It’s that time of the week, when Queerty takes a break from the opinion-making and puts you, the readers, in charge. Each Friday, we invite you to be the pundit on a hot-button question facing the LGBT community and its allies. As always, we expect people to be respectful and considerate of others by refraining from personal attacks. We present the information, you make the decision.
This week, Westboro Baptist Minister Fred Phelps was denied entry into the United Kingdom after promising to protest a production of The Laramie Project. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Utah State Senator Chris Buttars is allowed to gleefully compare gays to Muslim terrorists and say we’re the biggest threat facing the country.
Over 20 countries have laws against various forms of hate speech, arguing that they represent real and demonstrative injury, but in the U.S., free speech is protected more so than any other country on Earth, considered part of that whole “rich tradition of democracy” thing.
Widely misattributed to Voltaire, the declaration “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a lot harder to stand behind when the things being said are that you are less than human, void of morals and a threat to the country. Still it seems ironic that you can be arrested in Germany for advocating Nazi beliefs or that in homogeneous Iceland you can be arrested simply for saying something racist publicly.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The flip side of the argument is that pervasive culture of intolerance makes it all the easier for homophobic violence to happen. Doesn’t a culture that tolerates intolerance implicitly endorse it? Where do we draw the line?
As people who are all too often victims of the last socially acceptable bigotry, we put it to you: Should hate speech be outlawed?
ZJ
I oppose the concept of separating any kind of free speech and categorizing it as hate speech, because as soon as this line has been crossed, it will also become possible for homophobes to declare our own speech against them to be illegal “hate speech”. This cuts both ways, and it is not guaranteed to always work in our favor. Given the risk, I would prefer that we don’t cross this line in the first place.
Olive Yurdich
No.
God hates Baptists.
Baptists die, God laughs.
porsha
Mr. Phelps, imo, is mentally deficient. Any person who understands common sense, and has seen or heard of this man and his crew, would have to feel sorry for him and those around him who will spend the rest of their lives suffering because of his actions and beliefs. I refuse to fall into his trap and give-in to the very ‘hate’ he espouses. I do not propose to know what, if anything, God hates. Recognizing Phelps as suffering a mental derangement is about as judgmental as I care to go, and I do not wish to be there when he reaches the gate!
ksu499
Hate speech is in the ear of the listener, which makes banning it a very dangerous thing. What you may hear as “hate speech” I may hear simply as an opinion with which I disagree. Unless you are calling for the actual physical harming of another, it is much better for all opinions to be out in the marketplace of ideas. The marketplace has a very good record of identifying the nuts. You will never silence every opinion with which you disagree and for the sake of the American republic, neither should you try.
getreal
I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it- I can’t remember who said it but I absolutely agree.People have a first amendment right to free speech. Even if they are wrong. Even if we don’t like what they are saying.
DavidiNSeaTtle
Yes hate speech laws should be enacted in the U.S. Hate speech is a sign of immaturity and ignorance and words do mame.
Canada has hate speech laws and they work well.
However, if we were to enact hate speech laws, I would extend it to religions and not make them an exception as Canada has.
Most discriminitory hate speech is religious based. If I had my way, I would outlaw Christianity until the Bible had been comletely edited of all it’s hate speech and separation tactics.
We are heading into a new world, of which it no longer fits.
Jaroslaw
Well KSU, “harming another” isn’t that what the hate speech ordinances are about? I know there are exceptions, the world is a big place; but by and large that is what I thought they were about. Alternately, perhaps if assault laws were enforced, it wouldn’t be necessary. (All I ever hear about is assault AND battery – it takes the physical violence (the battery) to make the assault charge stick it seems).
If nothing else, though, I like the concept of banning hate speech because the dicussion about it raises awareness; and if you disagree there are always the courts.
And for those who oppose banning, consider this. The religious right likes to use the example of a minister in Sweden or Norway who was supposedly silenced for teaching the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuals. He harped on it at his church. He put it in his newsletters. He no doubt spoke to people on the street. Then he wrote a letter to the newspaper. He WANTED a reaction. In other words he wouldn’t quit harping on it UNTIL it became a controversy.
But of course, the religious right here was being disingenous, by only telling part of the story. He made some very vulgar comparisons to us with pedophiles, and (Gays) are sex obsessed and will even rape animals, etc. THAT is what got him in trouble, not just quoting the Bible.
And ultimately that country’s supreme court overruled the conviction. But it was a wonderful event to raise awareness.
Dave
No, hate speech should never be outlawed. We’re strong enough to take the bad with the good. And freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence or ridicule.
getreal
@DavidiNSeaTtle: See that is why freedom of speech is so important some people would consider your comments hate speech. It is all too subjective but it does illustrate a great point. Once we start censoring what people say we will start trying to censor what they think. I notice that you believe that hate speech should be outlawed but who would decide what hate speech is? I wish people would stop taking idiot fundamentalists word for it and crack the book open before you condemn it. There is almost nothing in the bible about homosexuality and prejudice. If you want to start deciding what thoughts are acceptable you are in the wrong country. People have a right to believe what they want period this is not a fascist country. If you think the bible is no longer necessary don’t read it but you don’t have the right to decide what has value for every person in this country.To use your words that would be immaturity and ignorance. I believe in God I have a right to my beliefs and you have a right to your I would never presume to try to force my beliefs on you. Stop judging hundreds of millions of people on what a stupid misguided segment of their population does that is prejudice.
