The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

[Kritias]

Don't bore me with this sophistry. You insisted that the philosophical concept of free speech didn't cover "bigotry", demanded that I cited a law which I found agreeable and then lied about the First Amendment having hate speech restrictions when it doesn't. Now you're trying to argue that because the First Amendment isn't unlimited (which no one claimed it to be in the first place) that you were right all along.

I am right because the argument is whether freedom of speech means you can go around and insult people at will. You can't. Freedom of speech is specifically limited when "fighting words" are uttered, ie words that will probably lead to violence. Also, freedom of speech is not applicable in a) the case the two litigants are neither an agent of the state, or the state itself and b) when the 'freedom' isn't exercised in a public forum. On the context of this discussion, both these restrictions apply. I also said that the US has hate crime laws, but you somehow keep on insisting I didn't say that. Perhaps my quote with bolded the part where I say that the US has hate crime laws

Of course you like the first ammendment. Has it crossed your mind that since legislation on Hate crime exists in the US (1), it's therefore not in conflict with the first amendment otherwise the supreme court would have ruled against that particular conflict?

As you can see, I said "HATE CRIMES". Period. I told you already I moved to Europe with my next argument, and I pointed that out three times now. When will you stop misrepresenting what I said?

You said that there was that the First Amendment didn't cover hate speech. You were wrong. Stop wasting my time.

Sigh. Look above.

What I don't care about is the fact that the "rest of the world thinks differently" from the US. The First Amendment is correct; European cry-bullying about "offensive" speech is authoritarian garbage.

Again, as I have said to Heathen Hammer times over, all statistics on freedom indexes in the world show America is not freer to the entirety of Europe; some European countries, yes, but not the entirety of Europe. As legal intergration of the European Union is successful with time, soon the United States will fall below the last of the 27 European countries. So the argument about European cry-bullying about offensive speech being authoritarian garbage is simply bull. And the crux of the matter is that you're here defending your right of free speech to utter racist and bigoted slurs.

What US law did Meecham violate that would make his "actions viable for prosecution"?

I'll give you a similar example where a comedian was sued over profanity. "Police in Wisconsin arrested Carlin in 1972 for allegedly violating obscenity laws when he did his signature "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television" act at Summerfest, a music festival.The following year, WBAI in New York aired the uncensored bit and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hit the broadcaster with a fine that was upheld by the Supreme Court. The case established the "safe harbor" time zone (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) in which indecent material could be broadcast without fear of young children being exposed to it."

Jay Leno was also taken to courts because "the joke that landed him and his network in court was one of many that ridiculed former presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Amusingly enough, Romney's team had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Instead, the suit was brought by a Bakersfield, Calif., resident. The segment in question includes a clip from the entertainment news show The Insider, which featured footage of Romney's houses. The problem with the Insider clip that The Tonight Show aired was that instead of featuring one of Romney's summer homes, a picture of the Sikh's holy Golden Temple in Amritsar, India, mistakenly appeared on the screen. The California man sued Leno and NBC on behalf of himself and the Bol Punjabi All Regions Community Organization, charging them with libel. The suit seeks general, special and punitive damages for "[hurting] the sentiments of all Sikh people in addition to those of the plaintiff." "

So, Meecham or YouTube could be prosecuted for expressing and allowing obscenity/profanity. Profanity laws in US include "swear words, bad words, crude language, coarse language, oaths, blasphemous language, vulgar language, lewd language, choice words, or expletives." Saying what Meecham said could easily land him a prosecution. Alternatively, like Jay Leno's case it could be taken to court for hurting the sentiments of all Jewish people. One of comedy's legends and pioneers of modern foul-mouthed comedy, Lenny Bruce, was also convicted in US courts for obscenity and only posthumously pardoned. Since there's precedent for it, it can be done. Satisfied?

[Cope]

I am right because the argument is whether freedom of speech means you can go around and insult people at will. You can't. Freedom of speech is specifically limited when "fighting words" are uttered, ie words that will probably lead to violence. Also, freedom of speech is not applicable in a) the case the two litigants are neither an agent of the state, or the state itself and b) when the 'freedom' isn't exercised in a public forum. On the context of this discussion, both these restrictions apply. I also said that the US has hate crime laws, but you somehow keep on insisting I didn't say that. Perhaps my quote with bolded the part where I say that the US has hate crime laws.

I didn't claim that the First Amendment was unrestricted; what you're doing is shifting the goal posts away from the philosophical basis for allowing unpopular or offensive speech toward debates about the ways in which the government attempts to limit the spaces in which certain speech is appropriate and attempts to prevent incitements to violence. These are all entirely separate issues.

As you can see, I said "HATE CRIMES". Period. I told you already I moved to Europe with my next argument, and I pointed that out three times now. When will you stop misrepresenting what I said?

Sigh. Look above.

The reason you raised the issue of the lack of a conflict between hate crime and the First Amendment was because you believed that the First Amendment didn't cover hate speech. This was made clear by the context of the discussion, the remainder of your paragraph and your repeated attempts to show the limitations of the First, despite the fact that, as I've said, no one claimed that the First is limitless in its scope.

Again, as I have said to Heathen Hammer times over, all statistics on freedom indexes in the world show America is not freer to the entirety of Europe; some European countries, yes, but not the entirety of Europe. As legal intergration of the European Union is successful with time, soon the United States will fall below the last of the 27 European countries. So the argument about European cry-bullying about offensive speech is authoritarian garbage is simply bull. And the crux of the matter is that you're here defending your right of free speech to utter racist and bigoted slurs.

