‘Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,’ Portland mayor says. He’s wrong.
48 replies, posted
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/hate-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-oregon-mayor-says-hes-wrong/?utm_term=.221a6a90a24b[/url]
[QUOTE]His concern is that the two rallies, both scheduled in June, will escalate an already volatile situation in Portland by peddling “a message of hatred and of bigotry.” Although the organizers of the rallies have a constitutional right to speak, “hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” Wheeler told reporters.
But history and precedent are not on Wheeler's side.
[B]The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech, no matter how bigoted or offensive, is free speech.[/B][/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/portlands-mayor-is-dangerously-wrong-about-free-speech/2017/05/31/3655115e-463f-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?utm_term=.dab33765ffe3[/url]
[QUOTE]“OUR CITY is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation.” So said Portland, Ore., Mayor Ted Wheeler in explaining why — in the aftermath of the deaths of two good Samaritans — controversial rallies planned for this month shouldn’t be held. Mr. Wheeler’s concern for the raw feelings of his community is understandable, [B]but he is completely off-base in trying to block the planned rallies and dangerously wrong in his reading of the U.S. Constitution.[/B][/QUOTE]
I live 30 minutes north of Portland, so it doesn't really affect me but it's kind of funny how he's worried about these protests but not the nuttys who were running rampant in the streets and vandalizing [I]his[/I] city following the election...
I really do empathize with his idealism but the truth is that unless the 1st Amendment is literally changed, hate speech has been ruled by the Supreme Court as protected and there is nothing legally defensible about what he's doing.
[QUOTE=antair;52300097]I really do empathize with his idealism but the truth is that unless the 1st Amendment is literally changed, hate speech has been ruled by the Supreme Court as protected and there is nothing legally defensible about what he's doing.[/QUOTE]
I agree, it's disgusting I wish these people weren't allowed to do it. But his comments are nothing short of ignorant. The Westboro baptist church cock suckers have been around for years and I highly doubt he hasn't heard of them.
Gotta be amazed that someone can be in an elected office like that and still not know how the 1st amendment works.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52300111]Gotta be amazed that someone can be in an elected office like that and still not know how the 1st amendment works.[/QUOTE]
There are a fair few politicians who are ignorant of such things. One of them is even president.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52300072]
I live 30 minutes north of Portland, so it doesn't really affect me but it's kind of funny how he's worried about these protests but not the nuttys who were running rampant in the streets and vandalizing [I]his[/I] city following the election...[/QUOTE]
Disrupt j20 was a fucking blunder, but you can't honestly believe that holding an alt right rally to stir shit up over a double homicide is a sensible idea, can you? This is how you end up with bike lock attacks.
[QUOTE=Scarabix;52300136]Disrupt j20 was a fucking blunder, but you can't honestly believe that holding an alt right rally to stir shit up over a double homicide is a sensible idea, can you? This is how you end up with bike lock attacks.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52300107]I agree, it's disgusting I wish these people weren't allowed to do it.[/QUOTE]
No, I actually don't think it's a sensible idea.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52300111]Gotta be amazed that someone can be in an elected office like that and still not know how the 1st amendment works.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, pretty amazing that someone who doesn't know his own country constitution manages to get into power, huh. Kinda reminds of you someone, doesn't it?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52300120]There are a fair few politicians who are ignorant of such things. One of them is even president.[/QUOTE]
Not trying to protect him or anything, but what has he done to change or revoke the first amendment? (honest question)
[QUOTE=Scarabix;52300136]Disrupt j20 was a fucking blunder, but you can't honestly believe that holding an alt right rally to stir shit up over a double homicide is a sensible idea, can you? This is how you end up with bike lock attacks.[/QUOTE]
Yo I hate these psuedo-nazis as much as the next decent human, but "this is how you end up with bike lock attacks" is danger close to victim blaming
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52300170]Not trying to protect him or anything, but what has he done to change or revoke the first amendment? (honest question)[/QUOTE]
He didn't say he tried to change the first amendment he said he disregarded our laws with his executive orders and got his shit slapped by the judicial system over it pay attention please.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52300111]Gotta be amazed that someone can be in an elected office like that and still not know how the 1st amendment works.[/QUOTE]
because as we all know, your first priority for political representatives is knowledge of the law
you would never support an ignorant buffoon, right
[QUOTE=froztshock;52300182]He didn't say he tried to change the first amendment he said he disregarded our laws with his executive orders and got his shit slapped by the judicial system over it pay attention please.[/QUOTE]
Okay you're right, I could have worded that differently.
[QUOTE=froztshock;52300182]He didn't say he tried to change the first amendment he said he disregarded our laws with his executive orders and got his shit slapped by the judicial system over it pay attention please.[/QUOTE]
I mean trump has expressed his desire to make it easier to sue media companies for publishing content he thinks is false on multiple occasions
but see when trump wants to punish speech he doesn't like, he's a patriot standing up for the truth. When this guy wants to punish speech he doesn't like, he's an authoritarian leftist attacking free speech. A subtle and easy to miss distinction.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52300170]Not trying to protect him or anything, but what has he done to change or revoke the first amendment? (honest question)[/QUOTE]
just last week they were talking about neutering it dude
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52300238]just last week they were talking about neutering it dude[/QUOTE]
That's very vague.. Could you link an article? Was there a FP thread on it?
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52300255]That's very vague.. Could you link an article? Was there a FP thread on it?[/QUOTE]
Yes there was.
[url]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/priebus-trump-considering-amending-or-abolishing-1st-amendment[/url]
Source isn't important because this is just quotes from the guys with the mouths themselves.
