What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
283 Comments
- inactive, on 06/22/2009, -18/+297Along these lines, we should fight against hate speech laws always.
- norman619, on 06/22/2009, -6/+196The hate speech laws are idiotic. They are designed to try and protect the feelings of specific groups of people.
- dmarant, on 06/22/2009, -23/+163And hate crime laws. It doesn't matter why you kill someone, you've killed them; there are already laws against that. And doesn't killing someone (or assaulting them or raping them, etc.) mean that you rather hate them to begin with?
- Fhwqhgads, on 06/22/2009, -4/+110Exactly. Words and thoughts are not crimes. Actions are.
- Ross667, on 06/22/2009, -10/+107It’s kind of funny how they refrain from swearing in the article.
Anyway, there isn’t an Amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing Americans the freedom of speech. They only state that the government will not create a law “abridging the freedom of speech”. People who cry out that their freedom of speech is being denied don’t realize that their only right is that they will not be arrested for sharing their views.
That said, the FCC’s censorship of television and radio is *technically* unconstitutional (although I am unaware of any Supreme Court case that may have challenged it). I would be very excited to learn about a challenge to the FCC, as I am very tired of hearing about “monkey-fighting snakes” on “Monday-to-Friday” planes.
I can live with the freedom of speech as it is now, though. Beck and Bill-O can say as much as they want. I’m just happy with my right to call them ignorant *****-tards afterward. - cloudberries, on 06/22/2009, -4/+82"Now the FCC is investigating the opening ceremonies of the summer Olympics in Greece. Apparently, the camera caught sight of a nude male statue."
<img src="picard_facepalm.gif" /> - Dewhead, on 06/22/2009, -0/+77Because there is freedom of speech, we all know how hateful Westboro Baptish Church is. I perfer an un-censored world that way I can easily spot the bigots, the liars, and the creeps.
- mythril, on 06/22/2009, -1/+68You are flatly wrong.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No where does it speak to the intention of the right.
The open exchange of philosophy may be the reason for it first and foremost, but that does not give us slack to discount all other forms of speech. - rancemo, on 06/22/2009, -2/+60Free speech is bad words, only. Nobody wants to prohibit "good speech". Saying "you have free speech except these certain bad things" is ***** retarded doublespeak propaganda.
- mah2cent, on 06/22/2009, -2/+57And the like of the following should be an alarm to all:
Bonnie Erbe, who has afflicted public television for decades and now scribbles the occasional cyber-screed for CBS News, recently gave full-throated expression to the Soviet perspective on "pre-emption."
"If yesterday’s Holocaust Museum slaying … is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don’t know what is," shrilled Erbe, insisting that something must be done about ridding the Internet and the public dialogue of hate speech. But she wouldn't stop there; the purge would mean doing away with the "haters," as well.
Referring to the accused murderers of security guard Stephen Johns, abortionist George Tiller, and military recruiter William Long (whose alleged murderer was an American convert to Islam), Erbe insists: "It’s not enough to prosecute these murders as murders. They are hate-motivated crimes and each of these men had been under some sort of police surveillance prior to their actions. Isn’t it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?"
String up the barbed wire, sharpen the guillotine, fire up the crematoria: There are haters in our midst to be dealt with! Quoted from an article by William Norman Grigg.
This is very scary stuff and could further reduce the already disappearing liberties of the US citizens. - ricoboy24, on 06/22/2009, -3/+52You shouldn't be scared of your Government, they should be scared of YOU THE PEOPLE.
What is Freedom of Speech without the Freedom to Offend?
Don't let them take any of your freedoms away. People died for those simple freedoms us everyday Americans take for granted. Think about it, we ALL came from different parts of the world seeking the promise of a better life, countless numbers of lives lost in search of this promise land. A place where you could talk about something and not get shot over it.
Censor the Government. Fight for God Given Rights to SPEAK! - Fhwqhgads, on 06/22/2009, -1/+47>>>>These people are the overly sensitive, easily wounded, walking eggshells among us who equate being offended with being a victim - a status from which they firmly believe the government should protect them. They want the state to determine taste and propriety (as long as it comports perfectly with their own) and enforce those standards in law. Pandering politicians are more than happy to oblige.<<<<
Oh hell yeah! ***** A+!
