Is there anything atheists would refuse to print on a t-shirt?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-10-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: Is there anything atheists would refuse to print on a t-shirt?
(13-10-2014 08:04 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(13-10-2014 06:30 AM)wazzel Wrote:  Hate speech is not protected, in addition to a few others.

I see.
Just curious but where do Klan rallies fit in there?


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.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Is there anything atheists would refuse to print on a t-shirt?
(14-10-2014 07:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-10-2014 08:04 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I see.
Just curious but where do Klan rallies fit in there?


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.

Hate speech is protected in the US under the first amendment with a few exceptions.

For example

[Image: Westboro-Baptist-Church.jpg]

This is protected speech according to SCOTUS, but don't ask me why it doesn't fall under the fighting words exception because that picture sure makes me want to punch that kids parents in face.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: