That's why you're required by law during broadcasting to not utter or repeat the n-word for example. It's because it will land you a fine at best.
Provide the law.
Originally Posted by Kritias
Racism due to its historic background as discriminatory and violent towards those it targeted falls under this category.
Provide the Supreme Court ruling that puts "racism" under the category of "a) if the action/words pose an immediate threat or harassment on a person, and b) any sound-minded individual would see these immediate threats as such or harassment as such".
Originally Posted by Kritias
As you can see from the Oxford Constitutional law I provided, the term hate speech is very rare in constitutional texts, mainly found in some states' constitutions as of the late 2ooos.
What state constitutions?
And on to the newer posts:
Originally Posted by Kritias
Unsuprisingly, you willfully misrepresent what I say. Let me make it clear for you.
By wilfully misrepresent, you clearly mean I show what you say to be wrong, or demonstrate your inabilty to provide an on point response to claims you make (see above three).
a) We're discussing about hate speech in online communications based on the Meecham incident. We are NOT discussing about racism/hate speech in general, or in private life ie what is said between mates, even though depending the context as I have shown they too can be prosecuted. While you have the right to be a racist in your private life, you cannot express your views in a broadcast, either television or social media, and not get fined/banned from use etc depending on the context of your communication. This is fact. The difference between the Carlin case and Meecham case was when the incident was broadcasted the former led to a legal action in the form of a fine against the network, the latter to a legal action in the form of a fine against the creator.
Most of this nonsence has been addressed by the other posters, however:
Kritias has, for the fourth time I think, claimed Pacifica was fined by the FCC for airing the Carlin skit.
I have, twice now (posts 158 and 162), pointed out (and sourced in the first) that Pacifica was not fined. It was threatened with a sanction regarding renewal of its public broadcasting license. (By the by, Pacifica radio continued to and still airs.)
Others should note that Kritias is clearly not reading posts, or likely his own links (see my various notings of Kritias own provided sources contradicting what he says), or does not comprehend what he is reading.
In either event, anything Kritias says or presents as fact needs to be taken with a huge helping of salt.
b) While social media has diluted the lines between what is said publicly and what is said privately, a general rule of thumb is that using the social media to express racist views will get you in trouble. All social platforms ban language that promote hate as you can see in the case of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. Posts in these platforms promoting racist commentary have also real-life reprecussions even in America, like the sacking of Justine Sacco, the firing of Rosseane Barr and the firing of Jonathan Friedland from Netflix. If these cases were an encroachment on freedom of expression all of these cases would have been overturned; instead, they were all upheld. Why is that, if what Ep1c says is true and racism isn't actionable in the US? If racism isn't actionable, then the act of firing these people is against anti-discrimination laws. But its not and they were fired. Period.
Nope. Employers, being private entities, have broad discretion to fire at will.
c) Harrassment by racial slurs through the internet is treated under harrassment laws and will get you a fine because it's a misdemeanor. There's one case where this doesn't happen which Aexodus correctly brought up, and that the case where the receiving party is part of the government in any capacity. The reason for this is that it's indistiguishable whether the hate directed was the outcome of someone's role as a government agent (protected from the 1A) or stemming from racial hatred (not protected by 1A).
Nope. Harrasment is treated as harrassment regardless of whether racial slurs are used or not.
c) In that sense, since the US doesn't have a unified system of laws codifying online hate speech, which is the concept of this discussion, cyberharrassment or hostile workplace environment or other provisions are usually used, depending on the context. The way this works I explained in full detail over a a few posts. It doesn't even matter if the hate was directed at someone in particular; if you express racist beliefs in America, you will loose your job and depending on your actions you can even be prosecuted for harrassment. This is fact. Period.
The US does not have any laws codifying hate speech. As your own sources have noted "Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies"
d) You can air your racist views in public only in the case you've secured a permit to hold a demonstration and you do it in a designated public space under a specific manner. Incitement to violence due to your speech may land you a prosecution if it can be established you presented a security threat to lawful and orderly conduct.
The first part is laughable. A permit may be required to hold any demonstration or rally. But there is no law requiring individual to have a permit to air racist veiws publically.
