Hate Speech

[Pure]

cross burning. one lawyer's discussion.

the court has struck down a number of anti cross burning laws, but usually on narrow grounds. in other words, SOME anti-object-exhibiting law might pass muster if intent to intimidate has to be proven.


http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hilden/20021115.html

THE SUPREME COURT CONFRONTS CROSS-BURNING AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ONCE AGAIN, BECAUSE IT FAILED TO MAKE THIS KNOTTY AREA OF LAW CLEAR THE FIRST TIME
By JULIE HILDEN
julhil@aol.com
----
Friday, Nov. 15, 2002
Early next month, the Supreme Court will hold oral argument in Virginia v. Black. The case raises the question whether Virginia's anti-cross-burning statute violates the First Amendment.

Only ten years ago, in 1992, the Court decided a very similar case, R.A.V. v. St. Paul - deciding whether St. Paul, Minnesota's anti-cross-burning ordinance violated the First Amendment. So why is the Court taking on what is, in essence, the same issue a second time?
To put it bluntly, the Court screwed up the first time. In R.A.V., it failed to answer the knotty question of whether any anti-cross-burning law can ever be constitutional.

Worse, in R.A.V., the Court gave the false impression that the question of how cross-burning can constitutionally be punished was much easier than, in fact, it is. In truth, anti-cross-burning statutes present one of the most difficult questions in all of First Amendment law - for cross-burning is a mix not only between speech and action, but also between message and threat.

In order to understand the current cross-burning case, it's necessary first to understand the previous one, R.A.V. v. St. Paul. The decision was unanimous, with every Justice concurring in the result, and five Justices (all of whom are still on the Court) also agreeing with the precise reasoning of Justice Scalia's majority opinion.

R.A.V. - his initials alone were used because of the confidentiality of juvenile criminal records - was a teenager charged with burning a cross inside the fenced yard of an African-American family. A St. Paul ordinance made it a misdemeanor to:

place[] on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender . . . .

The Court struck the ordinance down on the ground that it violated the First Amendment.

The Court's reasoning basically went like this: Cross-burning is symbolic speech protected by the Amendment - an action designed to convey a message, albeit a hateful one. And the ordinance violated the First Amendment by criminalizing that speech "solely on the basis of the subjects [it] addresses" - that is, race, color, creed, religion or gender.



Under the First Amendment, Justice Scalia explained, the government cannot generally forbid speech "because of disapproval of the ideas expressed." The statute impermissibly targeted only hostile symbolic speech about "race, color, creed, religion or gender" - not, for instance, all hostile symbolic speech.

The effect, Scalia explained, was that some topics were favored over others: you could be punished for speaking symbolically and hostilely about race, but not, for instance, about sexual orientation. But the First Amendment forbids the government from, in effect, setting the agenda for what citizens will speak about by preferring some topics (or viewpoints) over others.

Pretending States Could Easily Prosecute Cross Burners
Although it struck down the St. Paul ordinance in R.A.V., the Court seemed to believe that the decision would pose little problem for states that wanted to prosecute cross-burners.
But what are those "sufficient means," exactly? That question brings us to this Term's cross-burning case - in which another anti-cross-burning statute will probably be struck down.

This Term's First Amendment/Cross-Burning Case

Virginia's anti-cross-burning statute made it a felony "for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place." It also noted that "Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or a group of persons." (This last sentence raises another constitutional problem, for it presumes the intent necessary to prove a crime.)
Note the differences between the Virginia statute and the St. Paul ordinance the Court struck down in R.A.V.: Unlike the ordinance, the Virginia statute does not pick out specially disfavored subject areas such as "race." And, unlike the ordinance, the Virginia statute focuses on cross-burning specifically as an implicit threat, and a means of intimidation.

Nevertheless, the Virginia Supreme Court - over the dissent of some of its Justices - struck the statute down. Carefully applying R.A.V., the court found that the statute, like the St. Paul ordinance, discriminated between types of speech based on their content - with one particular type of symbolic speech, cross-burning, specially disfavored. (After all, the statute does not reach flag-burning, draft-card-burning, bra-burning, or book-burning, even if there are done with the intent to intimidate or threaten).

Why the Supreme Court will Probably Strike Down the Virginia Statute, Too

From a First Amendment perspective, the Virginia Supreme Court is probably right. The truth is that cross-burning conveys a message - a horrific message of racial hatred - and that message, and only that message, is targeted by the statute.

But what about the fact that message conveyed is also an implicit threat to African-Americans - as the Virginia statute recognizes? Cross-burning inspires fear and is meant to do so.

The problem, however, is that it is probably not enough, under U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment precedent, for a threat to be implicit. Speech needs to be more than threatening, frightening, or intimidating to be criminalized - it needs to present a direct, imminent threat of violence.

The threat cross-burning presents, by its nature, is not put into words - and thus is not specific. Standing on someone's porch banging on the door and screaming "I'm going to come in and kill you" is patently a crime. But mutely burning a cross on someone's lawn, or across the street from it, or in the road, is probably too vague and indirect to be a direct threat.

Does cross-burning mean "I'm going to come in and kill you," or just "I hate people like you."? Remember, everyone has a right to scream the latter sentence with impunity - unless it is so provocative it is liable to inspire imminent violence.

Is There Any Way a State Can Constitutionally Prosecute Cross-Burning?

So what is a state to do? The answer is far from as easy as Justice Scalia suggested in R.A.V. Enforcing the anti-trespassing or anti-arson laws probably will not be enough.

After all, trespassers do not tend to face stiff penalties. Arson laws tend to apply to structures like houses, not objects like crosses. And a law that prohibits burning anything on someone's property, or on the street next to it, will end up reaching kids with firecrackers, or rude neighbors whose leaf piles are ill-placed, or even careless smokers who throw their butts out the window.

