Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 4 months ago in NewsAs more countries move to ban or restrict hate speech, some legal scholars say the U.S. should reconsider the broad scope of First Amendment protection.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 144
-
0%
NeoCon4 months ago
"..the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech." Living in the Netherlands I can tell you how disappointed I am that you are not permitted to speak your mind or even the truth about Islam, or other issues, as they might "upset society". Papers here are very careful not to say anything negative as it might be constructed as hate speech. This is typical leftwing socialist thinking. They would rather have people as gagged clogs in a machine unable to express real opinions and speak the truth while their democracy crumbles around their ears. This could very well happen in the US, under the dems, and their left wing cry for political correctness. The United States is the only country in the world with real Freedom of Speech. Lets hope that Americans are forever vigilant against attempts to destroy our most basic individual liberty.
Reply-
0%
dwemm4 months ago
Sorry, Neo, but the article was about Canada...the McLean's article that was the subject of the NY Times article was excepted from a book published by Regnery Press.
Part of the issue with free speech (and free press, in this case) is that the speaker has a right to express his/her own opinion, but also should expect that a critical view will shred that opinion by means of fact and argument. I think that's why I like Propeller-it's a nexus of the ability to reply to the opposition. Not only allowed, but expected.
Reply -
0%
Daylight4 months ago
NeoCon
"..the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech." Living in the Netherlands I can tell you how disappointed I am that you are not permitted to speak your mind or even the truth about Islam,
NeoCon can you tell me the truth about Islam you discovered after 1425 years of your research. I hope you can give me some references from the Qur'an and other traditions, make sure that is your own findings. Most of the people are quoting from the Zionist propaganda sites, I think you don't even know any of those sites ever existed. So you need to insult and make hate speeches against Islam that is your freedom of expression? I think you are just paranoid.
Reply
-
-
0%
amazed4 months ago
FTA::
But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections "in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism." In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court's insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.
Mr. Lewis wrote that there was "genuinely dangerous" speech that did not meet the imminence requirement.
Why is there surprised expressed that a liberal favors the curtailing of free speech? They've been at it for years -- first with "politically correct speech" -- people can no longer be "disabled" they must be "challenged" -- and once everyone tumbles to what that means they'll be another -- because disabled replaced handicapped which replaced crippled, etc.
Reply-
0%
walden34 months ago
You ever been locked up in a "Free Speech Zone?" If you're familiar with them do you have an opinion?
Any opinion on the Bush gag order that prohibits doctors for poor people from speaking freely with their patients?
Reply-
0%
amazed4 months ago
yeah, their all ridiculous, wrong and scary -- but don't forget, it was the democrats that caused the riots at their '68 convention trying to suppress the antiwar protesters.
And the democratic convention in 2004 ALSO made use of those ridiculous "free speech zones".
If you go through the archives, I am sure you won't find me saying anything even remotely supportive of them.
But, what's YOUR take on suppressing "hate speech"? Since, you seem to think that I must be in favor of those republican gaffes, you MUST be in favor of PC speech as well.
I have stated repeatedly that while I consider myself to be more conservative, I'm not too fond of the republicans, either.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
amazed4 months ago
Perhaps the reason there are no comments is that they are all being sent to cyberspace.
I just posted a comment that posted some of the more terrifying of the comments from a Mr. Lewis, a liberal scholar (I think) who reviewed a book about the first amendment.
He states that the Europeans and the Canadians have the right idea -- that this is plenty of speech that is too dangerous to allow even if it doesn't immediately incite violence.
I have no idea where that comment went (maybe it will turn up on this site later), but I find it quite terrifying that we have moved from a place where more radical liberals have moved from insisting on the use of PC labels for all groups of people, to hate crime legislation (the beginnings of thought crimes) to just openly calling for the curtailing of the 1st amendment.
Of course, they've been going after the 2nd amendment for years...
meanwhile, many conservative types assault the 4th amendment...
Reply-
-
0%
memestryker4 months ago
amazed, That's what concerns me--both major parties are nibbling away at the constitution through executive rulemaking, legislation at all levels, and the judiciary at all levels. SCOTUS has driven the final stake in the hearts of a number of rights advocated by both parties.