As I have already provided the current legal precedent (Brandenburg v. Ohio) regarding "incitement". The Brandenburg Test:
"The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
1.The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2.The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”"
Originally Posted by Kritias
The fact is that Meecham acted against the law, probably because he did not really understand what he can and cannot do under that law, and got fined for it. It was an 8oo pounds fine. The problem is that Meecham's case was highly broadcasted in American outlets to instill fear and disgust (which you clearly exhibit, point being the comment of authoritarian garbage and lunacy) in American viewers, in an ongoing campaign by some outlets to scare and outrage American viewers. This case has nothing to do with the US; this case was not a breach of US laws because it's not under US jurisdiction. So why do you bring it up?
Because you said:
"Also, the US government imposes three very specific parameters that would make Meecham's actions viable for prosecution." [Post 136]
Speaking of which, you still have not provided the US law under which Meecham could be prosecuted.
Dude, incitement to violence and harrassment are part of the term. It's obvious we have an issue over terms here. Hate speech, according to Cambridge Dictionary, is
According to Merriam Webster, Hate speech is
Irrelevant. What id being discussed is the legality of "hate speech". What you should provide is the legal definition for "hate speech".
I'll give you a jump start. Here is the U.S. Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text
Hope that helps.
Originally Posted by Kritias
]I've been telling you, again and again, that according to the context of what happened a person can be prosecuted for it due to harassment, due to incitement to violence etc The obvious issue is that the US doesn't recognize hate speech as a seperate legal definition. What it does recognize is fighting words, libel, slander, harrassment, incitements to violence etc. If you hurl racial slurs on someone then you are throwing insults at them and as such you're committing a misdemeanor, just like the case of Virginia v Chaplinsky. So, if you're being openly racist towards someone you will can prosecuted for "fighting words" depending on the context. It's so simple. Get it through your head that if you insult someone you can go to court in a civil action, and if its proven your words harrassed or intimidated someone you can get criminally prosecuted. As I have been saying time and time again, context matters on whether something goes to civil action or criminal court.
Well, Kritias got at least one thing correct (sort of): "the US doesn't recognize hate speech as a seperate legal definition". Or a legal definition at all.
But it is not Virginia v. Chaplinsky. It is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, and as I have noted and sourced, Chaplinsky has been repeatedly narrowed and limited (see posts 158 and 145).
@sumskilz,
According to Oxford Constitutional Law Review here, "a victim of hate speech may seek redress under criminal law, civil law, or both." So an individual can file for a criminal prosecution. If it weren't the case I believe Oxford, one of the greatest universities, wouldn't make that statement in its Constitutional Law Review regarding to the US legal system. So, apparently there's something missing here. Again, I raise two points: First an individual can file for a criminal prosecution as evident from the previous sentence. Secondly, a person can file for civil action. In both cases, uttering racial epithets or promoting hate speech in some of its manifestations will get you prosecuted under criminal law, sued under civil law or both. According to the same document,
They key terms here being public issue and public debate - this right does not extend to a private individual insulting/harrasssing or inciting to violence on another person.
Recalling my comment earlier about Kritias not reading or comprehending what he reads in his own sources, let me just quote from Oxford Constitutional Law Review (which does not just opine about the US Constitution, but rather makes general statements regarding various countries and then has some sections devoted to its opinion on individual countries
"20. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the US, consequently, takes a less restrictive approach to hate speech compared to European constitutional tribunals after World War II. The court has, for example, struck down penalties imposed on racist speech by a Ku Klux Klan leader (Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) (US)). The Court of Appeals in 1978 struck a ban on a Nazi march in Illinois (Collin v Smith (1978) (US)). Likewise, the US Supreme Court, while allowing other penalties to perpetrators, has reversed the ban on the community-motivated cross-burning on the front lawn of an Afro-American family (RAV v City of St Paul (1992) (US)). It has also upheld the right to public assembly of a religious sect picketing the funeral of a US marine, who died from a non-combat-related accident in Iraq, with slogans such as ‘You are going to hell’, ‘Fag troops’ and ‘Thank God for dead soldiers’ (Snyder v Phelps et al (2011) (US)). This line of cases has contributed to an assumption in comparative constitutional law of a clash between Europe and the US on hate speech regulation. The majority opinion in Snyder v. Phelps specifically declares, ‘as a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate’ (Snyder v Phelps et al (2011) Part IV (US))."
