Hate Speech

[AndreusMaximus]

They should be allowed to say whatever they want. They just don't have the right to lock down a campus, threaten people and things like that in furtherance with their stupidity. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want.

Very true. Clearing out these "protesters" isn't directly related to free speech when they are being arrested for trespass, vandalism, etc. I'm instead referring to comments I've seen suggesting that anyone who expresses support for Hamas should be treated as a terrorist.

 

[DadSmith]

Very true. Clearing out these "protesters" isn't directly related to free speech when they are being arrested for trespass, vandalism, etc. I'm instead referring to comments I've seen suggesting that anyone who expresses support for Hamas should be treated as a terrorist.

Aiding and abetting?

To my knowledge is illegal already.
Aiding and abetting isn't that assisting or encouraging another person to commit a crime. In this case murder, rape, etc...

 

[wtburnette]

Very true. Clearing out these "protesters" isn't directly related to free speech when they are being arrested for trespass, vandalism, etc. I'm instead referring to comments I've seen suggesting that anyone who expresses support for Hamas should be treated as a terrorist.

Well, again I go with, you can say what you want but being able to do so shouldn't shield you from repercussions. If you speak in support of a group that is deemed a terrorist organization, it doesn't bother me to see you also labelled as a terrorist or traitor. I think those are separate issues.

 

[Shadow01]

No don’t regulate speech. Those speaking also need to know that speaking does at times carry consequences.

typically consequences help those that need to “self” regulate their own speech.

 

[HoughMade]

Very true. Clearing out these "protesters" isn't directly related to free speech when they are being arrested for trespass, vandalism, etc. I'm instead referring to comments I've seen suggesting that anyone who expresses support for Hamas should be treated as a terrorist.

If one believes these nut-job students should be punished for their uninformed and prejudiced support of Palestine, you don't believe in free speech.

However, the principle of free speech is fully compatible with viewpoint-neutral, reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner....which has been a constitutional standard for a long time. This means that trespassing, disruption, etc. can be punished....as long as someone expressing a different viewpoint, doing the same things, would likewise be punished.

 

[jwamplerusa]

suggesting that anyone who expresses support for Hamas should be treated as a terrorist.

If all you do is say "I support Hamas" of course you should not be treated as a terrorist. I may disagree with you and think you are an idiot but this is America and you are free to be an idiot.

However it is very few of these subversives and communists, that limit themselves to that degree of speech. No, they are often calling for the obliteration of Israel ( from the river to the Sea) and even direct calls for violence toward or the death of those of the Jewish faith. These things are terroristic threats, and when combined with a statement of support for Hamas, indicate support for a terrorist designated organization.

As with all things, it is not the sound bite but the totality of the circumstances in the sum of the speech in context to its use.

So to be blunt, the little commie b******* with their "liberated" camps often on college campuses holding up their signs with communist organizations at the bottom of them; calling for the elimination of Israel and the death of all Jews are terrorists. When they profess support for Hamas they are terrorists supporting a designated terrorist organization. So yes, every one of them should be treated as such.

These are simply communist apparatchik useful idiots attempting to undermine the rule of law by daring the law to be enforced.

You would have thought we would have learned as a nation after the last few times to not permit this s*** to continue. Apply the rule of law blindly and equally, have few laws, and enforce them rigorously. There are laws against intimidation, threatening violence, trespass, and assault. If the law is not going to do its job, then you end up with e UCLA students who are actually acting like American citizens having to take that responsibility on themselves. Sadly many of them acting in defense of their Nation will be pilloried for doing so.

 

[wtburnette]

If one believes these nut-job students should be punished for their uninformed and prejudiced support of Palestine, you don't believe in free speech.

However, the principle of free speech is fully compatible with viewpoint-neutral, reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner....which has been a constitutional standard for a long time. This means that trespassing, disruption, etc. can be punished....as long as someone expressing a different viewpoint, doing the same things, would likewise be punished.