We're talking specifically about hate speech legislation, not freedom indices; the fact that many European countries have authoritarian speech codes by comparison to the First, doesn't mean that European countries are generally less free than the US. As for your sycophancy for the European Union, it isn't relevant to the conversation and as such I couldn't care less about it. Nor do I care about your persistent whinging about "bigoted slurs" or your baseless accusations that all I care about is being able to be "racist" when you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support that claim.

[Aexodus]

You're not allowed to infer some superiority/inferiority between the two categories because it's racist.

Are you seriously saying that you would make that illegal? What happened to freedom of speech?

How can you possibly think that freedom of speech is allowing you to say someone is inferior to you because of their ethnicity, color, religion, culture? Anywhere in the world freedom of speech carries with it special duties and responsibilities and is subject to restrictions. The form of freedom of speech you advocate for doesn't exist. This is just fact.

Bahahah freedom of speech exists in the United States of America, where you can indeed make racist statements if you so wish. Free speech certainly does exist in at least one country.

@Aexodus,

Well, newsflash.

I’ve reposted our last few replies to prevent any wires getting crossed.

Did you not read your wikipedia link you posted? It literally says:

Hate speech in the United Statesis not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies.^[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

Does that not mean the form of freedom of speech I advocate for does exist in the USA? Where you can say all the bigoted and racist things you want without legal consequences due to there being no hate speech restrictions?

[Kritias]

I didn't claim that the First Amendment was unrestricted; what you're doing is shifting the goal posts away from the philosophical basis for allowing unpopular or offensive speech toward a debates about the ways in which the government attempts to limit the spaces in which certain speech is appropriate and attempts to prevent incitements to violence. These are all entirely separate issues.

The reason you raised the issue of the lack of a conflict between hate crime and the First Amendment was because you believed that the First Amendment didn't cover hate speech. This was made clear by the context of the discussion, the remainder of your paragraph and your repeated attempts to show the limitations of the First, despite the fact that, as I've said, no one claimed that the First is limitless in its scope.

We're talking specifically about hate speech legislation, not freedom indices; the fact that many European countries have authoritarian speech codes by comparison to the First, doesn't mean that European countries are generally less free than the US. As for your sycophancy for the European Union, it isn't relevant to the conversation and as such I couldn't care less about it. Nor do I care about your persistent whinging about "bigoted slurs" or your baseless accusations that all I care about is being able to be "racist" when you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support that claim.

No, what I am saying is that your notion of freedom of speech as an unlimited concept where you can go about and say anything you like doesn't exist. I brought up libel laws, profanity laws, obscenity laws and you simply said - they're inappropriate. What does that even mean? You can't disregard that we have laws any more than you can pick and choose what laws to adhere to and what laws not to. This whole argument is based on the myth of Orwellian propaganda as is promulgated by certain media on the right extreme, bringing up cases from foreign countries and applying misunderstood American laws on them. Simply put, you have no argument.

The reason why I rose hate crimes and the first amendment is because of this

In the case of the Ku Klux Klan leader advocating acts that would be crimes if they were carried out, the Supreme Court decision made clear that if his speech were encouraging an audience to immediately commit a crime — to immediately loot, riot or burn down buildings, for instance — that speech would not be protected by the First Amendment.

As you can see, and as you can see from the context of my discussion earlier on page 6, the point we were debating was whether hate speech can be seen as incitement. I answered to the both of you with two different arguments in succession: you misrepresenting this for the fourth time doesn't make this right.

You also keep claiming that Europe has authoritarian garbage laws. Prove it. I gave Heathen Hammer earlier indexes that calculate social, legal, press freedom indexes in all of which the US is lagging behind the United Kingdom (if it can be seen apart of the EU right now), and many countries of the EU. All these countries operate with these authoritarian garbage [sic] laws. Therefore either you're misrepresenting and have misunderstood how the legal system works, or you purposedly spread misinformation.

Sycophancy means the "obsequious behaviour towards someone important in order to gain advantage". What advantage might I hope to gain from a forum post, exactly? And from whom? The bureocrats in the Commission? Retract this.

To whinge means to "complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way". It makes sense I'm irritating to you because I don't agree with you.

One more time, this thread is about the myth of the Orwellian propaganda promulgated by certain right-wing media; this thread discusses issues such as misunderstanding and misrepresenting ie a case in Scotland, where certain media attempted to depict it without taking into context the specific laws and parameters of Scotland that are integral to understanding the case; we're also discussing a case where laws of a foreign country are being plastered as the de facto rule of law to judge this case; in short we're discussing half-truths, misconceptions and lies.

As for you defending the right to racially insult others, you have done so. Here's your quotes,

No serious liberal society should insist that its citizens have a right not to be offended. End of discussion.

You answered this on the context of Dancula insulting Jewish people by training a pug to do the nazi salute while yelling 'gas the jews' and 'sieg heil'.

Yes they should. I couldn't care less about your emotional appeals.

You answered this when I said that no serious liberal society should give in to the requests of some of its citizens to continue to peddle hateful, prejudiced, bigoted, misanthropic statements against other citizens because "it's funny".

Yes it is.

You answered this when I said, "Guys, hold on. At some point we must see this issue for what it is: the demand of some people who want to go about and drop mad bigoted bombs left and right, citing their freedom of expression to insult others. There's no reason for people loosing their mind over what everyone must have learnt by the time they left kindergarden: it's not okay to insult other people. Period." All in the context of bigotry and racism, mind you.

Laws prohibiting the use of profanity are inappropriate.

You answered this when I said that using a racial slur can be seen under the context of profanity, since it's using offensive charge to insult the receiving person. Again, all under the context of spewling bigotry and racism.

So in four different instances in this debate, where the conversation was about the legitimacy of using racial insults and slurs, you replied that it is alright with you. So how exactly can you say that your whole argument doesn't stem from the ability to be openly racist?

when you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support that claim.

In this thread, I've given more than fifty different articles to support my thesis. You have offered a cropped picture. Who from the two of us isn't presenting a shred of evidence to support their claim? You misunderstand your own laws on freedom of speech (1), you attempt to apply an american law on a foreign country(ies) (2) and you offhand deny any argument presented to you that conflicts your world view. Simply put, you're not debating in good faith.

@Aexodus,

as you can see from quotation #2 I clearly say

How can you possibly think that freedom of speech is allowing you to say someone is inferior to you because of their ethnicity, color, religion, culture? Anywhere in the world freedom of speech carries with it special duties and responsibilities and is subject to restrictions. The form of freedom of speech you advocate for doesn't exist. This is just fact.

Duties, responsibilities and is subject to restrictions. Then here, I wrote down the restrictions on freedom of speech in the United States, and as you can clearly see you can avoid prosecution from the US government if you're ie a bigot, but not from a fellow citizen. You can't even escape the Federal prosecution if you don't do it a) at the appropriate time, b) the appropriate place, c) with the appropriate manner and d) in a public or designated public space. So no. Freedom of speech as you mean it doesn't exist, even in America. Sorry. While one does have the right under some circumstances to air their racist beliefs they must carry out the procedure and if any violence erupts or instigation for violence is uttered, then they're not protected by the First Amendment.

Thank you for putting the quotes in line, it helps clear up my argument and any misconception of it. Plus rep for the thought!

[Infidel144]

I am right because the argument is whether freedom of speech means you can go around and insult people at will. You can't. Freedom of speech is specifically limited when "fighting words" are uttered, ie words that will probably lead to violence.

The "fighting words exception" has been repeatedly narrowed:
https://www.thefire.org/misconceptio...rds-exception/

I'll give you a similar example where a comedian was sued over profanity. "Police in Wisconsin arrested Carlin in 1972 for allegedly violating obscenity laws when he did his signature "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television" act at Summerfest, a music festival.The following year, WBAI in New York aired the uncensored bit and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hit the broadcaster with a fine that was upheld by the Supreme Court. The case established the "safe harbor" time zone (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) in which indecent material could be broadcast without fear of young children being exposed to it."

Carlin was not sued. Carlin was arrested. The case was dismissed.

Jay Leno was also taken to courts because...

Leno did not violate a law. Civil suit. Not criminal prosecution. I asked what US law Meechan violated.
As I recall this case was also dismissed or dropped.

So, Meecham or YouTube could be prosecuted for expressing and allowing obscenity/profanity. Profanity laws in US include "swear words, bad words, crude language, coarse language, oaths, blasphemous language, vulgar language, lewd language, choice words, or expletives." Saying what Meecham said could easily land him a prosecution. Alternatively, like Jay Leno's case it could be taken to court for hurting the sentiments of all Jewish people. One of comedy's legends and pioneers of modern foul-mouthed comedy, Lenny Bruce, was also convicted in US courts for obscenity and only posthumously pardoned. Since there's precedent for it, it can be done. Satisfied?

Lenny Bruce was a half century ago. And was pardoned to uphold the first amendment.

Obscenity has to meet the Miller Test, which postdates Bruces conviction:
"In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-73

So, no. What What US law did Meecham violate, that could now, according to you, "easily" subject him to prosecution.

[Kritias]

Carlin's case was dropped for a year, then the network that aired it uncensored got fined by the FCC and the Supreme court upheld the decision. The fact that Carlin's case was dropped by the prosecution of the time doesn't mean that there were no grounds to go to court. Cases are droped by the thousands daily mostly due to off-court settlements, and you'd know that if you knew how the legal system works. Only a fraction of cases ever get to go in front of a judge. Also, saying that Lenny Bruce's case was half a century ago is very hypocritical when you constantly bring up an ammendment from 1791, don't you think? Precedent is precedent. And Lenny was pardoned post-mortem. An important distinction.

[Aexodus]

But... you said that freedom of speech doesn’t allow for

allowing you to say someone is inferior to you because of their ethnicity, color, religion, culture?

I replied

Bahahah freedom of speech exists in the United States of America, where you can indeed make racist statements if you so wish.

I have never ever said that Freedom of speech allows you to literally say anything you want. Some speech is covered by the philosophical and legal concept of free speech, and some isn’t. Our debate was about whether racism is covered.

I said it was, you said it wasn’t.

What are the circumstances where you can be prosecuted for racist speech? Are there any examples?

Here’s a recent case from Vermont.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46886367

"The online communications that were sent to Ms Morris by Max Misch and others were clearly racist and extremely offensive," it concluded. "However, the First Amendment does not make speech sanctionable merely because its content is objectionable."

"For prosecution [relating to speech], there has to be what is considered a true threat," explains Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center in Washington DC.

They go on to say that the UK has less protections on free speech.

In the UK, hate and harassment have a lesser protection in discourse," explains lawyer Mark Stephens, from Howard Kennedy in London.

"Whilst protected speech must be robust, it cannot be used to cause harassment - a criminal offence."

Expressions of hatred related to a victim's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity is illegal.

Two or more messages - which are unwanted communication - can be seen as harassment, which can lead to criminal and civil proceedings.

In the UK, it is now common to see people calling for messages on social media to be reported to the police; this is rare in the US as it is not considered a police issue.

That last bit applies to Mark Meecham. In the US messages on social media are not police business.

[Cope]

No, what I am saying is that your notion of freedom of speech as an unlimited concept where you can go about and say anything you like doesn't exist.

For the nth time that isn't my "notion" of what freedom of speech is.