Originally Posted by Common Soldier
It is not speech itself, per se, but particular aspects of the speech that are being prosecuted. Freedom of speech does not allow you the right to be "Fire" in a crowded theater.
You can to yell fire in a crowded theatre and not be prosecuted for it.
You might get prosecuted if in (falsely) yelling fire you cause people to get injured or such. Otherwise the theater will probably just ban you, or kick you out.
Originally Posted by Kritias
What's criminal in the US, namely incitement to violence, is also criminal to the EU. The difference is that the Supreme Court demands an immediate threat to call it a crime while the EU takes incitement to violence to be a de facto crime.
The Supreme Court demands the Brandenburg Test:
"The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
1.The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2.The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”"
Last edited by Infidel144; August 23, 2019 at 03:37 PM.
Reason: fix quote tag
Dude, incitement to violence and harrassment are part of the term. It's obvious we have an issue over terms here. Hate speech, according to Cambridge Dictionary, is
You're referring to generalized definitions, not legal standards.
I've been telling you, again and again, that according to the context of what happened a person can be prosecuted for it due to harassment, due to incitement to violence etc The obvious issue is that the US doesn't recognize hate speech as a seperate legal definition. What it does recognize is fighting words, libel, slander, harrassment, incitements to violence etc. If you hurl racial slurs on someone then you are throwing insults at them and as such you're committing a misdemeanor, just like the case of Virginia v Chaplinsky. So, if you're being openly racist towards someone you will can prosecuted for "fighting words" depending on the context. It's so simple. Get it through your head that if you insult someone you can go to court in a civil action, and if its proven your words harrassed or intimidated someone you can get criminally prosecuted. As I have been saying time and time again, context matters on whether something goes to civil action or criminal court.
"Get it through your head" that non of the offences you referred to are contingent upon the existence of "hate speech" legislation nor is "hate speech" necessarily tantamount to any of said offences. This point has been explained to you repeatedly, though you clearly understand neither the law nor the philosophical position of 1A activists/absolutists, despite your desperate attempts to b/s the board into believing that you do. The arguments you've been making are ignorant authoritarian garbage and indicate the importance of libertarians resisting the whining of cry-bullies who insist on policing language through their 21st century blasphemy statutes. Congratulations for affirming the relevance of my original position.
Trivialising or even denying the Holocaust is free speech, because it does not infringe on the rights of others.
That is true and should apply to trivializing or denying any other historical event, be it Holocaust, Punic Wars or 30 years war. Leave history for historians, politicians and laws simply have no place there.
Section A: The Legal Groundwork
2) On the case of Virginia vs Black (2003), when two young men burnt a cross on another man's yard (in typical KKK fashion), they went to court and were first acquitted on the basis of the First Amendment. Later, the Supreme court overruled that decision.
I got as far as this.
Kritias is merely repeating his debunked talking points.
As can be seen by this statement "they went to court and were first acquitted on the basis of the First Amendment".
This is false, as I noted in post 162, and according to the source Kritias himself provided, the defendants were all found guilty. They were not acquitted.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand:
"Held: The judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1107.ZS.html
Quoting from Kritias source:
"During the rally a cross was lit. Black was arrested and charged with violating a Virginia statute outlawing cross burnings. All defendants were found guilty."
and
"Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), is a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it considered cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate."
So again, Kritias is either not reading or not understanding what he reads.
And this is you, Infidel, being a dishonest debater. You are trying more to "prove" me wrong than to debate whether there is limits to what is considered political speech under the first amendment. This is not the first time you have done this. And your first comment in this thread is still telling of your reason for debating this - to do exactly what you did just now. You are trying to say that I don't understand what I read, as a whole, is also very curious. Granted, I've written about 10,000 words here - under consistent badgering and within the space of a few days. Things get lost in editing and I forget to correct stuff. I did involve this case precisely because it wasn't contested, to prove a point.