[editline]1st June 2017[/editline]
So "FAKE NEWS" is enough justification for this president to maybe do something about the first amendment
but Obama being called literally a foreign muslim invader wasn't enough for him to do anything of the sort.
You wonder who really has the thin skin
Here in canada we have limits like not being able to call genocide upon certain groups. You should get some like that if you don't have any.
[QUOTE=01271;52300300]Here in canada we have limits like not being able to call genocide upon certain groups. You should get some like that if you don't have any.[/QUOTE]
Nah, I'm good, thanks.
[QUOTE=01271;52300300]Here in canada we have limits like not being able to call genocide upon certain groups. You should get some like that if you don't have any.[/QUOTE]
No, we shouldn't. Freedom of speech should be limited as little as possible.
[QUOTE=01271;52300300]Here in canada we have limits like not being able to call genocide upon certain groups. You should get some like that if you don't have any.[/QUOTE]
America has that too... so does practically every 1st world country..
there's a difference between hate speech and [b]incitement[/b]. A Muslim cleric for example, saying "non-believers deserve to be slaughtered" is quite different to saying "i want all of you to go out tomorrow and kill a non-believer"
[quote]
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees free speech, and the degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected,[B] but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected.[/B]
[/quote]
[QUOTE=matt000024;52300585]No, we shouldn't. Freedom of speech should be limited as little as possible.[/QUOTE]
I think USA needs stricter policying and/or enforcement regarding hate speech than any other first world country.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52300725]I think USA needs stricter policying and/or enforcement regarding hate speech than any other first world country.[/QUOTE]
Why and what exactly would you ban?
[QUOTE=matt000024;52300863]Why and what exactly would you ban?[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see more action taken against public statements that demean people or groups of people on the basis of their faith, skin colour, ethnicity or sexuality. Things that have historically been the basis for inequality and oppression.
[editline]1st June 2017[/editline]
Now realistically I'm not sure how much you could do, with the american justice system being what it is.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52300882]I'd like to see more action taken against public statements that demean people or groups of people on the basis of their faith, skin colour, ethnicity or sexuality. Things that have historically been the basis for inequality and oppression.
[editline]1st June 2017[/editline]
Now realistically I'm not sure how much you could do, with the american justice system being what it is.[/QUOTE]
What help would that be? It would just make racists an oppressed minority and empower them even more causing violence.
[QUOTE=matt000024;52300913]What help would that be? It would just make racists an oppressed minority and empower them even more causing violence.[/QUOTE]
Make racists an oppressed minority? I don't see the issue, nor do I see how it empowers them by making them cause even more violence. Short-term maybe, but relieving society of toxic hate speech isn't a bad thing long-term, atleast not if you go by most european countries.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52300941]Make racists an oppressed minority? I don't see the issue, nor do I see how it empowers them by making them cause even more violence. Short-term maybe, but relieving society of toxic hate speech isn't a bad thing long-term, atleast not if you go by most european countries.[/QUOTE]
But what defines "toxic hate speech?" Would BLM saying "Kill all white men" be considered hate speech, making them a hate organization, or would it only be the KKK saying "Lynch the blacks?" And who gets to define it? What happens when the government decides that anything that embarrasses or defames the government is "toxic hate speech?"
The reasons that hate speech is protected is because its definition is not solid, it's very vague and constantly changing, as well as constantly being manipulated for political gain. "Feminism is cancer" is considered hate speech by some, as is frankly any criticism of BLM, Islam, or feminism, and a strict law banning "hate speech" would stifle well-deserved criticism of many things because it can be very easily manipulated, especially if it's applied equally (as it should be if it's enacted).
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52300975]But what defines "toxic hate speech?" Would BLM saying "Kill all white men" be considered hate speech, making them a hate organization, or would it only be the KKK saying "Lynch the blacks?" And who gets to define it? What happens when the government decides that anything that embarrasses or defames the government is "toxic hate speech?"[/quote]
Both of those statements, made by either one would be considered hate speech yes. But here's where it gets muddy;
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan[/url]
BLM wouldn't be, or atleast not nearly as easily classified as a hate organization as say KKK which is built upon white premacy and has a long history of such activity. Legislating against hate speech has to be a long process where multiple authorities and advisors are involved, as there should never be the case that the government can just suddenly decide that the government itself is a protected group - that shouldn't be legally possible.
[quote]The reasons that hate speech is protected is because its definition is not solid, it's very vague and constantly changing, as well as constantly being manipulated for political gain. "Feminism is cancer" is considered hate speech by some, as is frankly any criticism of BLM, Islam, or feminism, and a strict law banning "hate speech" would stifle well-deserved criticism of many things because it can be very easily manipulated, especially if it's applied equally (as it should be if it's enacted).[/QUOTE]
Yes the general "dictionary" definition of hate speech can be vague and change constantly, that is true, but look at the legislation in select countries in europe and you'll find that actually the definition is very narrow and only applies when relevant. It doesn't have to be total free speech or shut down anyone who says anything offensive, there can be an inbetween, and as far as I'm concerned the USA is way to far down the "our free speech is sacred" path.
[QUOTE=matt000024;52300913]What help would that be? It would just make racists an oppressed minority and empower them even more causing violence.[/QUOTE]
I'm not necessarily arguing for hate speech laws ala European countries, but this doesn't really seem to be a problem in those places.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52301069]I'm not necessarily arguing for hate speech laws ala European countries, but this doesn't really seem to be a problem in those places.[/QUOTE]
The problems we have instead are what I like to call "PC racists", basically movements/parties/organizations with roots in nazism, white supremacy, anti-semitism and all of that but they pussyfoot around the rules by never admitting to it and twisting words with implications. Kinda like holocaust deniers, or revisionists as they prefer to be called.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.