I brought up libel laws, profanity laws, obscenity laws and you simply said - they're inappropriate. What does that even mean? You can't disregard that we have laws any more than you can pick and choose what laws to adhere to and what laws not to. This whole argument is based on the myth of Orwellian propaganda as is promulgated by certain media on the right extreme, bringing up cases from foreign countries and applying misunderstood American laws on them. Simply put, you have no argument.

Laws which restrict the use of commonly used language - including profanity and obscenity - are inappropriate. I said nothing about libel.

The reason why I rose hate crimes and the first amendment is because of this

No idea what you're talking about.

As you can see, and as you can see from the context of my discussion earlier on page 6, the point we were debating was whether hate speech can be seen as incitement. I answered to the both of you with two different arguments in succession: you misrepresenting this for the fourth time doesn't make this right.

Hate speech and incitement are (or at least ought to be) different issues within the speech code. It is very easy to have laws which prevent incitement without having hate speech legislation.

You also keep claiming that Europe has authoritarian garbage laws. Prove it. I gave Heathen Hammer earlier indexes that calculate social, legal, press freedom indexes in all of which the US is lagging behind the United Kingdom (if it can be seen apart of the EU right now), and many countries of the EU. All these countries operate with these authoritarian garbage [sic] laws. Therefore either you're misrepresenting and have misunderstood how the legal system works, or you purposedly spread misinformation.

We're talking specifically about hate speech legislation; your deliberate attempt to conflate a narrow issue with broad analyses of freedom is disingenuous and irrelevant.

One more time, this thread is about the myth of the Orwellian propaganda promulgated by certain right-wing media; this thread discusses issues such as misunderstanding and misrepresenting ie a case in Scotland, where certain media attempted to depict it without taking into context the specific laws and parameters of Scotland that are integral to understanding the case; we're also discussing a case where laws of a foreign country are being plastered as the de facto rule of law to judge this case; in short we're discussing half-truths, misconceptions and lies.

Criminalizing people for telling jokes exposes the grotesque over reach of hate speech legislation in the United Kingdom. That's it. If you feel that Meechan's conviction was ethically justified (never mind legally) then I think that your argument is poisonously authoritarian.

As for you defending the right to racially insult others, you have done so. Here's your quotes,

You answered this on the context of Dancula insulting Jewish people by training a pug to do the nazi salute while yelling 'gas the jews' and 'sieg heil'.

You answered this when I said that no serious liberal society should give in to the requests of some of its citizens to continue to peddle hateful, prejudiced, bigoted, misanthropic statements against other citizens because "it's funny".

You answered this when I said, "Guys, hold on. At some point we must see this issue for what it is: the demand of some people who want to go about and drop mad bigoted bombs left and right, citing their freedom of expression to insult others. There's no reason for people loosing their mind over what everyone must have learnt by the time they left kindergarden: it's not okay to insult other people. Period." All in the context of bigotry and racism, mind you.

You answered this when I said that using a racial slur can be seen under the context of profanity, since it's using offensive charge to insult the receiving person. Again, all under the context of spewling bigotry and racism.

So in four different instances in this debate, where the conversation was about the legitimacy of using racial insults and slurs, you replied that it is alright with you. So how exactly can you say that your whole argument doesn't stem from the ability to be openly racist?

I simply care more about resisting the government's ability to police the language of its citizens than I care about its citizens being offended by each other. My "whole argument" therefore stems from a desire to limit the power of the state not to deliberately facilitate overt expressions of racism. If the cost of limiting the state's right to control speech is that some people will say bigoted things, then I say that it's worth it.

In this thread, I've given more than fifty different articles to support my thesis. You have offered a cropped picture. Who from the two of us isn't presenting a shred of evidence to support their claim? You misunderstand your own laws on freedom of speech (1), you attempt to apply an american law on a foreign country(ies) (2) and you offhand deny any argument presented to you that conflicts your world view. Simply put, you're not debating in good faith.

I said you haven't presented a shred of evidence that all I care about is facilitating racism. The fact that I accept racist expressions as a necessary consequence of limiting the state's ability to police its citizens language isn't proof that I personally support bigotry.

[Heathen Hammer]

The charges against Dankula were brought because the people who brought the case to the procurator fiscal were obviously offended by the video. The charges also gained in validity when the representative of the Jewish community in Scotland claimed that they got a hundred and sixty pages of abuse in a single day. These charges were brought because the state respect their citizens and their rights, all of them.

Is the context nazism? Was the salute used by the nazis? Then call it what it is. You saying it was the Roman salute, which is actually incorrect since we don't really know whether the Romans were saluting like that and this myth started by this painting, is trying to make it something it isn't. Next, you can tell me that the swastika is really sanskrit so it's okay to use it. Please!

Again, the free marketplace of ideas works because the competition of ideas disqualifies the defeated ideas post facto and allows room for better ideas to formulate and be discussed. In fact, truth cannot be reached if we are keep going in circles. You wanting to keep the defeated ideas in the game is actually hurting the free marketplace of ideas, skewing its function. Plainly put, this is just a vehicle some use to share their ideology whatever it might be - and I am curious. Why do you support this skewed version of the free marketplace of ideas?

Again, you return to calling the United Kingdom authoritarian. Again, look at the statistics I provided you - the United Kingdom scores as freer compared to most countries, including the United States. If the United Kingdom is sliding towards authoritarianism, and for a moment let's assume for the argument's shake that it does, does this mean that the United States is more authoritarian? If you say it is not, that's because the premise of your argument is wrong and you will have understood your error. But! If you call the statistics false again, I will remind you that I asked you to give me alternative statistics that show the US freer to the United Kingdom - something you still haven't given me. Why is that?