But what if a state passes a law simply making it a felony "for any person or persons, with the intent of directly threatening any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, an object on the property of another, a highway or other public place?"
That is, what if Virginia re-enacted its cross-burning law without the mention of a "cross," and with language suggesting that what is necessary is an intent to directly threaten, not to intimidate?

The statute would reach conduct other than cross-burning, but that is exactly the point: It would not pick out a particular disfavored kind of symbolic speech. So, for instance, if an abusive husband burned his children's clothes on their lawn while his wife looked on - in circumstances suggesting he meant the act to be a threat to the children - then he might be able to be prosecuted under this statute, too.

Such a statute would, at least, have a better chance of surviving Supreme Court scrutiny than Virginia's. But we still cannot know for certain what its fate would be - and for that, we have the Supreme Court's incomplete and misleading decision in R.A.V. to thank.

 

[trysail]

In the coming perfect world, Pure will tell us what we can think, what our incomes will be, and what we can say.

Pure will provide all of us with cradle-to-grave security and life will be tranquil. No one will have to work.

Pure should be dictator of the world. Pure is infallible and all-knowing. All hail, Pure! After all, everyone knows that some pigs are more equal than other pigs.

 

[Boxlicker101]

NOTE: i mistyped the title; this is a posting about CROSS burning and laws about it

a recent SC case on cross burning, voided part of a law, but not its essential part. the law had a 'reverse onus' provision that made 'attempt to intimidate' the legal (prima facie) assumption, and required the defendent to prove he did NOT so attempt.


http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11173prs20030407.html

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds VA Cross-Burning Ban But Sends Law Back to State Court for Refinement (4/7/2003)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RICHMOND, VA - The United States Supreme Court today ruled that KKK member Barry Black could not be convicted of a crime under Virginia's cross-burning statute because of the law's unconstitutional presumption that all cross-burning is intended to intimidate.

However, the court upheld the other main provision of the law, which allows the banning of cross-burning when it can be shown that its purpose it to intimidate others."This is a mixed bag of a decision about a fairly narrow aspect of the law," said Kent Willis, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. "We are pleased that the court reaffirmed free speech by making it clear that cross-burning, when it is not used as a direct threat, is protected by the Constitution."

Black, who set fire to a cross on a private farm in Carroll County, had permission from the owner of the farm to use the area for a KKK rally and to ignite a cross as part of the ceremony. The ACLU of Virginia has provided legal representation to Black since the incident in 1999.

Four of the five Justices in the majority held that the presumption of intimidation in the Virginia law is unconstitutional on its face. Justices O'Connor, Stevens, Rehnquist and Breyer wrote that the burning of a cross, if used as a "statement of ideology" or a "symbol of group solidarity," is protected by the First Amendment. Justice Scalia, the fifth member of the majority, agreed that it was wrong to convict Black but not that the law's presumption of intimidation is unconstitutional on it face.

The nation's High Court sent the case back to the Virginia Supreme Court to determine whether the constitutional problems with the statute can be resolved by eliminating the statute's presumption of intimidation, and asked the court to review the convictions of two teenagers who burned a cross in Virginia Beach.

In upholding the part of the law that prohibits cross-burning with the intent to intimidate, the Court's majority held that the Virginia law is not inconsistent with R.AV v. St. Paul, a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that struck down an ordinance prohibiting cross-burning and other kinds of threatening conduct, but only when it is motivated by racial, religious or gender bias. Unlike the ordinance in R.A.V., Virginia's statute bans all cross-burning with the intent to intimidate and therefore does not discriminate against particular viewpoints.
The Court also held that the state could single out cross-burning because it is an especially "virulent form of intimidation" with a "long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence."

"We would have preferred that the Supreme Court agree with us by taking a purer First Amendment stand, but it did strike down the presumption in the law that cross-burning is always meant to intimidate," added Willis. "In addition, the Justices sent a strong pro-speech message to the states by upholding the reversal of Barry Black's conviction."

Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Kennedy ruled that the entire Virginia statute is an unconstitutional violation of free speech. Justice Thomas held that the statute is constitutional but his reasoning differed sharply from the majority, finding that the statute did not prohibit any protected speech - only intimidating, terroristic conduct.

This seems quite reasonable, and is consistent with what I have been saying. Burning a cross or doing similar acts are Constitutionally protected free speech, unless the act is intended to be a threat or is intended to intimidate. In the RAV case, it was, and the perps were properly convicted. In the Virginia case, it was not.

It's nice also that the SCOUS ruled that the prosecution is required to prove intent in order to convict, rather than the defendant disproving intent, in other words proving a negative. A pillar of jurisprudence in the USA is that the prosecution has to prove guilt, NOT that the defendant must prove innocense.

 

[Weird Harold]

P: intimidation is key. yet weird h seems NOT to take into accoutn the special nature of certain symbols, which because of history, are likely part of efforts to intimidate, e.g. burning crosses. again, not inherently, or in every context. laws against cross burning have been upheld as NOT protected speech.

The legal citations you posted don't support your assertion that cross-burning has been upheld as "Not Free Speech" -- they all lead to the conclusion that intimidation is the determining factor, not the object being burned.

And I do take into account the "special nature" of certain symbols -- as a grade-schooler, I was facinated with the Confederate States of America and the image of "gallant underdogs fighting against federal tyranny" and enamored of the symmetry and simple elegance of the Confederate Battle Flag but even then, I could separate the heroics and the flag from the slavery and oppression of blacks the CSA was trying to preserve -- the "Stars and Bars" is simply artistically superior to the "Star and Stripes."

