Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2015, 10:38 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 09:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 06:22 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  Then why is the KKK and westboro allowed to assemble and spill out thier hatred?
And if there is actually a fire? (I know that's not what you meantTongue) Broadway can do it on stage. Now if the someone in the audience does it and causes a panic they should be prosecuted. Consequence. All within context is what I'm saying.

Hate speech is not regulated in America. There is no right to be free from offense here.

That's the way it ought to be, in my mind.
Yes, exactly. We have every right to be offensive and to not expect someone being offended is ridiculous. They have that right.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2015, 09:56 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.



'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2015, 10:19 PM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 10:23 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 10:38 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 09:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Hate speech is not regulated in America. There is no right to be free from offense here.

That's the way it ought to be, in my mind.
Yes, exactly. We have every right to be offensive and to not expect someone being offended is ridiculous. They have that right.

Of course they have the right to be offended. They don't have the right to shut someone else up. Or shoot them up, as was attempted here.

Free speech is a bitch ... but don't worry, you'll live.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
10-05-2015, 10:22 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 09:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Hate speech is not regulated in America.

To a certain extent, it is. It is sometimes investigated.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2015, 10:50 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 09:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Hate speech is not regulated in America. There is no right to be free from offense here.

That's the way it ought to be, in my mind.


It is regulated, but it only looses it's First Amendment protections whenever it poses an 'imminent danger'.


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

Supreme Court case law

Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”. Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence. The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-05-2015, 11:27 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(10-05-2015 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 09:28 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Hate speech is not regulated in America. There is no right to be free from offense here.

That's the way it ought to be, in my mind.


It is regulated, but it only loses it's First Amendment protections whenever it poses an 'imminent danger'.

Of course. No one is arguing that the right to free speech is untrammeled.

I'm only pointing out that no one has the right to be free from being offended. That is a very different matter than the substance of your post, appreciated though it is.

"Imminent danger", though, is not satisfied by being offended.

Quote:In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder

I'm going to call bullshit, because we all know that cross-burnings never happen north of the Mason-Dixon line. Surely enlightened Northerners aren't so uneducated and parochial as to be racist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 07:05 AM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 04:47 PM)Dom Wrote:  We live in a country with free speech. Everyone can say whatever they want, with some small limitations.

It perfectly legal and within my rights to wear a shirt to a black neighborhood with the words "all niggers are parasites", if people get angry, and violent it's their fault, i'm just an innocent victim, defending my right to offend.

If I get hurt, or assaulted most people would say I had that coming, it's typically when we offend religious sensibilities, that we expect folks to act differently.

Are you really this fucking dense? Offending people is not illegal. Attacking people is illegal.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
11-05-2015, 10:36 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(11-05-2015 07:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It perfectly legal and within my rights to wear a shirt to a black neighborhood with the words "all niggers are parasites", if people get angry, and violent it's their fault, i'm just an innocent victim, defending my right to offend.

If I get hurt, or assaulted most people would say I had that coming, it's typically when we offend religious sensibilities, that we expect folks to act differently.

Are you really this fucking dense? Offending people is not illegal. Attacking people is illegal.

I don't think that was his point. I read his post more as comment on a double standard. And, if that's what was meant - I agree. What he is suggesting is just as legal and protected as drawing pictures of Mohammed. But, I'm confident they wouldn't be treated the same by the public, the press and politicians. If the KKK all wore shirts like the one described above into inner cities and a riot broke out, do you think anyone would be focusing on the free speech aspects of the event? I don't.

There is a definite double standard here.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2015, 11:12 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 10:03 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Those dipshits had every advantage you can possibly think of except for two very important factors. 1: They were dipshits. 2: They started their jihad right in front of a guy that as far as I can tell pretty much exemplifies the cliché Texas gunslinger.

The only thing he needed was more ammo, to finish his shift.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 02:30 PM
RE: Dallas art depicting Mo attacked.
(05-05-2015 01:56 PM)LostLegend Wrote:  
(04-05-2015 02:22 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Apparently ISIS claimed responsibility on Twitter. That amuses me. Like... there's nothing to claim responsibility for. You failed, two wannabes are now worm food (so they're at least doing something useful), and the art show just got worldwide attention. Take your jihadist bullshit somewhere else.

Would be surprised if ISIS actually had anything to do directly with this .
These Islamic groups do love owning up to everything to boost their rep.

More likely a lone jihadi nut job.

I hope his 72 virgins all bear the likeness of Susan Boyle

I hope all his 72 virgins all bear the likeness of Sheldon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hypatia's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: