We have seen various examples of "Hate Speech" laws in discussion on AD over the last several months.

I have a real problem with these laws. We used to have real freedom of speech when it came to the government. Your only abridgement was that you could not legally threaten the President (which I also had a problem with).

Now, all manners of "Hate Speech" laws have appeared. The deciding factor in most as to whether it is Free Speech or Hate Speech seems to be the intent to intimidate.

Yet the intent to intimidate is vague in most laws, and it does not seem to be equally applied. For example, I think it would be safe to say that students shuting down an invited speaker at a university would be grounds to apply such a law since clearly, their intent was to intimidate in that they wanted to force the speaker to stop speaking.

I do have an issue with shouting down speakers, but that is because I think it is lazy and childish. If you want to counter a speaker, wait to the question and answer section to blast them, don't prevent them from speaking at all. The other issue is, if the university is a private institution, then it should have the right to enforce discipline standards, and it should have the decency to enforce them in regard to a speaker they invited. However, I still feel that the action should NOT be subject to legal prosecution because it is still speech which is supposed to be free.

I think it would be safe to say that people marching in a rally against smoking, surrounding a tobacco company building with coffins, and the like would be an example of the intent to intimidate. So long as the law has been followed and the demonstrators are no violating the rights of others by blocking traffic, or damaging property then I see no reason for this to prosecuted, and more to the point I don't think it is constitutional to do so.

Yet this is applied to someone who says "I'll Kill you ________" (Fill in anti-whatever remark here). Though they do not act on it, these people can now be prosecuted under hate speech laws, terroristic threat laws, etc.

Why is it no longer our right to express our views? Why is it OK to allow a KKK march, but not OK to say you hate _______ (fill the type of people here) in public?

Since when did it become a crime to speak your mind regardless of how idiotic, backwards, racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, etc you sound? As we invoke more and more speech codes, anti hate laws, etc, we loose more and more of our first amendment rights IMHO.



I see nothing about a freedom from being offended or a freedom from feeling intimidated here.

The ACLU saw it this way:

Source

Now the ACLU does support Hate Crimes, legislation, whereas the punishment for the crime is worse if it is motivated by hate (which I also disagree with but that is for another discussion).


Question for Debate:

Are "Hate-speech" Laws violations of the first Amendment?

Bonus Question:

Why do you think they have not been Legally challenged (in most cases) yet?

Please note: This topic is focused on LAWS in this regard. In other words, I am referring to government enacting laws / statues, etc that abridge free speech.

Side Note: Personally, I do believe a private institution has the right to enact a speech code. Though I would not agree with it, or support such an institution or company, it is their right IMHO. But that will be for another topic and is currently being discussed in on regard Here.

Only if the Founding Fathers meant no prohibiting free speech when they said:
So yeah, sounds like. No matter how ridcuously offensive something is, the government has zero right to censor it.

Because political correctness, and the perpetrators thereof would shoot it down. There is too much of a stigma clouding the idea of allowing people to say whatever they want. And until that stigma is lifted, this will never happen.

CP

Point number 1. Too simplistic. The laws don't say that you will be prohibited from speaking, just when you do you will be found guilty of a crime. Just like when someone uses their right to speak and they give secrets to another country, or when one yell's fire in a crowded theater, or when one threatens another harm or death.

The government may have zero right to censor (again not really) but we can be held accountable for the results of our words.


Point number 2. I'm not sure why. But surely people are not cowed by public opinion when they fail to challenge their rights to commit hate based violence or spew racist bile. What problem would their be to file a law suit. How powerful are these liberal pc totalitatians?

To me the laws should reflect an added offense on top of an existing crime for violating someone's civil rights. But as with many of these things, isn't there already a penalty for doing so?

The difference between those examples, and say, saying the N-word. Is that your examples result in a dangerous situation brought upon by the speaker, to others. Whereas hate speech harms no one. Also, if you are found guilty of a crime and the crime is saying something, by definition, saying what you said is a crime. Which is abridging the right to free speech.

I'll amend my statement. The government has no legal right to censor citizens who are saying nothing that puts anyone in danger.

I don't remember saying liberal, did I? No, people who say racist things are not cowed by public opinion. That's because they are abnormal. Normal people who have normal tolerance for other races are however, slow to change an existing law [hate speech laws, in this case], because they fear change. Hate speech is such a faux pas [and it should be looked down upon] that no one wants to allow idiots who say racist or other hateful things to speak without being penalized.

CP

I think I took myself off course into a hate speech/ hate crimes union. I need to look at some text of some existing hate speech laws in this country.

Sorry if I added to any confusion here.

Are "Hate-speech" Laws violations of the first Amendment?

I think not, sure it may not be politicly correct to say I hate black people (I really don't just an example) but if that is how I feel then I am going to say it. What I do think is that people are putting to much thought in to what is politicly correct to say and what is not. A single statement and every one starts jumping to conclusions.

Hate speech is the expression of an idea. No matter how gently one expresses this idea, it remains hate speech to express it. This idea is directly offensive to certain people because it makes them evil based on something not inherently evil, often something uncontrollable. But because it is the expression of an idea, and not the nature of the expression, it is an idea that should be allowed to be expressed by the government. However, if one expresses this idea to one who takes exception to it, that one should be given any censure that the other is within his rights to give.

Of all the "slippery slope" arguments- this one probably fits best. Larry Flynt said once "If the constitution protects a scumbag like me, it protects everybody"- very well said. Speech that does not cause direct harm or violence to another should have no goverment prosecution. I can say "I hate____" and have no goverment intervention. But to say "I hate___ and I call on everybody that listens to cause them bodily harm" (while staying squeaky clean and away from violence personally) would be a prosecutarial event for me. Threatening somebody is already a crime. Just prosecuting and making sentences harsher for threats may be the way around this.


I don't think distaste or public sentiment has anything to do with no one challenging the law. The ACLU has represented the KKK in free speech issues many times, so there must be some caveat in this law. I am thinking it proscribes sentences for acting on hate speech, but I not sure. If it prosecutes the actions through hate speech, it might be very hard to overturn.

REmember, we are not talking sentences for just speech, just expanded sentences to ACTIONS commited while uttering some type of "hate speech"- in other words, not just a regular mugging, but a mugging that was say, based on the person's sexuality.

Part of the basis of our sentencing laws/guidelines is the mitigating circumstances for the crime. Though I don't personally always agree with this, we give less time to a person that commits murder by driving drunk than we do for someone stalking and killing another. So, we are not making speech illegal, but when you act out, it is used as part of the sentencing/mitigating circumstances of the crime itself.

This is probably why no one will challenge this law- it is already a basically accepted basis for sentencing guidelines already!