You could point it out again, since it does help my case more, yet you prefered to say that as a whole I don't understand what I read or I don't read what I write - case in point:
I did not mean to imply that all instances of racism is a crime, even though at points in my posts due to bad & hasty editing I left the word ‘prosecute’ instead of the word ‘sue’ or their derivatives. Reading the context of the post you can understand which case I mean, even when I use the wrong word. An example of this is where I say “that doesn't mean hate speech isn't prosecutable by individuals in a civil case”. Keep in mind that I am not a native speaker so words can be confused at times out of haste, though I do try to improve my English.
Hadn't you jumped at the opportunity to discredit me on the entirety of my case, maybe you would have seen some disclaimers. Why is that? Also, keep in mind that the same rudimentary discussion we're having right here has been done and is being done by experts. Because there's a reason for it. And in any case the legal interpretation of existing legislation is a very fine and complex science, not something to be degraded to one liners.
Back on point. Here, I'll summarize what you missed for your benefit.
Point 3: Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941) ---> When the defendants raised their freedom of speech, both the court and the appeal court both cited that “The challenged speech is said to threaten such order either directly, as through a breach of the peace, or indirectly, as through an injury to reputation, privacy, or some other right. But, it is argued, the threat of deleterious effect need not be tolerated; the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Point 4: Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) ---> The woman appealed to the Supreme court and got her case overturned due to the fact that the California statures hadnÂ’t sufficiently clarified what constituted peaceful opposition to government, in terms of a party in political opposition to the one in power were to replace it. The Supreme court underlined the fact that the (b incitement to anarchism) and (c aid to propaganda and sedition) causes of the case were, to their understanding valid reasons to try Stromberg, but since she was convicted for (a) alone the decision had to be overturned.
Point 5: Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942) ---> Same as before, two modern examples of use of 'fighting words' -->the case in 2010 where a teenager hurled racial slurs against an African-American teenager (In re H.K, North Dakota Court of Appeals, February 2010). Another example case, in 2001, was also about yelling racial slurs on two African-American women (In re John M., Arizona Court of Appeals, 2001). Both appeals were denied.
Point 6: Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) ---> accepted in court & appeal for incitement to violence, statures provisioned for 'fighting words' ---> dismissed due to error in text misguiding the jury.
Point 7: Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), man pettitions Chicago officials, drops leaflets with racist content and motivation towards African Americans ---> group libel law, man convicted.
There seems to be at least 3 different cases that the law takes into account 'racist' motivation for criminal or civil offenses. First, the case of group libel laws, which can be a criminal or a civil case depending on the state statures. Two, in cases of incitement to violence, racial comments are being used to prove motivation and in the case of Mitchell generated an aggravated penalty. Three, at least two cases in 2001 and 2010 were involving racial slurs that were labeled "fighting words".
Last edited by Kritias; August 23, 2019 at 05:50 PM.
And this is you, Infidel, being a dishonest debater. You are trying more to "prove" me wrong than to debate whether there is limits to what is considered political speech under the first amendment. This is not the first time you have done this. And your first comment in this thread is still telling of your reason for debating this - to do exactly what you did just now. You are trying to say that I don't understand what I read, as a whole, is also very curious. Granted, I've written about 10,000 words here - under consistent badgering and within the space of a few days. Things get lost in editing and I forget to correct stuff. I did involve this case precisely because it wasn't contested, to prove a point.
"10,000 words" and not a relevant point in sight. That must be a TWC record, surely?
Have the goalposts of current the debate moved? I thought it was about Mark Meecham and hate speech.
Hate speech in the context of 1A, yes. Hate speech is fundamentaly political speech directed at certain groups of citizens that incites to hatred for them. Which thankfully brings me to the final part of where I was going with this whole arduous line of argumentation, and I can bring this to a close. Thank you for this. Infidel didn't give me the pass I needed. It doesn't really matter whether I got a case as right or wrong because this doesn't affect the issue at hand. And the issue at hand is:
Did it click for you now?
Last edited by Kritias; August 23, 2019 at 07:52 PM.
What can this tell us in the case of racism: In a multicultural society where around 30% are non-white citizens, the expression of racism through action is always violent considering the recent violent events and the growing racial tensions. Therefore, the action of racism is already labeled as ‘hate crimes’. What about language? This is what is colloquially called “hate speech”. On a first reading of the statures it appears hate speech is protected by the US courts.
Wong.