Nazi memorabilia has a lot of historical signifignance -- should that historical signifigance be disregarded and the memoriabilia be destroyed simply because the symbols on it bring back traumatic memories for some people and inspire others to perpetuate the Nazi hatred?

Neo-nazis, "skinheads," the Aryan Brotherhood, the KKK and other faschist/white supremacist organizations are perpetuating the hatred all ove rthe world just fine without paying much attention to that their symbols and even their ideology is banned or suppressed an many countries -- In fact "skinheads" exist as a recognisable (neo-nazi) movement because nazi symbols were banned and they needed a new symbol to show their affiliation and solidiarity.

Banning symbols that have signific historical associations is like banning alcohol or guns -- it makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens and does nothing to curb the real "criminals" from possessing and using the banned symbols except make them be marginally more discreet about displaying them. All banning the swastika and other Nazi symbols has done for anyone is to complicate archeologists and historians' jobs by making half of their source material illegal to own or display.

 

[SavannahMann]

Let's do it, let's ban hate speech

But what if a state passes a law simply making it a felony "for any person or persons, with the intent of directly threatening any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, an object on the property of another, a highway or other public place?"
That is, what if Virginia re-enacted its cross-burning law without the mention of a "cross," and with language suggesting that what is necessary is an intent to directly threaten, not to intimidate?

The statute would reach conduct other than cross-burning, but that is exactly the point: It would not pick out a particular disfavored kind of symbolic speech. So, for instance, if an abusive husband burned his children's clothes on their lawn while his wife looked on - in circumstances suggesting he meant the act to be a threat to the children - then he might be able to be prosecuted under this statute, too.

Such a statute would, at least, have a better chance of surviving Supreme Court scrutiny than Virginia's. But we still cannot know for certain what its fate would be - and for that, we have the Supreme Court's incomplete and misleading decision in R.A.V. to thank.

That would be interesting. I mean, those people protesting King George and his war in Iraq who burned the flag would probably find themselves in violation of this law. Obviously their intent is to threaten right?

How about people who burn George Bush or the others in effigy? Those people should definitely be locked up for a hundred years or so for hate speech right? How about just calling the Right Wing folks Nazi's, would that be hate speech? Or is that still protected free political speech?

When we're done banning all the speech that someone else finds offensive, where will we post stories like we have here? After all, there are plenty of organizations out there which think that the type of material available here is hate speech. How long until you or your cause is targeted by some group claiming you advocate hate speech. Never happen you say? Really?

We tend to ban incrementally when public support isn't there for a wide ban. All things have followed this from cigarettes, to guns, to trans fats. We ban a little at a time. Today, we're going to ban those damn Nazi's. Next year, we'll ban anyone who says the word Nazi, which is really going to affect the Huffington Post and Move On web sites. After about half of their readers are locked up for Hate Speech, I be that we'll all be thinking differently about the subject won't we? Then we can ban anything that someone finds offensive.

Another two or three generations at this rate, and cutting edge free speech will be a Hallmark card.

Works for me, let's get started. Let's throw anyone who ever burned a cross into jail. Let's put everyone who owns a Nazi flag into prison for life. Let's lock up anyone who ever called another person a Nazi for fifty years. If you ever participated in a crowd that burned an image in effigy, let's lock that person up for a million years or more. Come on Pure, let's do it. Let's introduce so much intolerance into the world that we can't recognize it in fifty years. I for one really don't care all that much, I don't have, and never will have any kids. It's not my decedents that will have to live in the world we've created. In about ten years, when the users of this website are arrested for hate speech in an amendment pushed through by some religious wackos, don't blame me, and don't start crying about your freedom of speech. You didn't give a damn about anyone else's. You have my vote Pure, let's do it, let's screw the world up a little more.

Before we get started though, could you do me a big favor, and go and vote one on all my stories? I'd love to be poorly thought of by someone who wants to ban free speech. I'll be deleting them soon anyway, before the thought police show up and arrest me for my hate speech.

 

[oggbashan]

...

And I do take into account the "special nature" of certain symbols -- as a grade-schooler, I was facinated with the Confederate States of America and the image of "gallant underdogs fighting against federal tyranny" and enamored of the symmetry and simple elegance of the Confederate Battle Flag but even then, I could separate the heroics and the flag from the slavery and oppression of blacks the CSA was trying to preserve -- the "Stars and Bars" is simply artistically superior to the "Star and Stripes."

...

In the minds of some people of the UK displaying the Confederate Battle Flag is a statement against people of non-Aryan race.

Others don't see it like that - just an interesting piece of history.

It causes confusion. Is the Flag displayed because the displayer hates blacks, or because of an interest in American history?

I think most people displaying it do so in ignorance of some of the associations it can have.

It isn't banned, neither is the swastika.

During WWII, an English translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf was continuously available for sale and people were encouraged to read it to know what we were fighting against.

Og

 

[Pure]

note to savannah

We tend to ban incrementally when public support isn't there for a wide ban. All things have followed this from cigarettes, to guns, to trans fats. We ban a little at a time. Today, we're going to ban those damn Nazi's. Next year, we'll ban anyone who says the word Nazi, which is really going to affect the Huffington Post and Move On web sites. After about half of their readers are locked up for Hate Speech, I be that we'll all be thinking differently about the subject won't we? Then we can ban anything that someone finds offensive.

Another two or three generations at this rate, and cutting edge free speech will be a Hallmark card.

what you ignore, savannah, is that these 'creeping fascism' scenarios are mostly bogus, except in specific situations, e.g. Germany 1929.

the countries with 'hate speech' laws, --for example, Canada, Sweden, even England-- are some of the freest on earth. one would never know it from reading rants such as yours. you need to get out more. ever read a non American newspaper? magazine?