What a pathetic culture. - CTK14A, on 06/22/2009, -0/+41"Swearing at a police officer may be disrespectful, but it's not criminal. So said a federal appeals court yesterday in a pair of rulings overturning disorderly conduct convictions arising from unrelated incidents at Yosemite National Park." -SFGate, August 8 2001
- diggcensors, on 06/22/2009, -6/+47Unfortunately, we end up with class A dbags known as the Westboro Baptist Church. Gah! They make me hate our first amendment. But alas, I am free to accuse them of being homosexual I suppose. (Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just pisses them off so I will do it).
- Zarokima, on 06/22/2009, -3/+41You're not talkign about hate speech, you're talking about dangerous/threateneing speech. "I'm going to kill you" is most certainly not protected speech, it's a threat, and yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is perfectly acceptable and indeed encouraged if there actually is a fire -- if not, you will be arrested not specifically for yelling "FIRE!" but for causing a dangerous situation.
Hate speech is "Those ***** ***** and avaricious Jews are evil," which, while terribly misguided and discomforting to the parties mentioned, is not threatening. The speaker in this case is mostly displaying their idiocy, which is only further reason it shouldn't be illegal. - CTK14A, on 06/22/2009, -1/+39"***** Piss ***** ***** ***** ***** *****." -George Carlin
- overridemymind, on 06/22/2009, -7/+41No, he's being buried because he started that "Liberal vs. Conservative" fingerpointing nonsense that is slowly destroying this nation. Unless we as a nation come together and start reaching logical compromises, our "United States" will soon fall.
- SpoonMSU, on 06/22/2009, -1/+35***** censorship.
- sv650touring, on 06/22/2009, -0/+34Besides, don't judges already have a lot of discretion about sentencing? If they realize you are a psycho who murdered someone just because they were different, the judge has always had the right to punish you more severely than someone who got into a fight that went to far or some other less-crazy reason for your crimes.
- cloudberries, on 06/22/2009, -0/+33Indeed. If we were to outlaw people like the Westboro bunch, or the BNP (over here in sunny Blighty) we'd just drive that hate and bigotry further underground, where it would do more harm. At least this way, they get all their vengeful energy out in a peaceful (albeit noisy, offensive and annoying) fashion.
- cloudberries, on 06/22/2009, -0/+26What the *****?
- inactive, on 06/22/2009, -1/+25“... if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
-- Texas v. Johnson (Supreme Court, 1989) (finding that flag burning is protected speech) - inactive, on 06/22/2009, -2/+25*****
*****
Damn
*****
Ass
Are just a few of the billions of words that have no magical powers. - CTK14A, on 06/22/2009, -0/+23Even positive words can be offensive.
"Y'know, that Adolf sure was a great guy."
Most people would take umbrage with that statement. - TheSkunkMonkey, on 06/22/2009, -1/+22If you can be offended or hurt by mere words, you have bigger problems in your life to deal with than what other people are saying.
Sticks and stones..... - norman619, on 06/22/2009, -0/+21Exaclty! I MUCH prefer people speak their minds freely so I know who to avoid.
- Annihilia, on 06/22/2009, -3/+24@Ross: You are incorrect.
I think you are confused about the Constitution and the system of government in America. The government in the US is fundamentally different from other countries in that it does not grant rights to the individual. Instead, it recognizes that every individual is born with inalienable natural rights (derived from our nature as human beings or a 'creator', if that's your thing) which the Constitution serves to protect AGAINST government. If you have ever read the Constitution, you will see that it exists to place limitations on government, not individuals.
Freedom of speech is a natural right. - ducttape36, on 06/22/2009, -0/+21i wrote essentially the exact same thing for a final project speech in my poli sci class. i ended it with something like "be glad you know what is or isnt inappropriate to say and that no one else is making that decision for you." then the very next person to give their speech gave it about gay marriage and made her entire arguement, "you just cant go around saying whatever you want, like gay marriage is wrong, because it isnt fair." She missed the point entirely.
- sciencelovesyou, on 06/22/2009, -1/+22FTA: "These people are the overly sensitive, easily wounded, walking eggshells among us who equate being offended with being a victim - a status from which they firmly believe the government should protect them."