For idiot students, I agree. For paid agitators shipped in, that's another story.

 

[HoughMade]

For idiot students, I agree. For paid agitators shipped in, that's another story.

It depends upon what the "agitators" are doing. Everyone has the right to free speech regardless of whether they are amateurs or professionals.

 

[wtburnette]

It depends upon what the "agitators" are doing. Everyone has the right to free speech regardless of whether they are amateurs or professionals.

Yeah, agreed. I meant more in lines with the repercussions part for doing more than speaking.

 

[phylodog]

When lies become too difficult to sell, it’s of great benefit to silence the truth.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

When lies become too difficult to sell, it’s of great benefit to silence the truth.

These agitators are selling lies. Saying that the Palestinians are oppressed victims is a lie, unless it's in the context of being oppressed by Hamas. But they chose Hamas to rule them, so that's on them.

 

[phylodog]

These agitators are selling lies. Saying that the Palestinians are oppressed victims is a lie, unless it's in the context of being oppressed by Hamas. But they chose Hamas to rule them, so that's on them.

Mine wasn't a comment about Hamas, Palestine or the protests. It's about any and all attempts at stifling free speech.

 

[Shadow01]

This is not an issue for law and law enforcement. Time for them to step back and maybe the community will find an acceptable solution that the community likes best.

 

[Brad69]

Has anyone mentioned “fighting words” ?

I walk up to you and say I am gonna kick your A$$ and then eat your brains.

Is that free speech ?

 

[Tombs]

Aiding and abetting?

To my knowledge is illegal already.
Aiding and abetting isn't that assisting or encouraging another person to commit a crime. In this case murder, rape, etc...

You can talk in support of ISIS if you want to, that's perfectly fine and protected speech. (Might not be able to get a clearance or some government jobs after that)

What you can't do is kill people in their name, threaten to kill people in their name, or send them money/weapons.
It doesn't matter if ISIS threatens to kill people, it matters if you do.

As far as "encouraging," that line gets blurry very quick. While legally strictly illegal, in practice it seems highly contextual.

It's kind of funny now that I think about it because I often hear that financial contribution is speech, when that is strictly forbidden in the case above.

 

[Tombs]

Has anyone mentioned “fighting words” ?

I walk up to you and say I am gonna kick your A$$ and then eat your brains.

Is that free speech ?

Did you intend to take those actions, and(or) instill fear/action into the individual you targeted with them? Did the targeted individual take those statements seriously and act accordingly?

There's some nuance there and to how the law gets applied that isn't necessarily in the hard text of the law.

I'd wager it'd be unlikely to be legally escalated beyond you getting a talking to and potentially an assault charge. Now if the individual took you seriously and defended themselves with lethal force, that'd basically be what the entire trial was about.

I'm not a lawyer but I've watched an awful lot of court cases play out that come pretty close to exactly this kind of situation. It seems to get treated to a less severe level of threat than combining it with aggressive actions. It certainly seems to exist on a scale. Generally seems to be handled with common sense in mind.

As you can see it starts departing pretty heavily from just speech by the time it's into legally actionable territory.

 

[Mij]

Should "hate speech" be regulated?

What is "hate speech"?

I HATE YOU!!!, Now go ahead and regulate the ************* out of that.

Stand back and see if I care.


Hey guys that’s purple for those with blinders

 

[Mij]

Has anyone mentioned “fighting words” ?

I walk up to you and say I am gonna kick your A$$ and then eat your brains.

Is that free speech ?

I’m 7 decades on this planet, I’m gonna give you your opportunity.

Don’t know **** about the legal definition of free speech. That’s been adjudicated many times in the past.

I’m fairly sure the OP was about hate speech. Maybe I lost track along the way.

 

[Mij]

Seems I’m having technical difficulties, my I pad is off about a few hours or pages since the TV guy was here. Let me look into this! My router may be having issues.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

When you give someone the power to silence speech that you don’t like, you’ve also given them the power to silence speech that you do like.