 

[SavannahMann]

How I wish you were right.

what you ignore, savannah, is that these 'creeping fascism' scenarios are mostly bogus, except in specific situations, e.g. Germany 1929.

the countries with 'hate speech' laws, --for example, Canada, Sweden, even England-- are some of the freest on earth. one would never know it from reading rants such as yours. you need to get out more. ever read a non American newspaper? magazine?

Really? How about lightbulbs? We've just banned the incandescent lightbulb. I know, not a huge symptom of fascism, except that a choice is now gone. Probably one of those bans that you approve of. How about cigarettes? We have city wide bans in place in some places. San Francisco for example. You can't smoke in the buildings, and you can't smoke on the streets. Of course, it's for the public health right?

Try getting a good tasting piece of Kentucky Fried Chicken in New York. With the ban on Trans Fatty acids, it's going to taste like crap, I know I tried it. I asked the clerk what was wrong with the chicken, and she informed me that they had switched to a different cooking oil, one without trans fats. I left the chicken, and went to a different place to eat.

Our choices are already being limited. Freedom of speech is eroding dramatically. McCain Feingold campaign finance reform among other things prohibited negative campaign advertising for sixty days before an election. Oh my, we aren't talking about limiting free speech are we? Well, that's fine, at least we don't have to endure those darn pesky negative campaign ads. Thank God for that right? Oh, it's just a little speech, not a big deal. How many court decisions have banned religious displays for holidays? How many people have been arrested for T-shirts in schools? How about a T-shirt on any public property? I know, never happened.

Which is why I'm all for your proposals. Let's see. If the Supreme Court won't allow us to ban Hate Speech by legislation, we'll have to do it with a Constitutional Amendment. Perhaps we can end all offensive speech this way. We can get rid of the Confederate Flag, the Nazi symbols and books. We can even take those who would burn crosses and have them put to death.

Congress has passed laws which abridge our freedom of speech. In an effort to reform remember? Tipper Gore was the head of the Washington Wives organization, which regularly called upon records and movies to be banned because of their smutty language and offensive images. That was until her husband was running for President, then she loved Hollywood.

So join me in writing your Senators today, hate speech must be banished once and for all. Even if we have to shoot ourselves in the ass to do it.

Pure, I'd say more. However the rest of the rant would probably be considered Hate Speech. It would definitely be offensive.

Proposed Amendment: Any person who utters, speaks, or writes, anything which can be determined by the offended to be harmful, hateful, offensive, or threatening, must be banished, and the offender shall be punished in accordance with the wishes of the offended.

 

[SavannahMann]

As for Non American newspapers or magazines.

I tell you what. I'm not going to sit here and type out the names of various news articles I read, be it the Guardian, or the BBC podcast (check it on iTunes if you want, it's about 30 minutes a day.) to justify myself to you. I'm going to help you out in your fight on hate speech. I'm not going to say anything more.

Let's get that constitutional amendment going. If you were serious about it, you would have done that to begin with, knowing that numerous times that darned pesky constitution had gotten in the way of your desire to rid yourself of those who offend you.

 

[WRJames]

What it boils down to, in the end, is that freedom requires a certain level of responsibility in the "free" citizens.

You can see this very clearly with children. The reason they do not have the rights and freedoms of adults is because they cannot be expected to use those priveleges responsibly. This is why we have laws to restrain them from smoking, drinking, and driving, and more controversally, fucking.

If our citizens insist on "abusing" their freedoms, they will be limited. Driving around with a noose on the back of your car is irresponsible. Burning a cross on your neighbor's lawn is irresponsible.

The Founding Fathers understood that public freedom had to be based on some foundation of private virtue. Of course, our values have changed considerably in the last 200 plus years. But if we have none at all, or at least none in common as a society, then we can not reasonably expect that we can survive as a society without an external imposition of discipline.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What it boils down to, in the end, is that freedom requires a certain level of responsibility in the "free" citizens.

You can see this very clearly with children. The reason they do not have the rights and freedoms of adults is because they cannot be expected to use those priveleges responsibly. This is why we have laws to restrain them from smoking, drinking, and driving, and more controversally, fucking.

If our citizens insist on "abusing" their freedoms, they will be limited. Driving around with a noose on the back of your car is irresponsible. Burning a cross on your neighbor's lawn is irresponsible.

The Founding Fathers understood that public freedom had to be based on some foundation of private virtue. Of course, our values have changed considerably in the last 200 plus years. But if we have none at all, or at least none in common as a society, then we can not reasonably expect that we can survive as a society without an external imposition of discipline.

Driving around with a noose hanging from your truck might be irresponsible, but it's not illegal. Burning a cross on your neighbor's lawn withouy permission is also irresponsible, but it's also illegal. Either act is revolting and enraging to almost all Americans.

At the same time, either we have freedom of speech or we don't.

 

[Weird Harold]

The Founding Fathers understood that public freedom had to be based on some foundation of private virtue. Of course, our values have changed considerably in the last 200 plus years. But if we have none at all, or at least none in common as a society, then we can not reasonably expect that we can survive as a society without an external imposition of discipline.

You, know, I wouldn't have any real problem with a consistent and fair "externally imposed" discipline except for one minor detail -- it doesn't work! Never has and never will for many of the same reasons that Prohibition failed; i.e. you can't lock up the entire population.

You especially cannot "impose discipline" by passing laws unless you also provide sufficient police to enforce them -- and if the police don't agree with the laws, they tend to be lax about enforcing them, or if you don't pay them enough, the lawbreakers will.

You can educate people and train them in the essentials of civil behavior and civic responsiblility, but there are always going to be individuals who for one reason or another simply can't or won't learn to be civil. Whichis probably a good thing because it woul dmake for a very boring world if everyone was the same.