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... - allmessedup, on 06/22/2009, -0/+20Boston Code Of Ordinance states:
"No person shall, in any street or other public place, accost or address another person with profane or obscene language"
http://www.amlegal.com/library/ma/boston.shtml
If by "accost" they mean "threaten" I can understand that. But "address"?! As in "Good morning, *****." That's *****! - TheSkunkMonkey, on 06/22/2009, -0/+20This is exactly why I support the right of bigots, liars and creeps to say whatever they want. It makes it SO much easier to spot them so you can keep an eye on them.
- Spacejack, on 06/22/2009, -1/+20"Raise their kids with morals," what a load of ostentatious crap. Janet Jackson's nipple is going to corrupt kids! Go back to your church where people sing the songs you like. And if you dare to go outside of it, well, sorry to say, but other people are going to be singing the songs that THEY like. Are you willing to use force to stop them?
- JasonJones99, on 06/22/2009, -4/+22I agree with the statement above about the Westboro Baptist Church, but it is ok.... It is because of free speech that we know crazy ***** like that exist and in that case can stay far the hell away from them
- MWeather, on 06/22/2009, -0/+17"Anyway, there isn’t an Amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing Americans the freedom of speech. They only state that the government will not create a law “abridging the freedom of speech”."
That's because the constitution doesn't give us our rights. It limits the government's powers. While I have the right to do anything I want that is not specifically prohibited, the government may only do what it is explicitly allowed to do. The first amendment doesn't say I can say what I want, it's says the government can't stop me from saying what I want. Big difference. - merm, on 06/22/2009, -0/+16The US does actually have hate speech laws, but those come in the form of the Supreme Court clarifying that Free Speech does not come without limits. The United States does in effect have hate speech laws because the Supreme Court says that form of speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Not taking a position on the issue, just saying we do effectively have hate speech laws.
Summary or cases:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c ... - slvrbullet87, on 06/22/2009, -0/+16Grammar is not one of them
- Suricou, on 06/22/2009, -0/+15I can see one minor problem with your position - media is not well segregated by age. When you say it is not acceptable to broadcast something to children, this in effect means it isn't acceptable to broadcast it at all, to anyone - because there is no practical way in which it can be done without the possibility of children seeing it.
Allowing everyone, even children, to occasionally glimpse a bit of sex is perhaps undesireable, but far preferable to the draconian restrictions on free speech that would be needed in order to prevent it happening. - FallenTurtles, on 06/22/2009, -0/+15The same freedom that allows him to say ***** is the same one that allows you to talk about all those retards who I guess don't understand free speech. So, in the words of a man much wiser than I...
"Yes it is, you retarded ***** *****." - asgardshill, on 06/22/2009, -0/+15And each of the other 43 Presidents of the US had to settle for a 1974 VW Beetle convertible?
Hyperbolic poster is hyperbolic. - MelissaOfTroy, on 06/22/2009, -1/+15Ugh I got written up at work once because someone was giving me a hard time and I whispered "*****" under my breath. Another customer heard it and told my manager, but she said "If she had called her a bitch or an ***** I wouldn't have said anything, but I'm offended by that word." Of course I shouldn't have said it at all, but seriously-how is ***** different than bitch or *****?
- norman619, on 06/22/2009, -3/+17No *****. We ae all adults here. It's OK to say ***** here.
Anyway the FCC still exists for the same reason our elected officials continue to ignore our wishes. We allow it with our silence and inaction. - realmadrid2727, on 06/22/2009, -2/+16@hoghughoghug
Killing someone with your car when fiddling with the radio isn't murder, it's manslaughter. - kakwakas, on 06/22/2009, -2/+16Buried for "f***".
- Travelsonic, on 06/22/2009, -3/+17"A simplistic interpretation for a simple mind."
Same can be said of your assertion about mythrilmythril. - RudeTurnip, on 06/22/2009, -16/+30Killing someone doesn't mean you hate them. However, looking into why someone was murdered (ethnicity, beliefs), might reveal a wider crisis and should be investigated to prevent further attacks.
- darknecross, on 06/22/2009, -6/+20Expanding on the Fox News insanity, it reminds me of what an article I saw on digg mentioned. Although those 'journalists' have the freedom to say what they want, viewers have the freedom to send denouncing letters to their advertisers. There's no quicker way to pacify a television personality than by attacking their bottom line.
- casek, on 06/22/2009, -0/+13but you can't spell, so we won't listen to you.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 297 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is