And the question is: How can we define racism if not as defamation, libel/slander, harassment, threats, fighting words, incitements to violence towards the minority citizens? The simple answer is, we can’t in the context of America. When you’re on an echo chamber cut off from the minority citizens, these are normal, not harmful talking points. “Facts” even. The game changes as soon as you say them publicly and the minority citizens are held captive to this rhetoric, since they can’t really avoid it anymore due to the social media platforms and its algorithms pushing popular content. In fact, this is the goal of this flooding of social media platforms. Yet, the structure of racist language itself is based on these elements, especially when directed publicly towards the "others".
Wrong.
All that effort and you continue to have no idea what you're talking about.
Prove it. Tell me a racist action towards a minority that isn't at least a misdemeanor.
A person could specifically ban people of a particular race from entering their private property so long as it wasn't operating as a business; a person could partake in legally sanctioned marches through minority communities whilst displaying fascist iconography; a person could join any number of openly racist organizations without being automatically subject to prosecution; citizens in open carry states can form armed militias to "patrol" Mosques so long as they remain on public property etc. etc.
Prove your second point. What are racist talkpoints if not slander and defamation of groups?
Whether or not a "racist talking point" is slander or defamation is contingent on the nature and context of the comments. Racist remarks are not actionable in and of themselves. If they were, half of the US population would either be in prison or have been sued for "racism".
And this is you, Infidel, being a dishonest debater. You are trying more to "prove" me wrong than to debate whether there is limits to what is considered political speech under the first amendment.
No. This is you being dishonest, as none of us have said there are no limits or denied there being limits. What has been done, if you were paying attention, is showing you that what you claim the limits are is inccorrect.
Things get lost in editing and I forget to correct stuff. I did involve this case precisely because it wasn't contested, to prove a point.
It has been contested multiple times, because you have repeatedly claimed that the defendants were acquited in the Virginia courts when in fact they were found guilty, while claiming the Supreme Court over-ruled their Virginia acquital.
Hadn't you jumped at the opportunity to discredit me on the entirety of my case, maybe you would have seen some disclaimers.
You discredit yourself by repeatedly making the same rudimentary errors, despite them being corrected.
Originally Posted by Kritias
Point 3: Cox v. New Hampshire
"A unanimous Supreme Court, via Justice Charles Evans Hughes, held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. " https://www.uscourts.gov/educational...-new-hampshire
and note the explanation given by Kritias:
When the defendants raised their freedom of speech, both the court and the appeal court both cited that “The challenged speech is said to threaten such order either directly, as through a breach of the peace, or indirectly, as through an injury to reputation, privacy, or some other right. But, it is argued, the threat of deleterious effect need not be tolerated; the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
No "the court" did not cite that. You should follow the footnotes.
'The Constitution is not a suicide pact' formulation is from Terminiello v. Chicago (Justice Jackson used it (see below for exact quote) in his dissent. Note dissent. Terminiello won. And in was also used in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (a draft evasion case not a free speech case). Which you should know if you had followed the footnotes.
Point 4: Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) ---> The woman appealed to the Supreme court and got her case overturned due to the fact that the California statures hadnÂ’t sufficiently clarified what constituted peaceful opposition to government, in terms of a party in political opposition to the one in power were to replace it. The Supreme court underlined the fact that the (b incitement to anarchism) and (c aid to propaganda and sedition) causes of the case were, to their understanding valid reasons to try Stromberg, but since she was convicted for (a) alone the decision had to be overturned.
"Primary Holding
The First Amendment extends to symbolic speech, or expressive conduct, so a state cannot prevent people from flying red flags as a political statement."
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Held:
1. That the objection of unconstitutionality, made in the court below, went not only to the statute as a whole, but to each of the three clauses separately. P. 283 U. S. 365.
2. Inasmuch as the case was submitted to the jury as permitting conviction under any or all of the three clauses, and inasmuch as it is impossible to determine from the general verdict upon which of the clauses the conviction rested, it follows that, if any of the clauses is invalid under the Constitution, the conviction cannot be upheld. P. 283 U. S. 367.
Page 283 U. S. 360
3. The conception of "liberty " under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the right of free speech. P. 283 U. S. 368.
4. The State may punish those who abuse the right of free speech by utterances which incite to violence and crime and threaten the overthrow of organized government. Id.