Charges against Dankula (as well as many others) were brought because British authorities... do not respect their own citizens. Otherwise, we wouldn't see any charges on people for making social media posts. If you got offended by something, then it is your own problem. You don't have a right to not be offended.

I think you need to look up history of symbols you are talking about to avoid making such flawed and incorrect statements in future.

I don't see your point in regards to defeated ideas since you can always use arguments that defeated it in the first place. You seem to be rather focused on forcing ideas to not appear in public discourse period - either because you (secretly) think they are true or because you are afraid your own ideas would be defeated by them in good faith debate. In both cases, it seems that your demands sound a bit unreasonable.

I think its fair to say that state that prosecutes its citizens for speaking their minds is authoritarian. As an individual that believes in in individual freedoms I believe governments like that can and should be properly defined as authoritarian, until UK government drops laws that infringe on freedom of speech and publicly apologizes to all that were prosecuted and thus were oppressed under such laws.

[Kritias]

@Aexodus,

as you can see from the Vermont case, the whole decision laid on the fact that the slighted party was part of government (a democrat for the house of representatives of Vermont) and the abuse took place under two years when Kiah Morris was working in that capacity. In this particular case, Kiah Morris had no legal ground due to the fact that the First Ammendment protects individuals from being prosecuted by the federal government, or individuals working for it or the public sector in any capacity. We need to see individual vs indivudual ie a civil action case.

As you can see, due to the First Ammendment obstacle, the US lawmakers have circumvented the issue on the case of social media insults introducing since the 2000's legislation on cyberbullying accompanying a wide array of provisions such as the "fighting words" clause, harrassment legislation, profanity laws, limitations on where and how freedom of speech is exercised etc. Here you can see how racial slurs are also covered by legislation on cyberbullying par example

"...targeted and persistent personal attacks aimed at ridiculing, insulting, damaging or humiliating a person—this might relate to a range of things, like someone’s physical appearance, religion, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation and/or political beliefs"

@Ep1c,

Do you deny that you advocated for no limits to insults specifically, especially in the case of racism and bigotry as I pointed out before? Do you also deny you claimed earlier in this thread it's your freedom of speech to do so if you so desire? I pointed out that this concept is false legally. You only have the right to air such sentiments in public designated or public forums, and under several restrictions and in one country. No one else supports this concept.

This is also the first time you even mention your opposition to the state controlling the right of citizens to express themselves as a whole, nor is anyone denying that this is all to the good. But hate speech and incitement to violence have been scientifically proven to share correllations. You can read more here. There's spikes in hate crimes following 'free speech' promoting hate. You can't deny that fact. We're also talking about the boundaries of freedom of speech; my analysis of it, with legal precedents, is very relevant and dare I say, extensive. The boundary is simply not where you think it is.

Also, I provided evidence where you specifically object to limitations to insults, even when I cite a variety of laws already in place to limit said insults in other forms: libel, profanity, obscenity, harrassment to name but a few. Your position of disbanding all these laws aside libel in an effort to strip the state of the power to protect its citizens from abuse because it's "inappropriate" to you is nothing short of regressivism. Tell me, if you had it your way, how could a person being harrassed constantly find redress? Or do you simply not care if that's the case? Law should and is the first and last refuge of a citizen. Our whole civilization stands on that fundamental principle - stripping this away is regressive beyond belief, ushering a time where the strong got away with what they could and the weak suffered what they must.

@Heathen Hammer,

You saying that a country doesn't respect their own citizens requires more backing up than simply your opinion. For the rest, read what I replied to Ep1c_Fa1l - you make roughly the same argument.

The free marketplace of ideas does not work this way; I can't convince you otherwise if a) you do not bring any contradicting evidence other than your own personal opinion and b) you keep on reverting to the same argument over and over. I've debated this with you on two threads already, check my arguments from there.

[Cope]

@Ep1c,

Do you deny that you advocated for no limits to insults specifically, especially in the case of racism and bigotry as I pointed out before? Do you also deny you claimed earlier in this thread it's your freedom of speech to do so if you so desire? I pointed out that this concept is false legally. You only have the right to air such sentiments in public designated or public forums, and under several restrictions and in one country. No one else supports this concept.

This is also the first time you even mention your opposition to the state controlling the right of citizens to express themselves as a whole, nor is anyone denying that this is all to the good. But hate speech and incitement to violence have been scientifically proven to share correllations. You can read more here. There's spikes in hate crimes following 'free speech' promoting hate. You can't deny that fact. We're also talking about the boundaries of freedom of speech; my analysis of it, with legal precedents, is very relevant and dare I say, extensive. The boundary is simply not where you think it is.

Also, I provided evidence where you specifically object to limitations to insults, even when I cite a variety of laws already in place to limit said insults in other forms: libel, profanity, obscenity, harrassment to name but a few. Your position of disbanding all these laws aside libel in an effort to strip the state of the power to protect its citizens from abuse because it's "inappropriate" to you is nothing short of regressivism. Tell me, if you had it your way, how could a person being harrassed constantly find redress? Or do you simply not care if that's the case? Law should and is the first and last refuge of a citizen. Our whole civilization stands on that fundamental principle - stripping this away is regressive beyond belief, ushering a time where the strong got away with what they could and the weak suffered what they must.

1. I didn't denouncing harassment legislation. Stop lying about what I've supposedly rejected.

2. The source you provided makes zero attempt to distinguish between cases of incitement and "hate speech" and so can be discarded.

[Kritias]

1. I didn't denouncing harassment legislation. Stop lying about what I've supposedly rejected.

2. The source you provided makes zero attempt to distinguish between cases of incitement and "hate speech" and so can be discarded.

