Freedom of Speech

[Contagious Locc]

Should "racist speech" be protected under by the First Admendment? The Supreme Court ruled that words "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected under by the First Admendment. However, courts have ruled that offensive speech may not be regulated if in public forums such as the street where the listener my avoid the speech by moving on. Simply put, your home is the only safe haven against such speech, regardless of the Supreme Courts ruling. On the other hand, is it possible to impose speech codes, formulate a prohibition so precise that it will prevent racist speech without catching in the same net all kinds of speech??? Do speech codes devalue liberty of thought and speech or does a person have to risk becoming the target of racially assulting speech everytime he or she chooses to leave their home?

 

[HERESY]

BUMP

(will reply in the future)

 

[Stealth]

The fighting words doctrine (Chaplinsky) was really only used in one case and has since been pretty much abandoned.

As far as the breach of peace doctrine, the big thing is the intent to incite an immediate breach of peace. Under the current doctrine (I think its Brandenburg) advocacy of incitement is the key. So you could go around dropping N bombs wherever you want, but unless you are affirmatively urging people to incite a breach of peace, you'll be fine.

My big argument with banning words is what is known as the "heckler's veto". If people are up on stage saying something, the effect of their words could make a crowd extremely hostile. If the hostility of the crowd requires the person on stage to shut the fuck up out of fear, then the people in the crowd have regulated the speech of the speaker. I think it would be a better rule to require the people to accept what they hear and not react to the speaker, than to require the speaker to shut his mouth. That's the "American way".

Most European countries are drastically different about free speech than in America. In Europe, you can't own Nazi paraphernalia, and most types of racist/offensive speech are regulated. But I think this is a slippery slope. You never know which words are regulated or in what situation. If a bunch of black guys stand around and use racist terms, its okay, but if a white guy says it to some black guys, it could really piss off the crowd. We'd have to deal with the law on a case-by-case basis and we'd never have any hard and fast rules. I prefer a society where people can say what they want and the crowd has to deal with it, as opposed to a society where a paternalistic government regulates your speech before you say it.

In a lot of ways, speech isn't effective just because of its content; the specific words used have some type of value. Just as there is more emphasis in saying "fuck you" than there is in saying "i disagree with your opinion", I think people should have the right to express themselves in whatever way possible. Then again, most racist speech has no inherent value or content and is more like pornography. The problem is, like pornography, its very hard to define.

This reminds me a lot of Skokie, when the court held that Nazi's could put on a demonstration in a Jewish town. Free speech is free speech is free speech in my opinion.

Then again, this is coming from someone who works for the ACLU.

This is kinda scattered but its 7:30 AM and I don't feel like thinking all that hard.

 

[MAVA]

bump

 

[rekomstop]

wow, didn't know you worked for ACLU, thats cool.

um, hmmm i'll come back to this as well, but i am leaning towards not regulating anything, its only the attachments that each person has to the speech.

i know this seems a lil too far fetched, but it reminds me of my old supervisor. she didn't like whistling, and i didn't know that, i started to, because i like to practice keeping up with the beat of songs n stuff, and she got really pissed and actually acted out towards me and yelled. I had no idea, but another time i didn't know she was near me, and i completely forgot about her obsession with no whistling(i really like to whistle) and she heard me from somewhere and yelled again, and tried to take it further. this is ust a noise, that wasn't near the customers, nor annoying anyone else, just like some speech. but she didn't like it, so i felt compelled to stop. i could prolly get her furious if i whistled on purpose...but i wouldn't. and that as well reminds me of certain kinds of speech and their affects.

with this example, but the extremity of it, i dont' believe anything like speech or noise should be 'regulated' cause its too subjective.

 

[SeriouslyThug]

^ its all about symbolism, and this flaw in primitive consciousness is that the symbolism people give objects or sounds become more dangerous than they really are.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Most European countries are drastically different about free speech than in America. In Europe, you can't own Nazi paraphernalia, and most types of racist/offensive speech are regulated.

In many places you can even go to jail for "denying the Holocaust!!!" Which is pretty fucked up imo, that's basically thought police. People even get in big trouble after saying things like the Holocaust death toll has been exaggerated (which could have some truth to it!).

 

[Contagious Locc]

As far as the breach of peace doctrine, the big thing is the intent to incite an immediate breach of peace. Under the current doctrine (I think its Brandenburg) advocacy of incitement is the key. So you could go around dropping N bombs wherever you want, but unless you are affirmatively urging people to incite a breach of peace, you'll be fine.

Thats not the "big thing" of the breach of peach doctrine, intention becomes the "big thing" for opposing views, but you left out "inflict injury"...this takes out the possibility of the person who uttered the words to say "well, it was not my intention", you can't take out what you wish because the ruling is one in the same...."inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace"

My big argument with banning words is what is known as the "heckler's veto". If people are up on stage saying something, the effect of their words could make a crowd extremely hostile. If the hostility of the crowd requires the person on stage to shut the fuck up out of fear, then the people in the crowd have regulated the speech of the speaker. I think it would be a better rule to require the people to accept what they hear and not react to the speaker, than to require the speaker to shut his mouth. That's the "American way"...

History has proven that the "American way" isn't always the "right way". In reality the argument of regulatulating free speech is framed is around this very idea....freedom of speech is necessary for a democratic society but at the same time it furthers the cause of inequality. Another common argument is that we must allow such speech (racist, hate mongering, offensive) because it initiates dialouge but it doesn't serve as that purpose. It functions as a strike, nothing more nothing less, and not as a proffered idea but experienced as a blow.

Most European countries are drastically different about free speech than in America. In Europe, you can't own Nazi paraphernalia, and most types of racist/offensive speech are regulated. But I think this is a slippery slope. You never know which words are regulated or in what situation. If a bunch of black guys stand around and use racist terms, its okay, but if a white guy says it to some black guys, it could really piss off the crowd. We'd have to deal with the law on a case-by-case basis and we'd never have any hard and fast rules. I prefer a society where people can say what they want and the crowd has to deal with it, as opposed to a society where a paternalistic government regulates your speech before you say it.

Its definately a slipperly slope that's why its so open to debate. I am a conspicuous consumer of my First Amendment rights, and I hope everybody else is as well. But I also know very well who the real victims of such speech are. The double standard only applies to white america, its just a movement by them to coin terms such as white victimization and reverse racism when theres no such a thing. White people are still in the same position that they were then as they are now. People of color are the ONLY victims of racism in America, to understand racism you have to first realize that its an INSTITUTION used by the dominant group (take a guess), if one doesn't own the institution how can he/she use it against another?

In a lot of ways, speech isn't effective just because of its content; the specific words used have some type of value. Just as there is more emphasis in saying "fuck you" than there is in saying "i disagree with your opinion", I think people should have the right to express themselves in whatever way possible. Then again, most racist speech has no inherent value or content and is more like pornography. The problem is, like pornography, its very hard to define.

We all know what racist speech is and given the history of the racism, injustice, slavery, etc..I don't think such speech is worthy of any value, weighing of content, open to interpretation, or any other else that points towards initiation of dialouge. In my opinion it only serves as verbal and symbolic assault on traditionally subjugated and excluded groups in our society. And racist speech/racism is not hard to define if you're the primary receiptant, people of color know racism all too because it affects them. White america are the ones who haven't figured it out because they continue to try to define it to make it seem universal, as if it affects everyone but it doesn't.

Then again, this is coming from someone who works for the ACLU.

I know how the ACLU feels about Free Speech, that was actually the reason why I started this thread because there was a conference of the ACLU held, and someone gave a speech on this issue.