"Ladies And Gentlemen, The CCC" or "White Power!"

[Seil]

Who are different than the KKK because (http://cofcc.org/)... their acronym comes earlier in the racist alphabet? Really, who could be so ignorant, hate-filled and close-minded to...

http://www.amren.com/ar/2005/04/GROUPsml.JPG

Oh... rich white men. Nevermind.

Seriously, there's the Westboro (http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html) thing (which spreads hate and ignorance no matter what they believe) and The Klan. (http://www.kukluxklan.bz/)

These guys are all talking about "Freedom of speech." How can the government allow them to be openly racist or protest against the rights and freedoms of others? Aren't there laws in place to protect against that sorta thing?

[Ecks]

It's because whenever the words "freedom of speech" are thrown around, the government loses its mind and doesn't know what to do unless someone has the balls to actually come up and say, "Uh, no, just because there's freedom of speech does not actually give you the right to run around saying racist and discriminatory things, because that's actually infringing on someone else's right to not have to put up with that bullshit."

And, obligatory:

[Krylo]

"Uh, no, just because there's freedom of speech does not actually give you the right to run around saying racist and discriminatory things, because that's actually infringing on someone else's right to not have to put up with that bullshit."

Actually that is exactly what freedom of speech means, and it needs to keep meaning that because when you start dialing it back on the basis of infringing on someone's right to not put up with your speech... well rich white old men are in power everywhere.

Where do you THINK that leads?

Hint: Not a world free of racist dickbags!

[Ecks]

Then perhaps there should be public outcry? If the government cannot stand up to them on the basis of "if we intercede here, where will we stop afterward?" then the public themselves needs to go and exercise their freedom of speech to bash on these haters of racial and gender equality.

[TDK]

They do. That is pretty much the only response to these groups.

[Seil]

Way back when, in (high school) law, I heard that you were free to exercise your rights whenever you pleased to a degree. For instance, you can practice your right to free speech in a crowded movie theater, but the patrons of said theater have the right to see the movie in peace, so you get kicked out.

Certainly these arses have the right to say whatever they please, but the groups that they're quite literally slandering/attacking have the right to be represented fairly.

I mean the Westboro Baptist Church registered the URL 'Godhatesfags.' That cannot be justified as "Freedom of Speech."

[TDK]

Yes.

Yes it can.

[Seil]

But it's derrogatory, it's verbally abusive to a part of the American citizenship. If it was brought into court, I imagine that language wouldn't be the most heinous of crimes, but these groups are blatantly racist and they do act on it fairly regularly... It's abuse.

[Lumenskir]

For instance, you can practice your right to free speech in a crowded movie theater, but the patrons of said theater have the right to see the movie in peace, so you get kicked out.
The kicking out would fall more under the private right of the theater to revoke the license it gave to you to enter. You wouldn't be dealing with constitutional free speech issues there.

Also, a great thing to remember is that some of the things you say are probably shocking to the core of somebody out there. You shouldn't really be able to cherry pick what is 'decent' enough to be protected.

And really, they have the freedom of speech, you have the freedom to ignore.
It's abuse
...Nah. Morally repugnant, but not abusive.

I mean, under that criteria we'd probably have to charge these guys (http://godhatesgodhatesfags.com/) with the same exact 'crime', although they're targeting a smaller selection of citizens.

[Geminex]

Seil, the problem is that that's all subjective. There's no objective, unbiased scale of "acceptable" and "not acceptable". It has to be either absolute free speech, or you run the risk of free speech being curtailed by government under the guise of any number of reasons. Sure, people say asshole things. But I'd rather have assholes spouting asshole things, than the government having the ability to restrict a people's right to criticize it. Because eventually, it'd make use of that ability, little by little. Slippery slope. And the change wouldn't even be drastic, but it'd be there. Hell, look at China. There's a lot of similarities between their society and ours, it isn't a super-repressive dictatorship. And yet, free speech is practically nil, and the government does what it wants. That is to be avoided, and the best way to do that is to declare free speech an untouchable ideal.

Mind you, there's exceptions. Here in Germanland, holocaust denial and expressing support for the Nazi regime are punishable by, I think, up to 5 years in prison. But the historical justification for that particular instance is so strong, I very much doubt there's any potential for abuse there.

[Amake]

Yeah, if one believes in freedom of speech one cannot decide some things don't have the right to be said. If we make laws to pick and choose what speech is free, we lose the right to argue when someone decides our own ideas aren't good enough to be shared.

I think the only way to kill dumbassed ideas like Westboro Baptist's - let's pretend for the sake of the argument that they actually say the things they say because they believe in them - is to examine and explore them thoroughly and test them under realistic conditions and challenge them in free and frank discussion. This process takes many generations. An idea doesn't die until every single person who lives no longer believe it is viable.

And driving them underground, making them part of the counter-culture and exciting forbidden stuff only the bravest and most rebellious dare contemplate only makes it that much harder to fight them. When that happens - and it does, at least in my country - you're turning your own position into the fearful, ignorant, clumsy representatives of uncaring, oppressive authority and the ideas you don't like into Rambo. Ideas, it seems, become truly dangerous only when we fear them.

[The SSB Intern]

Silly Queen, ideas don't turn into Rambo. They turn into V.

[Magus]

The only way hate speech can be regulated is if someone is harassed (for instance if they followed specific people around on purpose and yelled obscenities at them, as opposed to protesting in one spot), if the speech is occurring in a private venue (wherein the owners can kick them out), or the people around them are constrained in some way to be near them (such as in schools), in which case the rule of "the sensitive" kicks in. This why schools can punish students for shouting "fag" down the halls of the school, because it is the law that a public institution like a school has to maintain a safe environment for everyone there because it's not as if the objects of this ridicule can just leave. Plus In Loco Parentis (i.e. it can be presumed that their parents don't want them to scream that at others), but even if you knew their parents were racist douchebags, it would still apply because of the other laws and "the sensitive" aspect of freedom of speech. That is why it would apply on a college campus for example (though to a somewhat lesser degree because hate groups can still stage protests on state campuses, but if hate speech were considered disruptive to class, for example, a student could be kicked out, or because it defies the school's own statutes of behavior for their students they could be kicked out).

Basically unless you're infringing on someone else's right not to hear your racist garbage you are allowed to say it.


Mind you, there's exceptions. Here in Germanland, holocaust denial and expressing support for the Nazi regime are punishable by, I think, up to 5 years in prison. But the historical justification for that particular instance is so strong, I very much doubt there's any potential for abuse there.

Well European law is quite different from the U.S., the laws don't have to pass the muster of an inalienable constitution. Unless they are the Patriot Act, I guess?