Did you or did you not say the following

What I don't care about is the fact that the "rest of the world thinks differently" from the US. The First Amendment is correct; European cry-bullying about "offensive" speech is authoritarian garbage.

discussing the coverage or not of hate speech? So, according to you laws limiting offensive speech is authoritarian garbage. Well, let's see what Oxford's Constitutional law has to say about hate speech under harrassment legislation in the United States

While hate speech bans limit fundamental rights (particularly freedom of expression), ie rights commonly enumerated within constitutional sources, references to hate speech per se remain rare in constitutional texts. Depending on the jurisdiction, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under criminal law, civil law, or both. Some incidents of hate speech in the employment environment can also be regarded as a matter of labour law. Thus, from the end of the 1990s, the increasing number of world jurisdictions have been fighting ‘hostile working environment’ via employment and anti-discrimination laws, outlawing verbal and non-verbal expressions through the categories of harassment, sexual harassment, victimization, mobbing, intimidation, stereotyping, etc.

Also, from the International Journal of Cybercriminology on the United States

Cyber Harrassment typically involves engaging in an act or behavior that torments, annoys, terrorizes, offends, or threatens an individual via email, instant messages, or other means with the intention of harming that person. Harassing communications encompass all of the events of traditional harassment, but extends the crime into the use of electronic devices to communicate messages that cause a person to feel personally targeted for harm.

Therefore, as you can see, saying that hate speech legislation is cry-bullying and authoritarian garbage is you dismissing actual legislation on harrassment, either in physical places like the workplace or on the internet. So yes, you did dismiss harrassment legislation. Perhaps you should update your understanding of your legal statures. Sorry.

. The source you provided makes zero attempt to distinguish between cases of incitement and "hate speech" and so can be discarded.

Of course it does. Did you read it carefully?

[Aexodus]

@Aexodus,

as you can see from the Vermont case, the whole decision laid on the fact that the slighted party was part of government (a democrat for the house of representatives of Vermont) and the abuse took place under two years when Kiah Morris was working in that capacity. In this particular case, Kiah Morris had no legal ground due to the fact that the First Ammendment protects individuals from being prosecuted by the federal government, or individuals working for it or the public sector in any capacity. We need to see individual vs indivudual ie a civil action case.

As you can see, due to the First Ammendment obstacle, the US lawmakers have circumvented the issue on the case of social media insults introducing since the 2000's legislation on cyberbullying accompanying a wide array of provisions such as the "fighting words" clause, harrassment legislation, profanity laws, limitations on where and how freedom of speech is exercised etc. Here you can see how racial slurs are also covered by legislation on cyberbullying par example

Does 1A protect hate speech or does it not.

[Kritias]

Does 1A protect hate speech or does it not.

As you can see from the article you shared before (here), it depends on the case. On the case of Vermont representative Kiah Morris, it didn't protect hate speech due to the fact that the representative draws her office from the federal government ergo she acts with the jurisdiction of government when she prosecutes someone, even in an individual capacity. This is a legal distinction on the base of the abuse being targeted in fact against her as a person, or as her as a state representative. It's a technicality really, but an important one since it could be abused.

On the case of Virginia vs Black (2003), when two men burnt a cross on another man's yard (in typical KKK fashion) and invoked the First for their action when they got to court, the Supreme court overruled that decision and condemned them. The thought process was that "And, just as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point." So, as you see, in the case of Virginia v Black the first amendment did not count as a protection for freedom of expression. Similar cases have been won for offensive actions or speech such as the RAV v St. Paul and the Chaplinsky v New Hamphsire

I quote in turn,

Whoever places 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 commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

So, as you can see 1A at times protect and others doesn't protect hate speech. It depends on the context.

PS: Thank you again for clearing up my question!

[Aexodus]

Virginia vs black was not about hate speech, it was about intimidation, threats and incitement. They were not prosecuted for hatespeech, they were prosecuted for the crime of intimidation. 1A protected their hatespeech, but not intimidation.

Hate speech itself is not criminal in the USA, whereas it usually is in the UK.

What I’m saying is, racial insults are protected by the 1st Amendment, but in the UK racial insults are not protected. In both countries, threats, intimidation and incitement are crimes.

[Cope]

Did you or did you not say the following

discussing the coverage or not of hate speech? So, according to you laws limiting offensive speech is authoritarian garbage. Well, let's see what Oxford's Constitutional law has to say about hate speech under harrassment legislation in the United States

Also, from the International Journal of Cybercriminology on the United States

Therefore, as you can see, saying that hate speech legislation is cry-bullying and authoritarian garbage is you dismissing actual legislation on harrassment, either in physical places like the workplace or on the internet. So yes, you did dismiss harrassment legislation. Perhaps you should update your understanding of your legal statures. Sorry.

No, it isn't. Stop drawing false conclusions to suit yourself.

Of course it does. Did you read it carefully?

No it doesn't. The question is one of rights vs. responsibilities; that a tiny percentage of population engages in violent "hate" acts does not provide a basis for instituting unnecessary "hate speech legislation". You might as well be arguing that since there are correlations between Islam and terrorism we should ban Islam or that because there is a link between alcohol and violence we should ban drinking. Try again.

[Cope]

What I’m saying is, racial insults are protected by the 1st Amendment, but in the UK racial insults are not protected. In both countries, threats, intimidation and incitement are crimes.

He's deliberately conflating different areas of speech codes to suit himself.

[Infidel144]

Carlin's case was dropped for a year,

No, Carlin's case was not 'dropped for a year'. The case against Carlin was dismissed:

"When he uttered all seven at a show in Milwaukee in 1972, he was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace, freed on $150 bail and exonerated when a Wisconsin judge dismissed the case, saying it was indecent but citing free speech and the lack of any disturbance."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/23/usa1

then the network that aired it uncensored got fined by the FCC and the Supreme court upheld the decision.

