The limits of free speech

[Aetherous]

Neo-nazis and white nationalists could be comitting crimes when marching and publicly sharing their views. Free speech has its limits...see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire for the continuously upheld Supreme Court decision on violent speech.

White nationalism's aim is to gain enough power so as to remove non-white races from the country...since that's an inherently violent and peace-disturbing message, it could be enforced that racists aren't permitted to march or have public events promoting that cause.

What do you think...should events like "Unite the Right" (more like unite the white supremacists, not the right) be permitted in the US? Are we fascist if we are intolerant of truly racist speech and action, or are we doing the right thing and promoting true Americanism? Didn't we conquer the Nazis already? Are we really virtuous and Constitutional if we "stand for their right to free speech", when that free speech is oppositional to the liberty of humankind and against the tenets of the founding fathers?

 

Edit: what this thread is referencing...
 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Aetherous

[Brian]

Did you listen to any of the speeches which were given at the demonstration on Friday night or Saturday?  Do you know what was actually said?  Or what the purposes of the rally were intended to be?  Do you know who the attendees were?

 

Are you advocating for the banning of any gathering with the aim of gaining power over others or carrying a "peace-disturbing" message?  Or only those you personally find offensive?

 

Seems dangerous territory and a pathway which plays right into the hands of those who might seek to control thought and suppress free-will.

 

In my opinion, it is best to have ideas -- ugly and otherwise -- freely expressed in the public forum so that they can be weighed according to their own merits by all those who hear them.

[Aetherous]

I'm very aware it was a white supremacist rally.

I am absolutely advocating that truly racist speech not be allowed on American soil.

What did you think of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire? There seems to be a legal precedent for stopping these kinds of rallies.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Aetherous

[Aetherous]

Brian, do you think free speech is unlimited? Is someone allowed to verbally harass you, or can you call the police and get a restraining order?

If neo-nazis are allowed free speech, which inherently is about the destruction or removal of people of other races...then why is the person not legally allowed to verbally harass you? Is there a difference?

Where is the line drawn?

[Aetherous]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Unite_the_Right_rally  <- this is what's being discussed.

[Brian]

There's a difference between free speech in the public square and harassment.

 

Are you actually familiar with the particulars in that case?  1940.  Chaplinsky was a Jehovah's Witness preaching in the public square.  Passersby took offense at him suggesting organized religion was "a racket" and began trying to intimidate him, harassing him for not being willing to salute the flag, striking him and attempting to impale him with a flagpole.  A local marshal warned him he was in danger as soon as violence had begun but chose not to intervene or arrest his attacker, choosing instead to walk away and leave this man surrounded by a hostile crowd.  When the marshal returned, the battered man, now pinned against a parked car, called the marshal a racketeer and a damned fascist for not protecting his rights.

 

Spoiler

Walter Chaplinsky in 1942:

 

The marshal arrested him, citing New Hampshire law which made it illegal to use "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

 

Chaplinsky argued that his Constitutional rights under the First & Fourteenth Amendments had been violated.

 

Two years later, the US Supreme Court unanimously decided Chaplinsky should have expected violence and that "fighting words" (like calling organized religion a "racket" or a law enforcement officer "fascist") are not protect speech.

 

I think the case was a travesty of justice.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Brian

[ralis]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

Seems dangerous territory and a pathway which plays right into the hands of those who might seek to control thought and suppress free-will.

 

In my opinion, it is best to have ideas -- ugly and otherwise -- freely expressed in the public forum so that they can be weighed according to their own merits by all those who hear them.

 

Ideology such as hate speech and anti-Semitic speech? History is replete with the repercussions of hate speech. The Charlottesville mayor was bombarded with anti-Semitic hate on social media as posted by the neo-Nazi alt-right fascists.

[Marblehead]

Beware!  Now that we have the PC police the next to come are the thought police.

 

 

[Brian]

5 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Ideology such as hate speech and anti-Semitic speech? History is replete with the repercussions of hate speech. The Charlottesville mayor was bombarded with anti-Semitic hate on social media as posted by the neo-Nazi alt-right fascists.

Any ideology should be allowed to be thought and to be spoken -- even that most vile of all, oligarchical collectivism by any name.  Rhetoric discussing beliefs and philosophies and principles is quite different from rhetoric actually calling for or inciting violence and the latter is already criminal, although we see it is not evenly enforced.  Uniform enforcement of the law is critical.

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, Brian said:

Uniform enforcement of the law is critical.

I just felt like repeating that.

 

[Aetherous]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

I think the case was a travesty of justice.

 

Supreme Court voted 9-0 in favor, and has continued to uphold it. Perhaps it exemplifies justice!