 

[Pure]

box. and savannah

box.//either we have freedom of speech or we don't.//

you and savannah agree on this silliness. everything has to be 'american style' or it's shit.

by any number of objective indicies the US is NOT the freest, even in speech. and one obvious indicator of the decline, in the US, is that no pres. candidate can say, "I just don't go to church regularly." it used to be possible.

the W Europe countries that savannah and amicus rant about (as oppressive), are in fact, better in that area.


there are any number of tyrranies the suppress lots of types of speech, e.g. china.

but the link between suppressing "hate speech" as per the German law, and tyrrany, simply does not exist, considering the countries i've focused on, those in w. europe and canada.

they are all thriving democracies. and they have 'anti hate speech' laws.

in the W Europe case, the laws are mainly used against neo nazis, and of course they don't apply to private conversations.

 

[SavannahMann]

So far

box.//either we have freedom of speech or we don't.//

you and savannah agree on this silliness. everything has to be 'american style' or it's shit.

by any number of objective indicies the US is NOT the freest, even in speech. and one obvious indicator of the decline, in the US, is that no pres. candidate can say, "I just don't go to church regularly." it used to be possible.

the W Europe countries that savannah and amicus rant about (as oppressive), are in fact, better in that area.


there are any number of tyrranies the suppress lots of types of speech, e.g. china.

but the link between suppressing "hate speech" as per the German law, and tyrrany, simply does not exist, considering the countries i've focused on, those in w. europe and canada.

they are all thriving democracies. and they have 'anti hate speech' laws.

in the W Europe case, the laws are mainly used against neo nazis, and of course they don't apply to private conversations.

So far they don't apply to private conversations, but for that to remain it would be required that the Government Prosecutors don't ever apply it. History clearly shows that when Government has a power, eventually they will use, and abuse, that power.

You like the idea of Western Europe, and insist that they won't abuse Freedom of speech limits. Are you sure? Canada's example of free speech lately was publishing a series of cartoons which according to some, the minority, insulted a religious figure. So the example we had was a publisher answering charges, in an investigation, in spite of such wonderful free speech laws right?

http://www.japantoday.com/forum/tm.asp?m=961000&mpage=1&#961007

Now, you were interested in a foreign view. Even the Japanese appear upset by the limitations on free speech the politically correct are enforcing in the name of not upsetting Islam. I know, they don't count, after all we're talking about shutting down the skin heads and the neo-nazi's right?

It started in Europe after World War II. They banned the Nazi Party, and made any attempts to reorganize it a crime. If you said you were a Nazi, you were arrested, even today the Germans regularly ban political groups claiming that they are Nazi's. Now apparently that doesn't bother you, since after all we're trying to ban Nazi's. It doesn't bother you that a group can be banned just by accusing them of being Nazi's.

Thankfully we don't have that simplistic and wonderful law here, yet. In time, those like you will manage to get some law past the Supreme Court, and we'll see one. We have RICO after all, and under that you're guilty until proven innocent. Of course, it's intended use was the Mob Boss's in the 1980's, and sure we're using it now on anyone we can think of, but hey, who cares right? They're probably guilty of something aren't they?

This is funny actually. I'm the hardcore conservative, who believes in individual freedom and individual liberty. I'm the one telling you that individual freedom is worth enduring a few nuts so the rest of us can use the freedom properly. I am unwilling to back up one inch, one iota, on any freedom ever. Even when the dolt that I'm defending is one whom I would never spend any time with under any circumstances. Hell, I'd rather slam my dick in a sliding glass door than spend ten seconds with a skinhead or a neo-nazi punk. But this is America, and you have the right to be an unequaled Jackass, and I'm not going to pass a law and say you don't have that right anymore.

As for people who are offended, life is a contact sport, get a helmet if you need one.

I wrote and demanded that my Congressman and Senators oppose McCain Feingold. I wrote the President and told him to oppose it, to veto it. Everyone ignored their duty, and left it up to the courts to do the right thing. Nobody was willing to do the right thing, and the courts didn't do the right thing, so we limited free speech, who cares, it's only negative advertisements, and nobody likes those right?

A quote attributed to Voltaire is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Later you can assume that I just searched for a Voltaire quote. I didn't, but who cares right? I'm just a stupid conservative who doesn't understand hate speech. What's interesting is we once believed that as a guiding principal on freedom. Now, we don't want to upset or offend anyone. We've come a long way, more intolerance than we can easily imagine.

When I was growing up, I was the only white boy for a few blocks in any direction. The first year of my life my name in the neighborhood was Gringo. The second year we lived there my name was Blanco, and finally another year or so later, I became Rubio. I have some familiarity with Hate Speech, first hand. I can also identify with being a minority, at least in the microcosm of my neighborhood in Anaheim California. So what? It doesn't really matter. Until the conversation takes on a note like "Usted va a morir hoy a gringo." Obviously I didn't die, but it doesn't really matter now anyway.

Now, we're upset that someone might say something hateful to another, and by God we're not going to sit still for it. Fine, let's do this dance too. Why not?

I said it before, I'll say it again Pure. Why don't you get an Amendment to the Constitution going for you? If the pesky constitution is slowing you down, instead of trying to re-write laws to fit into the narrow gaps, just pass a constitutional amendment. I'm sure that the Press Elites will happily pressure Congress into passing it, then all you need is 2/3rd's of the states. No problem with such great examples like Europe and Canada to use.

One question though. Why is it you folks who love to point to Europe and scream that we're supposed to do what they do never take all that Europe have and do? Why don't we have nuclear power plants out the wazoo like France has? Why don't we have laws on the books like Germany which essentially force women into prostitution, which is also legal? I know, we're just not as enlightened as they are. Good to know right?

