Far right hate speech. What should be done?

[Love Mountain]

For the uninitiated.

Sukiyama; You realize that even in America, we have a lot of limits on free speech, right?
Ponti: Name 10. Since we have "lots." Just name 10 of them. As an alternative, qualify your statement based upon what you consider to be "lots"
Sukiyama:
[list of 10 occasions where speech is limited]
Ponti: So you admit that none of these were influenced by Trump or Republicans since 2014? The last four aspects are vague and traditionally subject to state and not federal regulations. I just want to make sure we're on the same page, since it will render any crazy "HURRRR TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT" right where it belongs in the trash can. And I know for sure you'd rather discuss issues, and not just fake news, in determining the issues, so I'm sure you'd be willing to denounce any lazy efforts at undermining his presidency.
Sukiyama: Stop changing the subject
Ponti: I accept your surrender

[Pontifex Maximus]

Oh but you're claiming you've cited a bunch of evidence supporting your evidence which you have not.

[Love Mountain]

Oh but you're claiming you've cited a bunch of evidence supporting your evidence which you have not.

That has less to do with the level of intellectualism you've displayed and more to do with your inability to give a straight answer/blatant lack of respect for the arguments of your opponents. It's funny, I gave you a straight answer about limits of free speech, which you then responded to with some weird reference to Trump. Who's really obsessed with him, me or you?

[mongrel]

Are you claiming Breivik sent that email? What's your evidence for that?

Where does the email say anything about a terrorist attack by the way?

So you've read the e-mail? Should you be telling us something?

[Prodromos]

So you've read the e-mail? Should you be telling us something?

Yes, I've read it. The author's writing style seems pretty distinct from Breivik's, and he has some diametrically opposite beliefs, e.g., the author mentions God and his imminent "return" a few times, while Breivik stated both in his "manifesto" and in later messages that he was never Christian; that he in fact had nothing but disdain for Christianity, except as a politically useful cultural affiliation (rather than as a religion); and that he was either some kind of neopagan or not religious at all. I see no basis for believing the email was written by Breivik. The author of the email also doesn't mention committing any acts of aggression or terrorism, just stockpiling weapons in case of a defensive civil war or something, which any Lebanese or Assyrian Christian will tell you is a pretty smart move.

[Aexodus]

Just 10? You make it too easy.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)
Virginia v. Hicks (2003)
New York vs Ferber (1982)
United States vs O'Brien (1968)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non Violence (1982)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Roth v. United States (1957)
Defamation Laws
Obscenity Laws
Whitsleblower Laws
Espionage Laws

Apart from obscenity, none of those are free speech. All the others impose on the rights of others.

In Miller vs California, the supreme court ruled that obscene material was unprotected speech. If it were judged to be free speech, it would be protected. The ruling resulted in the miller test:

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.^[2] It has three parts:

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions^[3] specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientificvalue.^[4]

The work is considered obscene only if all threeconditions are satisfied.

A dissenting opinion in that case reads:

The idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are 'offensive' to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed 'to invite dispute,' to induce 'a condition of unrest,' to 'create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,' and even to stir 'people to anger.' The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are 'offensive' to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to 'offensive' as well as to 'staid' people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard 'offensive' gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court's opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment—and solely because of it—speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be 'offensive' to some.

[Love Mountain]

Apart from obscenity, none of those are free speech. All the others impose on the rights of others.

You can't pick and choose what is or isn't free speech. If you want to be absolutist about free speech, then you can't pick and choose as you do. I've given you a pass on treason, but you're curving the definition to suit your argument.

In Miller vs California, the supreme court ruled that obscene material was unprotected speech. If it were judged to be free speech, it would be protected. The ruling resulted in the miller test:

The Miller test isn't used to determine what is or isn't "free speech". It's used to determine whether something is protected by the 1st amendment.

A dissenting opinion in that case reads:

Free speech is simply freedom of speech. You can't pick and choose what is and isn't "speech". We may only choose what we choose to protect and what we don't.

[Aexodus]

Some types of speech are free speech, and some aren’t. That’s how I’ve always looked at it.

[Love Mountain]

Some types of speech are free speech, and some aren’t. That’s how I’ve always looked at it.

You're being arbitrary, the same thing you criticized a line of "public good" being. Just admit it. Limitations on speech are always going to be arbitrary, and such criticism is pointless. Where exactly the line should be drawn is a subject of much debate, but your original response where you criticized my stance, is simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

[Aexodus]

How is protecting all speech as long as it doesn’t infringe on others, arbitrary?

[Love Mountain]

How is protecting all speech as long as it doesn’t infringe on others, arbitrary?

Because one can claim their rights or well-being are being infringed upon. Incitements of violence do not infringe on anyone, yet they are not allowed. The Miller Test that you brought up, is a direct limitation on speech that does not infringe on anyone. Unless you count people's feelings of course. It is completely arbitrary. Another case is defamation, where review sites and media creators have to carefully toe the line between what is "opinion" and what is "defamation'. Add copyright and the current Youtube bonanza to the list as well. It's completely arbitrary and we deal on these things on a case-by-case basis rather than some kind of consistent system.