Pacifica radio is not Carlin.

"Carlin himself wasn’t involved directly in the case, which was called Federal Communications Commission V. Pacifica Foundation. He had already won a legal verdict in an unrelated case several years prior to the FCC decision when a judge threw out his arrest in for performing the comedy routine at a Milwaukee summer festival."

The station was sanctioned (or threatened with), not fined:

"Prior to the case, the FCC had warned Pacifica that the language in Carlin’s routine was indecent and prohibited by FCC statutes. The FCC didn’t fine Pacifica, but instead issued an order that threatened to take into account any complaints when Pacifica next sought to renew its broadcast license."

The Supreme Court decision was limited and civil, not criminal:

"We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems,” Justice Stevens said. He stated that because “the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans” and “broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children,” the FCC had the right to impose an order on the radio station warning it about the consequences of the broadcast.
The FCC had the right to treat indecent speech as a nuisance, in this one instance, because the Court said that limited civil sanctions could constitutionally be invoked against a broadcast of words dealing with sex and execration.
The FCC had the right to treat indecent speech as a nuisance, in this one instance, because the Court said that limited civil sanctions could constitutionally be invoked against a broadcast of words dealing with sex and execration."
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...36-years-later

The fact that Carlin's case was dropped by the prosecution of the time doesn't mean that there were no grounds to go to court. Cases are droped by the thousands daily mostly due to off-court settlements, and you'd know that if you knew how the legal system works. Only a fraction of cases ever get to go in front of a judge.

Irrelevant. Carlin went before a judge, and the judge dismissed the case, in Carlin's favor.
Free speech wins.

Also, saying that Lenny Bruce's case was half a century ago is very hypocritical when you constantly bring up an ammendment from 1791, don't you think?

No.

Precedent is precedent. And Lenny was pardoned post-mortem. An important distinction.

Schenck v. US (1919) was precedent. Now Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) is.
Bruce could have been precedent, but now (and since 1971) the Miller Test (which, as noted above, post dates Bruce's conviction) would have to be met. That is now precedent.

some other notes:

As you can see from the article you shared before (here), it depends on the case. On the case of Vermont representative Kiah Morris, it didn't protect hate speech due to the fact that the representative draws her office from the federal government ergo she acts with the jurisdiction of government when she prosecutes someone, even in an individual capacity. This is a legal distinction on the base of the abuse being targeted in fact against her as a person, or as her as a state representative. It's a technicality really, but an important one since it could be abused.

Uh, what?
The linked article says:
"This week, the state's attorney general agreed that the former Democratic representative had been subjected to racial and gender harassment, but he ruled against criminal charges, citing free speech."
and quotes the AG's conclusion:
""The online communications that were sent to Ms Morris by Max Misch and others were clearly racist and extremely offensive," it concluded. "However, the First Amendment does not make speech sanctionable merely because its content is objectionable.""

On the case of Virginia vs Black (2003), when two men burnt a cross on another man's yard (in typical KKK fashion) and invoked the First for their action when they got to court, the Supreme court overruled that decision and condemned them.

What was the decision you are claiming the Supreme Court over-ruled?

Similar cases have been won for offensive actions or speech such as the RAV v St. Paul and the Chaplinsky v New Hamphsire

Re RAV:
"Held: The ordinance is facially invalid under the First Amendment. Pp. 381-396.
(a) This Court is bound by the state court's construction of the ordinance as reaching only expressions constituting "fighting words." However, R.A.V.'s request that the scope of the Chaplinsky formulation be modified, thereby invalidating the ordinance as substantially overbroad, need not be reached, since the ordinance unconstitutionally prohibits speech on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses. P. 381."

Chaplinsky (1942) is the 'fighting words' (which I addressed previously) case. It has been repeatedly narrowed and limited, including by the RAV case:

"Subsequent cases have narrowed the fighting words doctrine as elaborated in Chaplinsky.
In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court rejected a fighting words application to a young man who wore a leather jacket with the words “[wub] the draft” on it in a public courthouse.
In R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), the justices ruled as unconstitutional a St. Paul ordinance classifying as hate speech words “that insult, or provoke violence, ‘on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.’ ” Although the Court has never formally overruled Chaplinsky, its later decisions have limited it. Some lower courts, however, still cite Chaplinsky and apply the fighting words doctrine to prohibit speech highly critical of law enforcement officers, particularly when the speech is accompanied by unlawful or threatening conduct."
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...-new-hampshire

[Kritias]

@Aexodus, Ep1c_Fa1l, Infidel,


What I said is that in the US due to the obstacle of the first ammendment, the lawmakers have taken the long route and broken down how to deal with hate speech by partitioning its definition to harrassment, sexual harrassment, victimization, mobbing, intimidation and a score of other crimes and misdemeanors, depending on the context. 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. So, racism in the context of speech in a workplace is treated as harrassment in the workplace, under "hostile environment" clauses; racism on the internet is delt with on the context of cyberharrassment which is a misdemeanor; and in other cases, as you can see from the Oxford Constitutional law I provided, every person subjected to 'hate speech' can seek redress either on the civil, criminal, or both codexes. That's running completely against your argument that racist expression is somehow totally protected in America. It depends on the context, yes, but the US isn't a paradise for bigots and racists to air their ideas. Even less so when they try broadcast them through the radio and television and lately, the internet. They can insinuate a lot of racist ideas which is what they have been doing to avoid lawsuits. Even in the rallies of the most extreme right-wing parties, you can see they are very careful about being openly racist. There's a reason for that, and that reason is both political and legal.