[Aetherous]

15 minutes ago, Brian said:

Rhetoric discussing beliefs and philosophies and principles is quite different from rhetoric actually calling for or inciting violence

 

But if those beliefs and philosophies inherently call for violence...and have actually done it, historically...

 

(edit: not even historically...with the guy crashing his car into the crowd, murdering one woman)

Edited August 14, 2017 by Aetherous

[windwalker]

7 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

But if those beliefs and philosophies inherently call for violence...and have actually done it, historically...

 

yep,,,Those beliefs and philosophies,, guess it kinda depends on who "those"  are

 

Do agree there should be an "honest" "real"  conversation  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by windwalker

[windwalker]

3 hours ago, Aetherous said:

Neo-nazis and white nationalists could be comitting crimes when marching and publicly sharing their views. Free speech has its limits...see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire for the continuously upheld Supreme Court decision on violent speech.

White nationalism's aim is to gain enough power so as to remove non-white races from the country...since that's an inherently violent and peace-disturbing message, it could be enforced that racists aren't permitted to march or have public events promoting that cause.

What do you think...should events like "Unite the Right" (more like unite the white supremacists, not the right) be permitted in the US? Are we fascist if we are intolerant of truly racist speech and action, or are we doing the right thing and promoting true Americanism? Didn't we conquer the Nazis already? Are we really virtuous and Constitutional if we "stand for their right to free speech", when that free speech is oppositional to the liberty of humankind and against the tenets of the founding fathers?

 

Why use "we" instead of just you.

 

This covers what I think

 

"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."

 

The issue is a little more then just free speech, but hides under the guise of free speech by a not so free press. 

 

Quote

 Uniform enforcement of the law is critical

 

along with unbiased reporting of news.

Edited August 14, 2017 by windwalker

[Marblehead]

There are many lies being told regarding what happened in Virginia. I guess we are supposed to believe whichever one fits our philosophy.  Seems the truth doesn't matter any more.

 

[windwalker]

Just now, Marblehead said:

There are many lies being told regarding what happened in Virginia. I guess we are supposed to believe whichever one fits our philosophy.  Seems the truth doesn't matter any more.

 

 

 

Disagree, read some of  the fist hand accountings, they all tend to say the same things, indicating a selective bias in law enforcement  and lack of accountability.  What needs to happen is the officials in charge need to be charged for dereliction of duty.   When the DOJ investigates they should find some of the antifa and BLM accountable along with anyone else...

 

The question is will they?   

[Aetherous]

9 minutes ago, windwalker said:

This covers what I think

 

"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."

 

So, no limitations on free speech at all?

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

So, no limitations on free speech at all?

 

Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973).

[windwalker]

4 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

So, no limitations on free speech at all?

Quote

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes

 

any categories   missed?

Edited August 14, 2017 by windwalker

[Aetherous]

3 minutes ago, ralis said:

Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973).

 

In that case, I'm wrong about racist rallies...they're protected so long as it's not a direct (and imminent and likely) threat against another race.

[windwalker]

8 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

In that case, I'm wrong about racist rallies...they're protected so long as it's not a direct (and imminent and likely) threat against another race.

 

 

why not say what you really mean,,, Is it all racist rallies or only some racist rallies maybe the ones one agrees with.

Be honest, with yourself and those reading.   

 

Lets try something is the BLM movement racist. 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by windwalker

[ralis]

8 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

In that case, I'm wrong about racist rallies...they're protected so long as it's not a direct (and imminent and likely) threat against another race.

 

Remember the KKK march in Illinois years ago in a predominate Jewish area. The court gave them a go ahead. 

[Aetherous]

15 minutes ago, windwalker said:

why not say what you really mean,,, Is it all racist rallies or only some racist rallies maybe the ones one agrees with.

Be honest, with yourself and those reading.   

 

Lets try something is the BLM movement racist. 

 

Yes, it is.

[windwalker]

3 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Yes, it is.

good an honest and simple answer.

 

I hope next time someone starts a thread  with 

Quote

Neo-nazis and white nationalists could be committing crimes when marching and publicly sharing their views. 

addressing free speech and hate groups.

 

The BLM is also included along with the antifa 

equal opportunity and all. 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by windwalker

[ralis]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

Any ideology should be allowed to be thought and to be spoken -- even that most vile of all, oligarchical collectivism by any name.  Rhetoric discussing beliefs and philosophies and principles is quite different from rhetoric actually calling for or inciting violence and the latter is already criminal, although we see it is not evenly enforced.  Uniform enforcement of the law is critical.

 

I have a lot of Jewish friends who would vehemently disagree with you. A good friend of mine who is also Jewish was in the army in WWII and was wounded twice. And, given that he was raised in France, he was asked to translate for the Nuremberg Tribunals. I would submit that he has a much different perspective than most.