Twight wrote a good article in the Spring 2008 Independent Review, although it has a leftist bias and doesn't include the efforts to stem free speech and abrogate the right to keep and bear arms coming from the left.
Reply
-
-
0%
walden34 months ago
"The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Justice Lewis.
I agree. More free speech is better. Allow speech to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Forced silence will not win converts. If you don't like what someone says then counter it with your own ideas.
I like the test we have in place now about inciting imminent violence.
Reply -
-
0%
memestryker4 months ago
I mentioned Twight's article in the Independent Review earlier. One can easily extrapolate to how things might play out with all of the constitution as lawmakers tinker with it over time. Bill Clinton said "we have too much freedom" and George W. Bush said "it's just a d*mn piece of paper.
Both Obama and McCain are well known for sponsoring endless bills to infringe on rights. I especially fear Obama, who has been very cozy with the U.N. withd their efforts to end free speech and disarm global citizens.
I would really hate to see the U.S. fall or succumb to socialism or fascism or even end up in a civil war, and abridging constitutional rights could take us closer to that. It's so unnecessary. I do think the constitution is worth preserving.
Reply
-
-
0%
Bkumm4 months ago
I can think of no circumstance that would lead me to support restrictions on the First Amendment other than those noted below:
speech leading to violence or damage of property (inciting to riot)
speech (written or spoken) advocating violence against a specific group based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference or political orientation. (I may have missed some).
That's it. And even those restrictions are up for debate.
Reply -
0%
TheNewsseeker4 months ago
Naturally, freedom of speech is one of the highest democratic values. As long as it takes place at the verbal level, very much can and must be tolerated. But there is one great danger lying in this relaxed view: words are not seldom followed by deeds! When there are tendencies in some European countries to be more restrictive concerning e.g. islamistic speeches of hatred, extremely right-wing or nationalistic utterances, one will find the reasons in history. It is very difficult here, to come to a balanced reaction. From my point of view, the US can afford a more tolerant and fearless policy, because they did not really take part in some bitter experiences, other (especially European) countries had to go through.
Reply-
0%
nostalgia4 months ago
That may be true but as the article notes:
"Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep."
Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Brigitte Bardot been an animal welfare or animal rights activist for years?
She also started a foundation that fights to defend animal rights, didn't she?
So under European laws you can't speak out about animal rights if it might "offend" some group?
How would Bardot make out in court if she tried to sue the Muslim groups for performing a ceremony she found offensive?
Reply-
0%
memestryker4 months ago
The French welcome Islamists, but try to persecute other religions. This is just bias and fear. They aren't afraid of Bardot, but they are intimidated by the Muslims.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dwemm4 months ago
And that's just why the only "hate speech" codes allowed past the courts have been added-value ones in terms of sentencing. The law can only prosecute actions that can be proven to cause harm.
You should be free to call someone you disagree with an idiot. Idiots should have the civil right to sue if they take offense at someone so dispicable using their names in vain.
Reply
-
-
0%
DropkickaLib4 months ago
I disagree. I think the reason that the U.S. has not had so the same experience as Europeans is because of our open society. If an issue is so contentious that people are tempted to get violent over it, all the more reason to have an unedited public discourse on the matter.
Reply
-
-
0%
joeblowe4 months ago
"The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world." - this seems to be a fair summary of the article. Here, in the U.S., we would prefer NOT to let the damn government decide FOR US what we are allowed to think or say. I would submit that all the other countries mentioned who DO let their governments dictate what they may - or may not - think or say have allowed their government WAY too much power. If we don't start taking our own government back here, and soon, we may find ourselves similarly unable to express ourselves as we choose. All should perhaps keep in mind that as far as language goes, IT CHANGES. Things that you just simply CANNOT say aloud today for fear of getting cold stares were perfectly acceptable 40 or 50 years ago. And even "ni-gg-ah" (even propeller CENSORS things) is acceptable if uttered by certain groups to others within the group. Should those people be arrested and tried?
Reply-
-
0%
ZippySpincycle4 months ago
Walden, I think that has more to do with the spinelessness of TV networks than with "political correctness." They don't want to run anything that includes thought.
Reply
-
-
0%
dwemm4 months ago
Sorry, joeblowe, but the "cold stares" are free speech too. They're just not said out loud. And they're part of the debate over the issue.
Reply
-