5. There is no reason to doubt the validity of the second and third clauses of the statute, construed as they are, by the state court, as relating to such incitement to violence. P. 283 U. S. 369.
6. The first clause, condemning display of a flag "as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government," construed by the state court as possibly including
"peaceful and orderly opposition to a government as organized and controlled by one political party, by those of another political party equally high minded and patriotic, which did not agree with the one in power,"
or "peaceful and orderly opposition to government by legal means and within constitutional limitations" -- is unconstitutional. Id.
7. The maintenance of opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people, and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system. Id.
8. A statute which upon its face, and authoritatively construed, is so vague and indefinite as to permit the punishment of the fair use of this opportunity is repugnant to the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. Id.
I have already addressed Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire at least twice (posts 158 and 145).
Point 6: Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) ---> accepted in court & appeal for incitement to violence, statures provisioned for 'fighting words' ---> dismissed due to error in text misguiding the jury.
"The Court ruled that by permitting conviction for speech that “stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest,” the law “seriously invaded” the protection of speech afforded by the First Amendment. “A function of free speech,” Douglas wrote,“under our system of government is to invite dispute.” Speech “may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”" https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...ello-v-chicago
Let me quote from the majority opinion:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
"The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, 57 S.Ct. 255, 260, 81 L.Ed. 278, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.
Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571—572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262, 62 S.Ct. 190, 193, 86 L.Ed. 192, 159 A.L.R. 1346; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 1253, 91 L.Ed. 1546. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.
The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.
The fact that petitioner took no exception to the instruction is immaterial. No exception to the instructions was taken in Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 51 S.Ct. 532, 75 L.Ed. 1117, 73 A.L.R. 1484. But a judgment of conviction based on a general verdict under a state statute was set aside in that case, because one part of the statute was unconstitutional. The statute had been challenged as unconstitutional and the instruction was framed in its language. The Court held that the attack on the statute as a whole was equally an attack on each of its individual parts. Since the verdict was a general one and did not specify the ground upon which it rested, it could not be sustained. For one part of the statute was unconstitutional and it could not be determined that the defendant was not convicted under that part."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/337/1
This is the case where the formulation of 'the Constitution is not a suicide pact' stems from:
Justice Jackson wrote in his dissent:
"This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
The "clear and present danger" standard is also cited in the case, which has been replaced by Brandenburg's 'imminent lawless action'.
Re 'fighting words', note my response to your citing of Chaplinsky.
Point 7: Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952)
"Scope of decision has been limited
The scope of this decision has been limited by later Supreme Court decisions relative to hate speech, such as Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992).
Moreover, the Court’s recent decision in Matal v. Tam (2017), which prohibited the Patent and Trademark Office from denying trademarks (in this case, to a rock group calling itself “The Slants,”) that it considered to be disparaging to racial groups, might further indicate a reluctance to censor speech in this area." https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...ais-v-illinois
You are repeatedly citing old cases that have been at the least limited by more recent cases.
And still waiting:
Originally Posted by Kritias
That's why you're required by law during broadcasting to not utter or repeat the n-word for example. It's because it will land you a fine at best
Provide the law.
Racism due to its historic background as discriminatory and violent towards those it targeted falls under this category.
Provide the Supreme Court ruling that puts "racism" under the category of "a) if the action/words pose an immediate threat or harassment on a person, and b) any sound-minded individual would see these immediate threats as such or harassment as such".
As you can see from the Oxford Constitutional law I provided, the term hate speech is very rare in constitutional texts, mainly found in some states' constitutions as of the late 2ooos.
A person could specifically ban people of a particular race from entering their private property so long as it wasn't operating as a business; a person could partake in legally sanctioned marches through minority communities whilst displaying fascist iconography; a person could join any number of openly racist organizations without being automatically subject to prosecution; citizens in open carry states can form armed militias to "patrol" Mosques so long as they remain on public property etc. etc.
Whether or not a "racist talking point" is slander or defamation is contingent on the nature and context of the comments. Racist remarks are not actionable in and of themselves. If they were, half of the US population would either be in prison or have been sued for "racism".
