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
    Alright, well what is the point that you think I made in the OP? I'm sure that you don't have it right.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  2. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was under the impression your OP point was "How would the First Amendment even BEGIN to be interpreted as allowing hate speech laws?". The idea being that it would be legally impossible to implement "hate speech laws" (undefined at that point) without first abolishing the First Amendment, something I disagreed with.

    You later defined "hate speech laws" (in a different way to my assumption) and stated that implementing such laws would be a massive leap from the current status quo in the USA, something I agreed with.

    I'm not supporting the idea of "hate speech laws", I'm just questioning your perception of how the US Constitution is (and long has been) interpreted and applied. Something can be bad without being unconstitutional (and more significantly, potentially vice-versa). In general, I find Americans can be too quick to leap to the "That's unconstitutional!" cry without even really thinking about the issue at hand beyond that abstract legalism, so I tend to challenge it when I see it.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  3. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,178
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and Trump is the king snowflake
     
  4. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,178
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    would the 1st amendment ever support NDA's that stop people from telling what they know about the President?
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  5. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually I agree but people are responsible for modifying their own super sensitivity. Also the laser focus on everything Trump does could be diagnosed as a form of OCD. Just sayin’
     
  6. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,178
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump is our President, when we vote him out in 2020, agree with you, who cares what the POS does
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Considering that NDA's exist in the US, I would assume that the law has deemed them to not violate the First Amendment, or any other law for that matter.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  8. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,178
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well that that applies to any violation the courts allow then....
     
  9. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Violation of what?
     
  10. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can see that this is a question and not a "point" can't you?

    I certainly wasn't saying that it would be legally impossible. I clearly implied that it would indeed be possible, when I said that the first step would be to have enough radical leftists on the Supreme Court.
     
  11. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't think ANYONE has even CASUALLY proposed such laws? Not true. Example: (behind a paywall but you can view enough to see the headline.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2020
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well alot of the time, releasing classified material is not even speech is it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2020
  13. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good question.
    It gets into Assange and Snowden territory. I would say releasing classified documents is not protected speech.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a question you asked only so you could answer it with your political rhetoric (it's what politicians do all the time). That's why you didn't like my (correct) answer to it in the first place.

    You "implied" that it wouldn't be possible without the First Amendment being overturned or abolished, which is probably wrong and obviously not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

    I don't play with the partisan political hate labels of "left" and "right", especially when things like "radical" start getting flung about. This kind of trash is just about creating more hatred and division, building the impression in the back of people's minds that "the other side" are going to take away all our rights (which ironically is made by both sides). It's the kind of thing that has led to Americans killing each other on the city streets right now.

    That article says "Yes, the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.". That is pretty much exactly what I said earlier, Free Speech is not unconditional and doesn't protect harmful speech. The question we should actually be asking ourselves is how we determine the risk of harm and where we draw the line. It's a question with no easy answer which is why so many people try so hard to avoid addressing it.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  15. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You appear to have missed that I was quoting a commentator who talked about "overturning" the First Amendment. I wasn't sure what he meant by that - so I opened it up for discussion to see if anyone else knew.

    The left considers ANY hate speech as "speech that can cause violence by one group against another." Ever heard of "speech is violence?"

    You may be thinking of inciting violence with speech. JUST hate speech is NOT illegal in the US.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2020
  16. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is still no such thing as "the left". Stop dehumanising your (perceived) political opponents, it only feeds the hate and division. If you're quoting a person, quote the person.

    I was thinking exactly what I quoted from the article you linked. There is still nobody proposing criminalising "just" hate speech. There are people proposing keeping the existing restrictions of potentially harmful speech but have different opinions on how "potentially harmful" should be defined and where that line should be drawn. It's a long running debate, and one bigger than just the USA and their Constitution.
     
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think that you need to get over that. You must be the only person in the world who doesn't use the terms in political discussions. Yes, they're not well defined terms, but they are useful in distinguishing the two basic sides of politics.

    You quoted the article as saying, "yes, the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another." You seen to be assuming that the author is saying it should not protect hateful speech that calls for/incites violence by one group against another.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2020
  18. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hate speech now only includes speech from those an ephemeral consensus thinks is significantly offensive.

    Nothing subjective about that, right?
     
  19. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you think how someone might argue that it IS speech?
     
  20. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I personally don’t think that revealing state secrets is speech as I think speech means political opinion.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  21. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly, but I'm not interested political discussions, I'm interested in real world discussions. Simplistic political labels serve as a distraction from reality.

    I don't see how that makes any difference. You were presenting the article as an example of someone proposing criminalising free speech just because it is considered offensive to someone. That isn't what the article actually said.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Constitution doesn't apply to Assange does it? If it applies to Australians like Assange, then I'm also included! I'd like to buy a gun!
     
  23. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you read the entire article? Are you a Washington Post subscriber?
     
  24. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. No. (you can access a small number of articles for free)
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2020
  25. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Washington Post must be friendlier to the UK than Australia.
     

Share This Page