How would the First Amendment even BEGIN to be interpreted as allowing hate speech laws?

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by chris155au, Jul 16, 2020.

  1. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess the first step would be to have enough radical leftists on the Supreme Court, but I just can't see how even the most radical leftists could make a case for it. Ben Shapiro's theory is that this is the direction that the Democrats are heading in and that they could achieve this by appointing enough justices to "overturn" the First Amendment. I wonder if by overturn he means abolish. In order to abolish, this requires Congress, right? And if the First Amendment is abolished, then obviously the right to free speech is gone, meaning that any speech law can be passed.
     
  2. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly the same way it has long been interpreted to allow things like obscenity, defamation and state secret laws.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hate speech laws would include expressing an opinion. The First Amendment surely cannot be interpreted as 'only some opinions are protected.'
     
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It can be (and is), in as much as it is only opinions which don't pose a significant threat of harm. Of course, defining "harm" and determining where the line (or lines) are drawn is a whole different issue but the underlying principle is (and always has been) that there are legitimate practical limitations to any fundamental rights.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  5. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The increasingly prevailing view is that the US constitution is no longer relevant as it was written so long ago and by slave owners and misogynists.

    My view is that people who feel this strongly about it should push for amendment.

    But then they say that’s too hard so they try to find justices who look at it as literature.

    To me the law is more than what’s politically trendy at the moment.
     
  6. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When has someone ever been charged with an opinion in the US?
     
  7. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When has any "hate crime" law involved pushing anyone for just having an opinion rather than acting on it? Remember, speech is an action that can have consequences and speech can be a crime independently of "hate laws" ("They raped me!" (when they didn't), "The special forces will be attacking tomorrow at noon", "Our product will cure your cancer"). The only thing hate crime laws relate to is the offenders motivation. That means there are relevant questions as to their necessity or relevance but that isn't the argument you're making here.
     
  8. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean punishing?
     
  9. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes
     
  10. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why are you even bringing "hate crime" into the discussion when we're talking about speech?
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2020
  11. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because "hate speech laws" are a subset of "hate crime laws".
     
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think so. I'm pretty sure in the context of the US, a 'Hate Crime' is simply a crime which would be a crime even if there wasn't the 'hate' aspect - it's basically just enhanced sentencing, which is obvious a very stupid and unfair application of justice.
     
  13. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The question comes down to whether to prosecute hate speech.
    If we are prosecuting it because it is hateful then are we not prosecuting thought?
    At this point are we instead talking about prosecuting thoughtcrime.
    Maybe someone should write a dystopian novel about this...oh wait...:)
     
    chris155au likes this.
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is my impression for hate speech laws too. If I make a viable threat to kill your family, that is a crime. If I do it because of your race, religion, etc, it's a hate crime. If you're talking about something else, you'd need to clarify.

    The "threat to kill" speech already being illegal in the US despite the First Amendment demonstrates that laws prohibiting speech aren't automatically and unconditionally prohibited by the Constitution as it is currently (and has long been) interpreted and applied though. That's my basic point. You can make perfectly valid arguments against any sort of law limiting speech but you can't just say "First Amendment therefore no" - it isn't that simple.
     
  15. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes to everything.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2020
    cirdellin likes this.
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you would consider that to be specifically a hate speech law?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another question is, who decides what "hate" is?
     
    cirdellin likes this.
  19. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is one type of thing that is called hate speech law but not the only thing that could be. Dancing around labels is a bad approach to this kind of issue so again, if you were thinking of something else when you wrote the OP, you'll have to clarify.
     
  20. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only thing that protects our rights is our willingness to fight for them. Violently, if necessary. The Constitution isn't much more than an attempt to keep established what we're morally obliged to fight over and what we're not. If they ban speech and we let them, then we don't have the right to speech, regardless what the constitution says.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
    kazenatsu and chris155au like this.
  21. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It would not seem possible that such legislation could be passed in view of the Frist Amendment, but, then, stopping cars on the presumption of guilt for alcohol consumption is also unconstitutional on its face, yet permitted by the S.C..
     
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,187
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anything that incites the public can be restricted, like yelling "bomb" on a plane, or "fire" in a movie theater, death threats, ect....

    one has to be careful people do not go to far... but reasonable laws are needed in some cases
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
    chris155au likes this.
  23. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,187
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    how about being stopped on the presumption you're not wearing a seat belt - which is more than likely just an excuse to harass you
     
  24. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Prosecuting hate speech without action is akin to two 7 year old siblings having an argument and one going to mom and dad saying Tommy is being mean to me.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  25. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Yes.

    I believe the First Amendment is just fine as it is, and it does and should allow hateful speech. Slander and libel can be consequences of that right to free speech, but that is generally related to the damages that result, if and when they exist. Those laws do not punish for the words, nor for the emotional resentment the person may react with, but for the tangible damages.Thus- they are not limits on speech itself.

    We have made the decision to exempt public figures from the libel and slander laws- which allows unlimited verbal abuse of them. IF it were not for that, a good many members of this forum could be prosecuted right now. Our level of "social dignity" and self-respect has declined, permitting those people to spew all kinds of unlimited hate- which only has negative results for all. Society of forty years ago for example would leave many of today MSM commentators with no audience at all, because they lacked ethics and respect for truth and normal social values. Those values are critically important; they are under attack- and we are clearly the worse for it. However, this is a reflection of eroding personal standards, not legal ones. IF we allow the legal to be distorted too..... we destroy this society and all that has been accomplished.

    I disapprove of the "hate speech and "hate crime" laws, because they turn the social aspects of racial views into legal aspects. That is effect is an attempt to legislate how we think, and impose an individual view of one morality on every all. It's discriminatory in itself- providing a protection for some that does not apply to all , and thus is a very unequal form of "justice".

    Society has a form of justice in itself. Bad behavior is, at least in the views of responsible citizens- has consequences, it is frowned upon and diminishes the standing of those who exercise it. This does depend on people having the right to form their own opinions and will never be unanimous, but it will reflect the overall value of society. That must be sufficient as regulation for choice of words other than those that inflicts actual damage rather than emotional resentment. Otherwise, you open a can of worms, so to speak- as we are experiencing now, where there are intense efforts to gain thought control, speech control, and the suppression of speech in opposition to some views. This is being targeted and weakened with some success by the current obsessions and delusions of our left-thinking extremists- so you can already see this happening, and see the damage, the chaos it brings. NO intelligent person wants that to exist. There isn't a safe half-way point in Free Speech- is either is, or it isn't. IF it isn't- all protest can and will be muted.
     

Share This Page