Thought/Speech police

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Thought/Speech police

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Thought/Speech police

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Thought/Speech police - 12/14/2015 3:11:26 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/department-justice-anti-muslim-hate-speech/story?id=35585946

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged that the Department of Justice will go after hate speech that might incite violence against the Muslim community, she told a crowd of Muslim-Americans and supporters Thursday night.

http://www.snopes.com/fyf911-black-lives-matter/

While it's true that King Noble threatened police officers in these videos and claimed that an attack would occur in Stone Mountain, Georgia on 11 September 2015, these videos are not associated with the Black Lives Matter movement.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm

In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."

In 1988, the Supreme Court considered a jury award of damages against Hustler Magazine for publishing a malicious and untrue story about Rev. Jerry Falwell. The piece, labeled in small print "a parody," stated that Falwell's first sexual encounter was with his mother while drunk in an outhouse. A Virginia jury concluded that the Hustler piece constituted "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and awarded $150,000 to Falwell. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the award, saying that it saw no principled basis for distinguishing the Hustler article from hard-hitting political cartoons and other speech clearly worthy of First Amendment protection. The Court distinguished the sort of character assassination practiced by Hustler from the face-to-face insult threatening an immediate breach of the peace that was in issue in Chaplinsky.

American Booksellers v Hudnut (1986) involved a First Amendment challenge to an Indianapolis civil rights ordinance that made it a crime to distribute materials that depicted women as "sexual objects for domination, conquest, or use." The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the ordinance calling it "thought control." The Court ruled that the First Amendment gives government no power to establish "approved views" of various subgroups of the population.

R. A. V. considered a challenge to a St. Paul ordinance punishing the placement of certain symbols that were "likely to arouse anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race, religion, or gender." Robert Victoria, a teenager, had been convicted of violating the ordinance after having been found to have burned a cross on the yard of a black family. The Court, in an an opinion by Justice Scalia, reversed R. A. V.'s conviction on the ground that the ordinance unconstitutionally criminalized some hurtful expression (specifically that aimed at racial and religious minorites) and not other hurtful expression (that aimed at other unprotected groups) based on the political preferences of legislators. Scalia makes clear that "fighting words" is not, as Chaplinsky had suggested, a category of speech that is wholly outside of First Amendment protection.

A year after R. A. V., the Supreme Court unanimously upheld, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, a statute that imposed stiffer sentences for racially-motivated assaults than for other types of assaults. The Court reasoned that the statute did not violate the First Amendment because it was aimed primarily at regulating conduct, not speech.

In Virginia v Black (2003), the Court divided on the question of whether a state could prohibit cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate. A majority of the Court concluded that, because cross-burning has a history as a "particularly virulent form of intimidation," Virginia could prohibit that form of expression while not prohibiting other types of intimidating expression. Thus, the majority found the cross-burning statute to fall within one of R. A. V.'s exceptions to the general rule that content-based prohibitions on speech violate the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the Court reversed the Virginia cross-burner's conviction because of a jury instruction that might produce convictions of cross-burners whose motivation was ideological--and not an attempt to arouse fear. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that cross-burning is conduct, not expression, and therefore its suppression does not raise serious First Amendment issues.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/opinion/parini-evangelical-college-clubs/index.html

For the most part, conservative groups on campuses simply wish to study the Bible together, pray and worship in ways that deepen their own sense of Godliness. These groups welcome nonbelievers.

They might even let someone like myself -- a Christian of a different stripe -- sit down and discuss their views. A campus is, or ought to be, a space where contradictory ideas are allowed to flourish, where genuine and deeply respectful debate can occur.

I would urge colleges and universities to give these kids their keys back. Let them elect officers in their organization who actually adhere to the ideas promoted by the group. That's the essence of democracy.

As long as these groups don't practice hatred or discrimination, or try to impose their views on others, let them be.

Based upon the first post where the DOJ "might incite violence," I suggest that we reexamine this. There are some here that refer to others as "nutsuckers." Is this not a slight against both conservatives (the context generally used) but both males and females regardless of politics that physically perform the act?

"Political correctness" is another example. I have those that demand a citation for my and those of others personal beliefs. It is as if our thoughts can not be ours but must belong to someone else. We have all been told at one time or another that our citations, when used, are invalid. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, PBS, BBC, AP, and on and on are invalid. Why, because the "thought/speech police" say so, at least in my opinion.

If we use the DOJ standard of "might incite violence" as a standard, then why did we ever let the public know about 9/11/11 or 12/7/45? Both dates definately incited violence.

Where in the Constitution does the first amendment say that thought or speech, no matter how repugnant, hinges solely upon thought or speech unless there is an act involved beyond those thoughts or the speech? And yes, I know things like yelling fire in a crowded room is speech but that speech created the act and comspiracy to conduct an act is a part of the criminal code.