 

[rgraham666]

One question though. Why is it you folks who love to point to Europe and scream that we're supposed to do what they do never take all that Europe have and do? Why don't we have nuclear power plants out the wazoo like France has? Why don't we have laws on the books like Germany which essentially force women into prostitution, which is also legal? I know, we're just not as enlightened as they are. Good to know right?

I never scream that's what we're supposed to do. Just that they have different ways of doing things. And that generally I prefer them.

The reason that France has so many nuclear power plants is that they are trying to makes themselves reasonably independent for power. They want to limit their dependence on foreign oil and the don't have much in the way of areas good for hydroelectric power.

As to the laws in Germany that 'essentially force women into prostitution', could you please cite them? I've never heard of such a thing. And I believe prostitution should be legal.

 

[Caitano]

During WWII, an English translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf was continuously available for sale and people were encouraged to read it to know what we were fighting against.

Og

Churchill told people it was a must-read, once he had read it. Churchill's memoirs cite it, in The Gathering Storm, because he wishes more political leaders who had Hitler to contend with had read it. He contends that the second world war was avoidable, which I guess might be so, in hindsight.

Banning books is selective blindness.

 

[Boxlicker101]

box.//either we have freedom of speech or we don't.//

you and savannah agree on this silliness. everything has to be 'american style' or it's shit.

by any number of objective indicies the US is NOT the freest, even in speech. and one obvious indicator of the decline, in the US, is that no pres. candidate can say, "I just don't go to church regularly." it used to be possible.

the W Europe countries that savannah and amicus rant about (as oppressive), are in fact, better in that area.


there are any number of tyrranies the suppress lots of types of speech, e.g. china.

but the link between suppressing "hate speech" as per the German law, and tyrrany, simply does not exist, considering the countries i've focused on, those in w. europe and canada.

they are all thriving democracies. and they have 'anti hate speech' laws.

in the W Europe case, the laws are mainly used against neo nazis, and of course they don't apply to private conversations.

What "American style" has anybody ever mentioned. We have expressed admiration for the First Amendment, but we have also remasrked on its genisis in English law. Some of us stronly favor freedom of speech, and realize that it has to include all speech, not just what is polite and PC.

I don't know if the US is the freest in this regard or not, and I don't really care.

Candidates for public office don't usually say much about their relgious affiliations because it doesn't usually gain any votes. They are usually well known anyhow. Huckleberry is an exception, because his base is Evangelicals, and his religious talk helped him in Iowa and SC, but it hurt him in MI and will kill him in the other large states. When people hear him talking about changing the Constitution so it reflects his version of the Bible, they will vote against him.

Freedom of Speech, you know, also means accepting the consequences of what you say, such as losing elections or alienating those who disagree.

As I said before, since I don't live in Canada or Western Europe, I have no opinion of their laws in this regard. You can add Japan to that general statement.

It's true that anti-hate speech laws haven't led to tyranny . At least not yet. However, when politicians are the ones who decide what is "hate speech", it is certainly a step in that direction. As has also been pointed out, Canada is now persecuting a man for printing cartoons in his news media because a religious group took offense at them. What next? Ban Southpark because it sometimes displays Jesus in a negative way?

You know how it goes: They came for the Nazis, and I was actually opposed to the Nazis, so I did not speak. Etc.

 

[Pure]

more silliness. lots of hypocrisy.

box //Canada is now persecuting a man for printing cartoons in his news media because a religious group took offense at them. What next? Ban Southpark because it sometimes displays Jesus in a negative way?

You know how it goes: They came for the Nazis, and I was actually opposed to the Nazis, so I did not speak. Etc.//

Mr Levant has had a few interviews with the Alberta Human Rights commision and is working up publicity regarding his 'persecution' -- he's still walking around free, writing columns, and probably a book. His possible pernalty is a fine. Incidentally, the Danish cartoons came up for review in a number of countries with 'hate speech' legislation, and, afaik, none of the publishers got sent to jail. Indeed, i'm not sure if there were any fines.

Your last line is typical melodrama. It's odd that American paranoia about 'evil, tyrannical government' is mostly directed at free and democratic countries elsewhere, with better records re civil rights.

The bleating Americans in this thread, trysail, savannah, and box, have, of course been, --i'm open to proof otherwise-- entirely silent on the following bollocks of a case of rights violations: the alleged 'dirty bomb' of this fellow (US Citizen) was forgotten at his trial, after he had been held 3 years without charges in a military prison, and initially no lawyer access.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/u...bl&ex=1201150800&en=0019b93b4bb1c219&ei=5087

Padilla Sentenced to 17 Years in Prison

By KIRK SEMPLE

Published: January 22, 2008

MIAMI — Jose Padilla, the Brooklyn-born convert to Islam who was once accused by the government of plotting to detonate a “dirty bomb” in the United States, was sentenced on Tuesday to 17 years and four months in prison for his role in a conspiracy to help Islamic jihadist fighters abroad.

The sentence was more lenient than the federal sentencing guidelines recommended and was a blow to the government, which had requested the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for Mr. Padilla, 37.

In explaining her decision, Judge Marcia G. Cooke of Federal District Court in Miami acknowledged the gravity of the crimes Mr. Padilla had committed. But she questioned the range and impact of the conspiracy, saying that there was no evidence linking the men to specific acts of terrorism anywhere or that their actions had resulted in death or injury to anyone.