Ep1c, the fact that I am presenting a score of different laws to you isn't because I try to conflate meanings. This is a legal process called 'stacking': namely, when a particular thing isn't defined in the constitution or an other law with absolute precision, a lawyer will break down its meaning to equal parts and pursue a combined argument. As I replied to Aexodus above, hate speech makes rare appearances in the statures of USA right now, so its prosecution is mainly done by stacking. You can see that from Aexodus' link, where the concept of "true threat" is discussed which is a term from cyberharrassment. This is not me exhibiting intellectual dishonesty as you say, this is me stacking. It's very, very common, especially after the late 2ooos where crime went cyber. Since the statures of the time didn't include any mention of online activity, parallels had to be made to physical places through the process of stacking. What's more, the stacking is based on whether a sound-minded person could, in a case of a similar physical situation, consider that they were under threat, duress etc This is how the legal system catches up with gaps in the legal statures. As you can see, while some states in the US have legislation on hate speech but the federal government doesn't recognize it yet, it's imperative for a lawyer to stack a case in order to best represent it for an appeal to the Supreme court. This is why hate speech is often incorporated in harrassment, hostile workplace environment etc depending on its context. This isn't to say that in every case the Supreme Court will vote in the lawyer's benefit in a case of an appeal; but it works mostly.


Infidel, the Court of Virginia had dismissed the case of the two men who went and burnt a cross on a man's yard on the basis of freedom of expression, and that decision was over-turned by the Supreme Court. The reasoning was that since a person can't burn down a house to make a political point, they also can't terrorize and intimidate to make their point. This is a landmark case on hate crimes, and is often cited in cases of hate speech, too. On the case of Carlin, dismissal of the case doesn't mean there's no legal ground for the case. Most dismissals are based on technicalities like a missing signature, a mistep on the prosedure, an arrest instead of of serving a notice (which was Carlin's case for dismissal) and other minor technicalities which, if the case went to court, would ruin it. A smart lawyer searches for these technicalities constantly, just because it can get the case instantly dismissed. The limitation to civil action instead of criminal doesn't prove that a case won't be punished, or that the legal system allows certain things; It was just its proper classification. Carlin's case is an important parallel to Meecham since on the former the network that aired the uncensored version was fined, while in the UK the creator was fined instead of the network. In both cases, we're discussing about a fine on the case of profanity and the case of grossly offensive statements repsectively, not an Orwellian limitation on freedom of expression. So, let's put things into context again, please. Just keep in mind the Supreme Court's ruling as a rule of thumb

It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

From what I can understand from your arguments so far, the problem lies a) in the fact that you don't really understand how the legal system works and you're very distrustful of it, b) a widened undestanding of what you can do under the law. This distrustfullness translates into looking at the handful of controversial cases you're presented here as important signifiers of societal censure or an unforgivable infringement on the freedom of expression. In this, you echo several publications like Bretibart, and several networks like Fox News. And now we can go back to discussing how this Orwellian machine of repression doesn't exist.

[Cope]

@Aexodus, Ep1c_Fa1l, Infidel,

What I said is that in the US due to the obstacle of the first ammendment, the lawmakers have taken the long route and broken down how to deal with hate speech by partitioning its definition to harrassment, sexual harrassment, victimization, mobbing, intimidation and a score of other crimes and misdemeanors, depending on the context. 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. So, racism in the context of speech in a workplace is treated as harrassment in the workplace, under "hostile environment" clauses; racism on the internet is delt with on the context of cyberharrassment which is a misdemeanor; and in other cases, as you can see from the Oxford Constitutional law I provided, every person subjected to 'hate speech' can seek redress either on the civil, criminal, or both codexes. That's running completely against your argument that racist expression is somehow totally protected in America. It depends on the context, yes, but the US isn't a paradise for bigots and racists to air their ideas. Even less so when they try broadcast them through the radio and television and lately, the internet. They can insinuate a lot of racist ideas which is what they have been doing to avoid lawsuits. Even in the rallies of the most extreme right-wing parties, you can see they are very careful about being openly racist. There's a reason for that, and that reason is both political and legal.


Ep1c, the fact that I am presenting a score of different laws to you isn't because I try to conflate meanings. This is a legal process called 'stacking': namely, when a particular thing isn't defined in the constitution or an other law with absolute precision, a lawyer will break down its meaning to equal parts and pursue a combined argument. As I replied to Aexodus above, hate speech makes rare appearances in the statures of USA right now, so its prosecution is mainly done by stacking. You can see that from Aexodus' link, where the concept of "true threat" is discussed which is a term from cyberharrassment. This is not me exhibiting intellectual dishonesty as you say, this is me stacking. It's very, very common, especially after the late 2ooos where crime went cyber. Since the statures of the time didn't include any mention of online activity, parallels had to be made to physical places through the process of stacking. What's more, the stacking is based on whether a sound-minded person could, in a case of a similar physical situation, consider that they were under threat, duress etc This is how the legal system catches up with gaps in the legal statures. As you can see, while some states in the US have legislation on hate speech but the federal government doesn't recognize it yet, it's imperative for a lawyer to stack a case in order to best represent it for an appeal to the Supreme court. This is why hate speech is often incorporated in harrassment, hostile workplace environment etc depending on its context. This isn't to say that in every case the Supreme Court will vote in the lawyer's benefit in a case of an appeal; but it works mostly.

Nope. Harassment, labor laws, libel, copy right etc. are almost entirely separate areas of the speech code. The fact that harassment/cyber harassment can be characterized by racial abuse is fundamentally irrelevant; it is the harassment which is actionable, not the racism. Stating that this is comparable to specific hate speech legislation is simply false.