Freedom of Speech vs. Hatred

[AYamet]

I was hoping to see everyone's input on what they thought about the borderline between the freedom of speech and flat out hatred that may even be considered verbal harassment (which is illegal). For example, the KKK is a fascist group of rednecks that believe the white race is superior and black people, Jewish people, and any other race or religion other than Christianity must die. Do their beliefs have a right to be heard, even in a way that makes other people feel uncomfortable/unsafe? They are not doing anything illegal by voicing their idiotic opinions, unless other people feel threatened. There are other examples of this borderline going on in our society ever day.

[KPalicz]

It depends on whether the group is making specific threats against a person or group. If they do that, then it should be illegal. If they are just expressing general hatred, then, I think it should be protected speech.

Remember that when 15 KKK members get together for a rally, there are 2,000 anti-KKK folks who get together to counter protest. So I think things work themselves out because of free speech, not in spite of it.

------------------
Silly Rabbit, Rights are for Kids

[Euripus]

Hatred and Unpopular speech is the PURPOSE of the First Amendment.

They are entitled.

They make specific threats, involving against discernable persons or property respectively there-owned...

That is different.

Expressing one's opinion of superiority of the self/race/family/country, etc, yadda, is clearly legitimate expression.

Even if it seems braggartly and haughty, if not even just alittle offensive.

Black Panther militants, or Good ole' Boy KKK nuts...

They both pose a threat to something, someone, somewhere.

A social system, order...

Whatever.

So long as it's generalized and does not specifically finger anyone for attack, etc, it's all good.

Enjoy what little First Amemdment Rights we presently have respected: Research critical works on it, and see where you end up agreeing on the ideological line -- with Mao, Stalin, and all the other "polite society" authoritorians,...

Or those of more Libertarian bent who let some of the nastiness slip in order to see it karmatically returned to the originator.

(and it does,...)

But even if karma fails on occasion...

They have to be protected in their expressions.

[AYamet]

I suppose I was leaning towards the possibility that an African-American might hear a Klan member say "I hate niggers" and that person takes this comment as completely racist (which it is) and therefore considers very threatened and uncomfortable. The idea of "freedom" is to be able to walk around in your neighborhood and not be oppressed, and not be subject to persecution because of who you are.

I realize that by bringing up this argument, the idea of freedom of speech and freedom to not feel threatened interwine in a tight knot. I was just trying to say that it goes both ways--a person may feel uncomfortable/threatened, and therefore is having their constitutional rights violated. Even if the person that is threatening them is well within their guidelines of verbal harassment.

[MJB_919]

If you are promoting hatred violance its usually illegal. If its just verbal assault you can usually get away with it depending on what it is you are attacking but it can be dangerous because the word might get spread and you could become a target.

[Yasha]

we do not have a constitutional right to not feel uncomfortable.

verbal expression only reaches the level of being a form of violence in and of itself when it is directly and substantively threatening (as in contributes to a direct result of actual violence or a specific pattern of aggresive harrassment in which true damage can be shown -- very tough and specific legal standards). you cannot incite a riot, you cannot yell fire in a theater, you cannot libel someone, you cannot threaten someone with physical harm if there is any reason to take that threat seriously, and you cannot badger or stalk someone to the point where they have genuine reason to fear for their lives (as determined in the eyes of the law).

otherwise, hate speech is included in free speech. you have a right to hate someone and to express those feelings of hatred. you have a right to speak politically incorrect or even bigoted statements with no need to justify your reasons for doing so whatsoever. it is not just that free speech includes unpopular speech, its that the most bedrock freedom is the right of free thought and conscience. no one can dictate to you how to think and what to believe, whether the rest of us like it or not.

this does not however mean that the right to dissent or to express unpopular and uncomfortable thoughts somehow nullifies the rights of others to challenge those thoughts just as vocally. the right to speak freely does not mean all speech is right. you can spout off all you want about how much you may hate jews, blacks, the bush administration or whatever, but dont cry censorship when other people examine and question and directly use their own freedom of speech to tear appart the lack of quality in what you have have to say.

[AYamet]

Sorry, double post, this is a deletion.

[This message has been edited by AYamet (edited July 29, 2004).]

[AYamet]

By "uncomfortable" I actually meant feeling threatened yourself. This is much the same thing as a woman being able to dictate what sexual harassment is (if she tells the court she feels threatened, it is a genuine complaint because since the 1980s it has been the woman and her perspective who gets to decide what's harassment and what isn't.) If someone has no intent on making you feel threatened, but does anyway, and is told to stop, is this still legal?

[Yasha]

it isnt and cannot be the woman alone who decides what sexual harrassment is and isnt. there must be objective legal interpretation in a court of law. if forbidden speech is anything that a self defined victim deems it to subjectively be then there is no longer any such thing as free speech ever.

sexual harrasment is a specific thing involving either a direct behavior or a pervasive pattern of contributory conditions in a work environment of highly innapropriate sexual conduct being forced upon workers (not just women) who are often unable to confront the behaviors directly due to dependence on whatever job they may have. its not just a matter of subjectively deciding for oneself what makes one feel uncomfortable and what doesnt.

[AYamet]

I believe that there may be other factors in determining (in the eyes of a court) what is and what is not sexual harassment, but like I said, back in the 1980s the law changed due to an incident that occurred and the woman pressed charges. They even made a movie about it (I forget the woman's name, something White.) The woman has significant input in regards to how she feels about the pressures being inflicted upon her, and this plays a vital role in the court's decision.

[Euripus]

This is another one of those queer, deviant areas of the Law...

Harassment is relative to the harasee.

It's chief differnce is thus:

Does s/he like it or not?

And really... to make Law on the basis of...

I believe there are more substantive crimes than this...

Suffice to say,...

Voluntary associations -- to some extent, are implied things.

For example, if you are one who frequents association with a mafia-type of organization...

One tends to suspect certain sympathies...

Now, naturally, I never would say you could CONVICT on association, alone...

And hence, you can't ABSOLVE on association alone, either (ie: Just because someone dosen't expressly resist your harassment, sexual or otherwise... dosen't make for default assumption of consenting to it)

But it *IS* a pretty good indicator.

If you have somebody who's on the nutty side of things that's after you, you have to pull away from that mess.

Also, it's unwise to walk through dangerous sections of a city in ANY sort of clothing-style late at night; if you choose to do this; if not having a rape-fantasy or death-wish... you are perhaps confused of the nature of the environment hence entered...

HOWEVER, of couse...

Still, no justification for rape, mugging...

Just as toleraing the pressence of undesirable or lewd co-workers is no basis for their continued actions in such a way, or the allowance of it.

I would, naturally, encourage, and insist, to some extent... that it be resisted; this is actually the precedure, in some judicial systems, to show "effort" was made to resist the crime, so forth...

But..

Harassment per se...

So vague... and so...

It would be damage to PERSON, under Law...

And under that...

Psychological?

:: sigh ::

This should be something I'm more sympathetic to, by rights...

I endured enough of it...

I would qualify it as harassment if it is verbal, physical, or other taunting or negative behavior specifically directed at and intended to bother or worse the receipt of such "advances."

Beyond that...

I look for more substantive basises upon which to make Law; assault; murder, manslaughter...

There is no "qualifying" those, except for perhaps in the degree...

And that's all I'll say on the matter.