[mongrel]

Yes, I've read it. The author's writing style seems pretty distinct from Breivik's, and he has some diametrically opposite beliefs, e.g., the author mentions God and his imminent "return" a few times, while Breivik stated both in his "manifesto" and in later messages that he was never Christian; that he in fact had nothing but disdain for Christianity, except as a politically useful cultural affiliation (rather than as a religion); and that he was either some kind of neopagan or not religious at all. I see no basis for believing the email was written by Breivik. The author of the email also doesn't mention committing any acts of aggression or terrorism, just stockpiling weapons in case of a defensive civil war or something, which any Lebanese or Assyrian Christian will tell you is a pretty smart move.

Eurabia theory is about the removal of al Muslims from 'the West'. Nothing defensive about it. She had a duty to report it. If it was Brievik, 77 livews would have been saved. If it wasn't , the police and general public would be more aware of the threat of Islamophibic nutters and those kids would have had a chance to live.

Of course Breivik made 12 references to Pam Geller's blog. He was an avid pupil of Islamophobia. All he did was take the next step to fulfill your desire to be rid of all Muslims.

[Prodromos]

Eurabia theory is about the removal of al Muslims from 'the West'. Nothing defensive about it. She had a duty to report it. If it was Brievik, 77 livews would have been saved. If it wasn't , the police and general public would be more aware of the threat of Islamophibic nutters and those kids would have had a chance to live.

Of course Breivik made 12 references to Pam Geller's blog. He was an avid pupil of Islamophobia. All he did was take the next step to fulfill your desire to be rid of all Muslims.

Not really, the email is available for everyone to see. As far as I can see, there were no references to terrorism or anything to suggest that Breivik wrote it.

[mongrel]

Some types of speech are free speech, and some aren’t. That’s how I’ve always looked at it.

Britain First.............................. That wasn't free speech, it came at the cost of Jo Cox's life.

Not really, the email is available for everyone to see. As far as I can see, there were no references to terrorism or anything to suggest that Breivik wrote it.

So someone who beleive in Eurabia to the extent that he needs to mention that Oslo would become Medina by 2010 (still waiting btw) and haz weaponz is no threat? Nonsense. I note Geller said that she hid his identity lest he be prosecuted.

Question is why did Geller remove the praise of this person from her blog and indeed her racist justification of Brevik's murders?

https://thinkprogress.org/pam-geller...-a2ed374c8895/

[Prodromos]

So someone who beleive in Eurabia to the extent that he needs to mention that Oslo would become Medina by 2010 (still waiting btw) and haz weaponz is no threat? Nonsense.Question is why did Geller remove the praise of this person from her blog and indeed her racist justification of Brevik's murders?

https://thinkprogress.org/pam-geller...-a2ed374c8895/

... How does that show Breivik wrote the email, though?

[Pontifex Maximus]

That has less to do with the level of intellectualism you've displayed and more to do with your inability to give a straight answer/blatant lack of respect for the arguments of your opponents. It's funny, I gave you a straight answer about limits of free speech, which you then responded to with some weird reference to Trump. Who's really obsessed with him, me or you?

Okay, do three. Since you've backed down on the number of infinite or otherwise inarguable cases you've chosen to present. Since you and your cronies maintain such an interest in my profession with regards to proving or discrediting my case I will hold you to a similar yet lesser standard here.

I can't wait to research your sources just bear with me till at least this weekend to do so, maybe even next weekend. My slave masters are merciless...

[Aexodus]

Incitements of violence do not infringe on anyone

Incitement of violence actually does infringe on others, as it is inherently coercive. Coerciveness for example is an indicator for unprotected speech.

[Heathen Hammer]

Incitement of violence only counts as such if it is, like I said before, a call for an immediate violent action. Anything else should be protected as free speech, otherwise the society isn't free by default. Hence why Americans live in a free society, why citizens of countries like UK and Russia do not.

[Love Mountain]

Okay, do three. Since you've backed down on the number of infinite or otherwise inarguable cases you've chosen to present.

I didn't back down from anything, but your refusal to actually give a straight answer is telling.

Since you and your cronies maintain such an interest in my profession with regards to proving or discrediting my case I will hold you to a similar yet lesser standard here.

I can't wait to research your sources just bear with me till at least this weekend to do so, maybe even next weekend. My slave masters are merciless...

I don't even know what this means. Your post is yet another example where you,

A) Claim that I conceded an argument
B) Said some nonsense without actually addressing the argument.

Incitement of violence actually does infringe on others, as it is inherently coercive. Coerciveness for example is an indicator for unprotected speech.

It is not inherently coercive. Hence why in United States there is a litmus test for when incitement of violence stops being protected by the 1st amendment.

Incitement of violence only counts as such if it is, like I said before, a call for an immediate violent action. Anything else should be protected as free speech, otherwise the society isn't free by default. Hence why Americans live in a free society, why citizens of countries like UK and Russia do not.

That's irrelevant. Incitement of violence is incitement of violence. Fact is, Ohio vs Brandenburg did not define what an "incitement to violence" is. They merely outlined what constituted protected speech and what didn't. This is specifically why the used the language of "call to imminent lawless action" and not "incitement of violence". Incitement of violence is free speech and this merely emphasizes that what constitutes "free speech" is entirely arbitrary and subject to change based on the interpretation of the SCOTUS.

[Heathen Hammer]

Free speech does not include coercion of others, hence the "call to imminent lawless action" is a valid definition of the only possible exception.