Hate speech: should it be covered under free speech?

The Wesbist Bapist church makes public bigoted notions and protests at soidiers' funerals. A radical fundermentalist calls for a terror attack. Racist insults are thrown across the street. Verbal bullying occures. Foreigners are attacked. A tastless comment about someone's religion is made.

I ask my fellow tropers this simple question: Should these be covered under Freedom of Speech?

The argument of free speech under this is that one should challange the comments and to avoid regulating of what be offensive by a unknown figure. On the other hand violence can emerge from these hate speeches and the first example could be argued as a sign of not speech but a tastless act. Still... there is always two sides to a coin.

So... what do you think?

edited 9th Sep '11 11:22:22 AM by Ailedhoo

I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.

It's Westboro Baptist, Ail.

And everything but the 'attacking foreigners' bit is already covered under free speech, I think. It sucks, but it's legal so long as they don't physically attack or carry through a threat. (Though I'm a little sketchy on the legality and punishment for making verbal threats to someone.)

But the good thing is we can do the same to them! I read an article once about some folks that decided to go out and protest them at their place of residence. Apparently the local police and the neighbors all thought it was pretty funny. Wish I had bookmarked that.

Forget about it. You'd have an easier time advocating a statue to the Queen in DC than criminalizing free speech in America.

They never travel alone.

All I can say is that you are allowed to say what you want but you really going to be asking for it when you cross the line.

Yes, you ban hate speech and you have a precedent for banning any speech.

Isnt there a statue the Queen in the British Embassy in DC?

But Abu Hamza level of hate should be banned imo.

Dutch Lesbian

Jerks, idiots and assholes have the right to be jerks, idiots and assholes, and we have the right to ignore them

Inciting violence should be prosecuted.

Psychological abuse should be prosecuted.

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre and similar safety risks should be prosecuted.

Open fraud should be prosecuted.

Lying under oath should be prosecuted.

After that? Nothing that passes your lips should be criminalized, frankly.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

The very moment the state gets to decide which opinions are right and which are wrong, as well as the power to lawfully punish "wrong" opinions, we get screwed.

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

I think the qualifying principle here is that in Bizarro World, expressing opinions that are judged as perfectly sane in our societies might be construed as hateful, bigoted, dangerous, etc.. But how do we know that we're not living in Bizarro World, labelling the voices of reason as hateful, bigoted, dangerous, etc.?

This pretty much. In the case of Abu Hamza he was pretty much inciting violence against others which was why he was arrested and imprisoned. It's one thing to show support for Sharia Law, it's another to command others to attack non-Muslims to achieve it.

edited 9th Sep '11 12:15:44 PM by PiccoloNo92

I'll put it this way: if I had a magical button that could vaporize whole groups of people, and I had to choose between those who engage in hate speech and those who would criminalize it, I wouldn't hesitate to vaporize the latter.

If the wrongness of a given statement were self-evident and universal, hate speech wouldn't occur in the first place. That being said, what causes it is usually ignorance. Most people are ignorant by circumstance, not choice, and criminalizing their urge to express themselves seems, in this context, highly vindictive and counterproductive.

edited 9th Sep '11 1:08:45 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

...yes.

Hate action, on the other hand, should not be legal. If you want to insult someone, fine. I wouldn't care if they punched you in the face for it, though. If you want to attack someone, I'll jail you.

Not that hard, I should think...

I am now known as Flyboy.

So, no point is too far then? I mean, it gets really tiring if some dude with a hook for a hand says every damm week that the west should be destroyed and calls on people to actually do this.

Dutch Lesbian

In his case he is inciting which is commanding an action, which means he is crossing the line from speech into action.

Exactly. If the WBC wants to scream how all the gays are going to burn in hell, good for them, nobody gives a damn. If they actually do anything, or someone does on their behalf, I'll put a bullet in them. Not that hard.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Well I may not use literal bullets but yeah same sentiment

I would consider the physical defense of others from direct attack a reason to start shooting dickheads...

Scream all you want, but don't cross the little white line...

I am now known as Flyboy.

There are already crimminal forms of speech. I can't say "murder that guy", but should I be able to say "murder all guys with dark skin"?

the statement above is false

I should think that any kind of speech should be allowed. However, we do have such a thing as "conspiracy to commit X." I think it takes more than "that guy should be killed" to qualify as "conspiracy," however.

Hazy problem is hazy.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Uttering threats and verbal harassment should cover all the dangerous stuff. Beyond, let the bigots blow hot air and the moment they cross the line; nail them.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Well, it does depend. If I said now, that I am going to kill USAF 713, it would be a breach of forum rules and good behaviour, but probably would be thrown out by court, because we live in different continents, I don't have a predisposition for murder, own a weapon, and I'm saying the phrase as a purely theoretical context.

However, if I said the same, with a shotun in the trunk of my car, equipped with a GPS, photos of you and your house, and the phrase written on my wall with my own blood, I think the police wouldn't buy my argument from free speech.

And when it comes to incitement of violence against collectives, it's hard to say where "you people are roaches" ends, and "you people are roaches who should be killed" starts, and so forth until we get Anders Behring Breivik.

the statement above is false

Being in the forum is a privilege, because TV Tropes is a private entity and membership requirements are up to it. It can't say "you can't say that," it can say you can't say that here.

Which, I mean, yeah, I wouldn't let anybody say stupid shit like this in my house. But on the street, there's nothing you can do to stop them...

I am now known as Flyboy.

The only sanctions that I could ever consider placing against free speech would be if it was disrupting the peace. Protesting at abortion clinics and dead soldiers' funerals generally counts as disrupting the peace.

Other than that, hate speech should be totally allowed under free speech, so that we can make fun of it.

Would you kindly click my dragons?