reviews published on their sites.

Such developments have implications for freedom of expression.

The purpose of libel law
Libel law protects individuals or organisations from unwarranted, mistaken or untruthful attacks on their reputation. A person is libelled if a publication:

Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt
Causes them to be shunned or avoided
Discredits them in their trade, business or profession
Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society
======
[...]

Justification
The most usual defence against libel is to prove that the information published is true. But this can be a dangerous route because an unsuccessful plea could increase the damages against you because you will have increased the harm to the complainant. And remember, you must be able to deal with every libellous possibility, such as inference and innuendo. If your statement infers something greater, it is not enough to prove that the statement is just literally true. Merely asserting something will not be sufficient to prove that it’s true - you will need witnesses and documents to back up assertions (whether they’re yours or someone you’re quoting).



Fair comment
Fair comment covers content, mainly opinion, that cannot by its very nature be true or false. To be properly defensible, these comments must be:

Based on fact
Made in good faith
Published without malice
On a matter of public interest

[end quoted verbatim excerpts]

 

[angela146]

OK, I will speak up.

I am deeply offended by the notion of the U.S. government (or any government within the U.S.) restricting or prohibiting speech or press, especially "hate" speech, unless the speech/press itself is a direct criminal action that causes harm by itself. (I'll explain that at the end of the post).

I want hateful speech to be done out in the open where I can hear it and speak out against it.

For example, I want Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs spouting their racist and National Socialist views on television so that people will see the danger and will not become complacent.

I want Mike Huckabee saying on TV that we should change the Constitution to enshrine God's law as he understands it rather than allowing individuals the right to believe as they choose. If Huckabee didn't have the right to say it in public or if Fox News didn't have the right to broadcast it, I (and my non-Evangelical friends) wouldn't know how dangerous he is.

No, ladies and gentlemen, the answer to hate speech is to speak out against it and to prevent people from doing the actions that haters are trying to advocate.

To take the two most personal examples I can think of (at 3 o'clock in the morning):

1. If someone advocates a prohibition against free speech itself (such as, oh let's say, creating 'hate-speech' laws), I will defend their right to advocate restrictions of speech because I need to be able to argue against it.

2. If someone advocates registering all Hispanic people so that they can round up the illegal aliens (and they figure that most of them are Hispanics) I want that person to say it on TV and in the newspaper and in the Blogs.

(Please note that I, myself, am Hispanic on my father's side. My maiden name was about as Hispanic as it gets and my skin is brown enough for me to be recognized as one of "them brown people"). I have skin in this game (so to speak).

If somebody wants to have all us Spics rounded up and deported (or even just boycotted or spit on), I want to know about it before it happens. I want the racists talking about it in the open so I know who they are.

The haters' freedom of speech is my greatest protection against their hatred.

The few exceptions that I allow are for situations where the speech or writing itself causes direct immediate harm.

In the worst-case scenarios, such as the oft-cited hypothetical case of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, the government does still not have the right to stop people from doing it. They only have the right to impose penalties after the fact.

In this case, the speech (or writing) causes immediate harm by giving false information that leads people to do dangerous things (i.e. trample each other).

For crimes of conspiracy, the speech or writing must be accompanied by an overt act. If I tell someone to go rob a bank, it doesn't become a crime unless I *do* something (like provide a weapon or give him some seed money).