Wrong. I asked an action towards a minority, not an action in support of racism. Racist action towards a minority can only be violent since the entire principle of racism is the domination of a race on another. Patrolling the streets a d such, while offensive, isn't an action against a minority but an action in support of racism. You're not promoting racial superiority by walking around with a stick or closing doors to passers by. Next argument, please.
A racist remark will get you fired or sued for discrimination under the anti discrimination laws. Again racism is the belief someone is inferior to you. It's not prejudiced remarks or stereotyping per se. And last I checked suggesting to someone that they are beneath you can get you struck pretty hard, them fighting words you see. Racial insults have been tried and won under that. The only reason people don't go to court for this all the time
is because the receivers have been conditioned to swallow their pride and move on. This doesn't mean it wont stand in court as slander/fighting words/defamation if so pursued under the correct criteria. Next argument, please.
This is one of his more ridiculous claims. He seems totally ignorant of the fact that racial epithets are broadcast constantly, particularly via contemporary music and television dramas.
Wrong. I asked an action towards a minority, not an action in support of racism. Racist action towards a minority can only be violent since the entire principle of racism is the domination of a race on another. Patrolling the streets a d such, while offensive, isn't an action against a minority but an action in support of racism. You're not promoting racial superiority by walking around with a stick or closing doors to passers by. Next argument, please.
In that case "racism" isn't an "action" it's an attitude and your question is irrelevant garbage.
A racist remark will get you fired or sued for discrimination under the anti discrimination laws. Again racism is the belief someone is inferior to you. It's not prejudiced remarks or stereotyping per se. And last I checked suggesting to someone that they are beneath you can get you struck pretty hard, them fighting words you see. Racial insults have been tried and won under that. The only reason people don't go to court for this all the time is because the receivers have been conditioned to swallow their pride and move on. This doesn't mean it wont stand in court as slander/fighting words/defamation if so pursued under the correct criteria. Next argument, please.
At this point you aren't simply wrong, you're actually just lying. Infidel has embarrassed you on the case study. I would ask you for your "next argument" but you're constantly repeating the same refuted positions, so I'm quite sure that you don't have one.
This is one of his more ridiculous claims. He seems totally ignorant of the fact that racial epithets are broadcast constantly, particularly via contemporary music and television dramas.
This is one of his more ridiculous claims. He seems totally ignorant of the fact that racial epithets are broadcast constantly, particularly via contemporary music and television dramas.
Now you're being wrong again. Context matters. We're talking about the case where a racist is taking action against an individual of a minority. We're not talking the music industry where racial epithets are used for entirely different reasons and other entirely different context and primarily by the minorities themselves. Nor are we talking about license TV. If you're offended by HBO you can just close the tv or change the channel. You can't turn off a racist in front of you.
The case has always been if it's okay to insult others with racial slurs. You said you have the right to offend, I contest that if you do under specific instances you will get in trouble.
Racism isn't bigotry or prejudice. The latter two are attitudes towards, the former is an ideology with three centuries of pseudoscience behind it.
You're saying he embarrasses me, I see it as educating. He point out stuff I missed. It doesn't make the argument wrong per se, as much as incomplete. I have a position and I'm arguing for it. Theres nothing dishonest about that, precisely when experts are debating the same thing. Do you think judges don't dispute what a law does or doesn't stand for? Theres practically tons of work in this field.
Now you're being wrong again. Context matters. We're talking about the case where a racist is taking action against an individual of a minority. We're not talking the music industry where racial epithets are used for entirely different reasons and other entirely different context and primarily by the minorities themselves. Nor are we talking about license TV. If you're offended by HBO you can just close the tv or change the channel. You can't turn off a racist in front of you.
"But this year NBC’s “The Carmichael Show” aired the “n-word” unedited during primetime — albeit with a parental advisory notice appearing ahead of the broadcast."
Via Variety. https://www.google.com/search?q=n+wo...=1566617709607
And what we are discussing here is this claim by you:
"That's why you're required by law during broadcasting to not utter or repeat the n-word for example."
Kritias you’re shoehorning in this talk about minorities and non-minorities. It’s not relevant to freedom of speech, unless the law is being applied unequally on the basis of race which it’s not.
So if you’re saying that Meecham’s speech was racist, in what capacity was it incitement, libel, or defamation against Jews?
Re: The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda
Originally Posted by Kritias
Reply With Quote