She also noted that defendants in other well-known American terrorism cases had received life sentences for more heinous crimes, including Zacharias Moussaoui, who was convicted of conspiracy in connection with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Terry L. Nichols, who was convicted of murder in the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Over the objections of prosecutors, Judge Cooke gave Mr. Padilla credit for time served during his 3 1/2-year detention in a South Carolina military brig following his arrest in 2002 on suspicions that he had been involved in the “dirty bomb” plot, allegations the government eventually discarded.
During that detention, Mr. Padilla was subjected to prolonged isolation and intensive interrogations in conditions that the judge called “harsh.” The conditions, she said, “warrant consideration in the sentencing.”

The sentences, following a three-month trial and a seven-day sentencing hearing, brought to a close the latest chapter in Mr. Padilla’s extraordinary legal odyssey, which began with his arrest in May 2002 at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago.


John Ashcroft, who was then the attorney general, announced Mr. Padilla’s capture, saying that Mr. Padilla was part of an “unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive “dirty bomb” intended to cause “mass death and injury.”

After his detention in South Carolina, Mr. Padilla was transferred to civilian custody in Miami in 2006 and added to the conspiracy case of two men of Middle Eastern descent, Ahmad Amin Hassoun, 45, a computer programmer of Palestinian descent, and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, 46, an engineer and school administrator originally from Jordan.
The three
were accused of belonging to a North American terrorism support cell that provided money, recruits and supplies to Islamic extremists around the world.

Defense lawyers contended that the men were involved in humanitarian missions to help persecuted Muslims in places like Bosnia, Chechnya, Lebanon and Somalia.

The government’s main evidence against Mr. Padilla, a former Chicago gang member with a lengthy criminal record, was an application form that prosecutors said he had filled out to attend an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 2000.

Last August, a federal jury here in Miami convicted the three of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people in a foreign country, and of two lesser counts of material support.

On Tuesday, the judge also gave lenient prison sentences to Mr. Padilla’s two co-defendants in the case, both of whom were, like Mr. Padilla, eligible for life in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. Mr. Hassoun, who recruited Mr. Padilla in a Broward County mosque, received 15 years and eight months in prison. Mr. Jayyousi, who was said to be a financier and propagandist for the cell, received 12 years and eight months.

[... Pure: The judge also noted there was no evidence of Padilla's involvement in efforts to murder, etc. anyone.]

Administration officials had long maintained that some terrorism suspects could be properly handled only with military detention and trials by military commissions, not in the civilian justice system. But the verdict against Mr. Padilla seemed to undercut the administration’s insistence and, in the eyes of critics of the administration’s approach, proved that the criminal justice system should have handled the case in the first place. [end excerpts]

 

[Pure]

final note to savannah.

i think i'll ignore your rants from now on. but a couple parting shots.

when i pointed out that in many ways the W European nations are freer, despite the 'hate speech' laws, there was much frothing, and the best you could come up with was:

SMWhy don't we have laws on the books like Germany which essentially force women into prostitution, which is also legal?

P: No proof. No citation. BUT, Prostitution is legal in Germany and Canada. Actually such laws, unlike yours in the US, make it HARDER to force women into prostitution and EASIER for them to leave the profession (since they are not prosecutable for being prostitutes). They don't so much fear the police.

SM I'm the hardcore conservative, who believes in individual freedom and individual liberty.

What's in your head, who knows. As far as speaking out issues of liberty, i suspect, like our amicus, your totally silent on abuses against by the US gov. [see the Padilla info, above), except for the alleged oppression of McCain Feingold, laws about transfats and lightbulbs! if any cause needed its Voltaire, it's that of incandescent bulbs! Go for it!

i doubt there was ever a peep from you about the Patriot Act. But prove me wrong.

you've now earned your standing in the small clique of ranting, sham libertarians in this forum. (incidentally, you did vote for GWB, the last two times, didn't you? a noted fellow "libertarian")

 

[Boxlicker101]

box //Canada is now persecuting a man for printing cartoons in his news media because a religious group took offense at them. What next? Ban Southpark because it sometimes displays Jesus in a negative way?

You know how it goes: They came for the Nazis, and I was actually opposed to the Nazis, so I did not speak. Etc.//

Mr Levant has had a few interviews with the Alberta Human Rights commision and is working up publicity regarding his 'persecution' -- he's still walking around free, writing columns, and probably a book. His possible pernalty is a fine. Incidentally, the Danish cartoons came up for review in a number of countries with 'hate speech' legislation, and, afaik, none of the publishers got sent to jail. Indeed, i'm not sure if there were any fines.

Your last line is typical melodrama. It's odd that American paranoia about 'evil, tyrannical government' is mostly directed at free and democratic countries elsewhere, with better records re civil rights.

If Levant stands on principal and refuses to pay the fine, assume one is levied, he will go to jail. What I am contending, and what other are contending is that he shouldn't even have been accused of any kind of offense, because what he did was to exercise his rights to free speech, or its equivalent.

As for the "review" of the cartoons, even that much should not have happened. If these nations are to have freedom of expression, they should not even be taking that step. A newspaper should not need any kind of government approval to express opinions.

As usual, you are misusing the word "paranoia". There is no irrational or illogical fear of anything. During the Cold War, there was apprehension, even fear, about Soviet aggression against the West, but that was not irrational or illogical. The USSR had committed aggression against many nations in Europe and Asia, and they had sworn to dominate the world. There is no fear now, but there is abhorrence and revulsion concerning the governments of Iran and China and North Korea and some others.

There is not even that against the laws of democratic nations. There is a mild disapproval toward some laws, especially those regarding what is called "hate speech" but no more than that. The problem is that this is a slippery slope, with governments able to broaden the definition of "hate speech" until it includes any criticism of governmental policies.

 

[SavannahMann]

Legalized Prostitution fine, enforced prostitution not so fine.

