What are you talking about ? "Hate speech" doesn't really have any legal meaning, anyway. As far as I know it is only used by lay people, and we know how bad they are.
FLS, You still don’t seem to get it. No matter how distasteful the images or words are, it is protected. You seem to be under the impression that there are lawyers out there that differentiate between “patriotic” and “non-patriotic” speech (and think the “non-patriotic” is protected.) This just isn’t the case. It is all protected, and the courts have so said.
There really isn’t a way of saying “First Amendment Issues aside.”
I don’t support either message, but if, for one second we think that the government can decide that some thoughts are so bad that they can’t be countered with another message, or that it can decide what thoughts are not worth having, then everything the US stands for is moot.
Likewise, I don’t see what you are talking about regarding NOW. NOW can protest about whatever it wants. (And I don’t think they would care if some idiot drew some bawdy pictures, but maybe I am wrong.) That doesn’t make what it is protesting against “hate speech” it means that they are participating in the dialogue that is protected by the constitution. So, to the extent that there is a double-standard, I think that you made it up.
You don’t need to support speech to support the right to express oneself. You need to simply understand that if you turn your back from the right to express one idea, there is a good idea that ideas that you consider to be uncontroversial will be next.
I think you are really listening to too many talk-radio programs. These constitutional issues, believe it or not, are pretty-well settled. People are not getting sued for “hate speech” and only a few crazy prosecutors will ever charge people with expressing themselves in a peaceful manner (and, of course, it will all go to waste.)
5 comments:
Are those two mutually exclusive now? I thought hate speech was still free speech.
What are you talking about ? "Hate speech" doesn't really have any legal meaning, anyway. As far as I know it is only used by lay people, and we know how bad they are.
Yes, I have to agree this qualifies as both.
FLS, You still don’t seem to get it. No matter how distasteful the images or words are, it is protected. You seem to be under the impression that there are lawyers out there that differentiate between “patriotic” and “non-patriotic” speech (and think the “non-patriotic” is protected.) This just isn’t the case. It is all protected, and the courts have so said.
There really isn’t a way of saying “First Amendment Issues aside.”
I don’t support either message, but if, for one second we think that the government can decide that some thoughts are so bad that they can’t be countered with another message, or that it can decide what thoughts are not worth having, then everything the US stands for is moot.
Likewise, I don’t see what you are talking about regarding NOW. NOW can protest about whatever it wants. (And I don’t think they would care if some idiot drew some bawdy pictures, but maybe I am wrong.) That doesn’t make what it is protesting against “hate speech” it means that they are participating in the dialogue that is protected by the constitution. So, to the extent that there is a double-standard, I think that you made it up.
You don’t need to support speech to support the right to express oneself. You need to simply understand that if you turn your back from the right to express one idea, there is a good idea that ideas that you consider to be uncontroversial will be next.
I think you are really listening to too many talk-radio programs. These constitutional issues, believe it or not, are pretty-well settled. People are not getting sued for “hate speech” and only a few crazy prosecutors will ever charge people with expressing themselves in a peaceful manner (and, of course, it will all go to waste.)
Ease up on the kid: he's still a law student. Anyhow, hate speech ain't protected speech if the hate speech constitutes fighting words.
Post a Comment