I never scream that's what we're supposed to do. Just that they have different ways of doing things. And that generally I prefer them.

The reason that France has so many nuclear power plants is that they are trying to makes themselves reasonably independent for power. They want to limit their dependence on foreign oil and the don't have much in the way of areas good for hydroelectric power.

As to the laws in Germany that 'essentially force women into prostitution', could you please cite them? I've never heard of such a thing. And I believe prostitution should be legal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/310105forceswomen.htm

German Government Forces Women Into Prostitution To Keep Benefits

Sydney Morning Herald | January 31 2005

Australians are used to the idea of working for the dole, but the Germans have taken it a step further.

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services" at a brothel in Berlin faces cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany two years ago and brothel owners - who must pay tax and employee health insurance - were granted access to official databases of job seekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe. She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile" and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did she realise she was calling a brothel.

 

[SavannahMann]

Now I have to proove that I acted or spoke out against certain things?

i think i'll ignore your rants from now on. but a couple parting shots.

when i pointed out that in many ways the W European nations are freer, despite the 'hate speech' laws, there was much frothing, and the best you could come up with was:

SMWhy don't we have laws on the books like Germany which essentially force women into prostitution, which is also legal?

P: No proof. No citation. BUT, Prostitution is legal in Germany and Canada. Actually such laws, unlike yours in the US, make it HARDER to force women into prostitution and EASIER for them to leave the profession (since they are not prosecutable for being prostitutes). They don't so much fear the police.

SM I'm the hardcore conservative, who believes in individual freedom and individual liberty.

What's in your head, who knows. As far as speaking out issues of liberty, i suspect, like our amicus, your totally silent on abuses against by the US gov. [see the Padilla info, above), except for the alleged oppression of McCain Feingold, laws about transfats and lightbulbs! if any cause needed its Voltaire, it's that of incandescent bulbs! Go for it!

i doubt there was ever a peep from you about the Patriot Act. But prove me wrong.

you've now earned your standing in the small clique of ranting, sham libertarians in this forum. (incidentally, you did vote for GWB, the last two times, didn't you? a noted fellow "libertarian")

Fine Pure. First, I actually prayed, wrote, and begged the US Government to give me a National Security letter to get access to data while denying me access to my attorney. I promised them that if they gave me such a letter that I would immediately call my attorney. Then they could arrest me, and while arresting me telling me under the Miranda Decision that I had a right to an attorney for the crime of calling my attorney. I prayed that they would do this, because apparently I was the only one around who noticed that they couldn't do that. I believe that is the Patriot Act? Oh wait, that's right I didn't do anything. Would you like to see letters I wrote about that, including a couple to the editor of the newspaper?

You still haven't addressed the core issue dummy. (if you don't like me calling you dummy, consider it an example of free speech.) If the courts keep telling you that you can't pass a law that you want, why haven't you looked at the constitutional amendment process? Let's for the sake of argument say that 99% of the population was behind you in this, and we all wanted these laws passed and vigorously enforced. It would still be unconstitutional. You would still have to go the amendment process wouldn't you? If you aren't going that route, then you aren't serious and are just doing all this so people who agree with you will think you are the cat's own ass.

As for not responding to any more of my posts, fine. Frankly, I've about gotten tired of trying to explain liberty and freedom to a short bus kid. Get that amendment started, hell I'll support it. I've also got a bit of anarchist in me that takes perverse pleasure in other people's stupid mistakes.

 

[Weird Harold]

Your last line is typical melodrama. It's odd that American paranoia about 'evil, tyrannical government' is mostly directed at free and democratic countries elsewhere, with better records re civil rights.

We're not particularly paranoid about other governments abusing their limitations on free speech -- which they have done and will do again to varying degrees-- but we ARE a bit paranoid about giving the US Government any kind of toehold for those kinds of abuses.

Your last C&P regarding the Padilla is an indictment against the US government for human rights abuse, but you seem to be advocating that we not only not resist, but actively support new laws which would give the US governement greater scope for justifying "human rights abuse."

Which incidently would conceivably be prosectuable under the definition of Hate Speech I proposed about "advocating the removal or violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights."

 

[Munachi]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/310105forceswomen.htm

German Government Forces Women Into Prostitution To Keep Benefits

Sydney Morning Herald | January 31 2005

Australians are used to the idea of working for the dole, but the Germans have taken it a step further.

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services" at a brothel in Berlin faces cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany two years ago and brothel owners - who must pay tax and employee health insurance - were granted access to official databases of job seekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe. She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile" and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did she realise she was calling a brothel.

yeah see, that's why i don't want to finish university, that's what happens to all women here, didn't you know? as long as we are young enough, if we are unemployed, we have to work as prostitutes. that's why we all study as long as we can.

 

[rgraham666]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/310105forceswomen.htm

German Government Forces Women Into Prostitution To Keep Benefits

Sydney Morning Herald | January 31 2005

Australians are used to the idea of working for the dole, but the Germans have taken it a step further.

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services" at a brothel in Berlin faces cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany two years ago and brothel owners - who must pay tax and employee health insurance - were granted access to official databases of job seekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe. She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile" and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did she realise she was calling a brothel.

Hmm. That's a very interesting article. One that I find most amusing and enlightening.

One of the major 'conservative' beefs is 'welfare bums'. You know, those people who've never worked a day in their lives and never will. "Force them to work," say the 'conservatives'.

Which it seems what Germany has done in this case. 'Get a job, any job, or lose your welfare benefits'. With the sotto voce 'You lazy scum' attached to it.

I don't favour such a thing. A little thought could have shown that such situations as this could have happened.

All this does is show that the Germans are stupid, not evil. I also fail to see what this has to do with lack of free speech in Germany.