Robert, NYC
Well, I think in some instances a ban on hate speech is warranted. Most of it, particularly coming from the mouths of religious cults such as Fred Phelps et al. Their kind of speech is so inflammatory that there are many in this country who see that as incitement to go out and physically harm or kill gay people. The Roman Catholic cult is also another protagonist if you listen to what the Rottweiler and ex-nazi in the Vatican has been saying lately. We are already seeing a rise in the amount of hate crimes based on sexual orientation or even a perceived gay orientation. I agree with others here, religion is often at the root of hate speech and discrimination. Maybe we should push for a removal of tax-exempt status of all religious cults. Why should they be exempt anyway? They collect money, receive donations and pay no taxes on it and get special breaks from unitilies companies. Its unfair and undemocratic. Further, I don’t want my tax dollars funding faith-based organizations either, the same organizations that call for my second class citizenship to be enshrined in the law.
Larry
I’ve always had a hard time with this one. On the one hand, the democratic side of me would say “no,” but the pragmatic side of me would say “yes, to an extent.”
The thing is, hate speech can lead to violence, but the hate speech of a powerful demagogue like Buttars is more likely to lead to violence than that of a weirdo like Phelps.
I think a good compromise is making it possible to prosecute people whose speech incites others to commit violence. If a preacher gives an anti-gay sermon, and one of his parishioners goes out and beats up a gay person, then the preacher should be prosecuted.
Regardless, one thing that needs to happen is a widespread acceptance of the fact that anti-gay speech is hate speech, whether it’s in the form of remarks by people like Buttars and Phelps or the “kinder, gentler” hate speech of “Well, I don’t hate homosexuals; I just think homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle.”
getreal
I’m black it should not be illegal for someone to call me a nigger. Should it be frowned upon yes I think so. Is it wrong I think so. But it is only my opinion which I have a right to however I don’t have the right to infringe. If someone feels I’m a nigger that is there feeling and feelings aren’t facts. I do not have the right to tell people what to say and feel.This is not Iran or some theocracy everyone deserve freedom even the prejudice morons.
getreal
I meant their
getreal
@Larry: When it leads to violence then it is illegal. And speech meant to incite violence already is illegal.
Darth Paul
Prohibition of any sort only strengthens and galvanizes that which is prohibited.
I have to agree with getreal completely here.
Larry
@getreal: I remember hearing that was the case in college, but I wasn’t completely sure. However, I think it’s only true if you explicitly suggest going out and hurting someone, right?
getreal
@Darth Paul: Prohibition of any sort only strengthens and galvanizes that which is prohibited.
Wow perfectly put in ONE sentence. Where can i learn to do that?
@Larry: They prosecuted some white supremacists for saying at a rally blacks should be killed after a group of teenagers who attended the rally murdered someone.
Chitown Kev
@getreal:
Yep, this should be the only limit to free speech.
But don’t go crying about your “persecution” or you “religious freedom” when I exercise freedom of speech.
getreal
@Chitown Kev: I did’nt cry persecution I appealed to a persons intelligence to not judge a large, diverse group of people on the sins of some. I was not crying anything. People have the right to say and think whatever they want. I have the right to ask someone who is being prejudiced to treat me with respect and they have the right to refuse.
Chitown Kev
No getreal, I am talking about the fundies who cry out persecution and religious freedom when the say some the vile things that they do. It was not directed at you, I should have been clear about that. My apologies.
Larry
@getreal: That seems reasonable enough to me… I would probably go a little further, though, and include even milder forms of hate speech. If Buttars had said what he said on TV in a church, and one of the parishioners went out and beat up a gay person, then I would say Buttars should be prosecuted. In other words, I wouldn’t limit it to speech that explicitly calls for violence.
Tallskin
“FAGS HATE GOD”
I think this is a tricky one. It is surely not a co-incidence that the most pro-gay societies (ie Western Europe) all have anti-Hate Speech legislation.
But the USA is also the most religious of all Western countries. And the most religious by a long distance.
So, what causes the problems for gays, the hate speech or the religiosity? Or does the religiosity lead to the hate speech?
I think it is fairly clear that religion leads to hatred of gays and, hence the hate speech!
But think of it this way. A society that bans hate speech against gays, is sending out a message that it values its gays. This is particularly important for gay teens trying to understand their place in the world.
Chitown Kev
One point though, if I am a business owner, I do have the obligation as an employer to determine what is or what is not appropriate speech in the office or the assembly line to foster a tolerant work enviroment.
In making the judgment of what is free speech, where I am can be as important as what I actually say.
Ted C.
Americans have interpreted “free speech” too broadly.
Free speech means the ability to criticize the government. It is a very important cornerstone of democracy, and the United States deserves praise for being the first country to put it in their constitution. Far too many countries today still don’t have that right. (In Singapore, there was a case where a member of the parliament was jailed for cricizing the government. And if the official opposition can’t criticize the government, then who can?)
But Americans have interpreted “free speech” as protecting everything from pornography to racism. They also confuse it with freedom of the press, which is a different important issue.
Hate speech laws are important because hate speech is so difficult to counter. Liberals like to think that everything can be solved with discussion and reason and the free exchange of ideas (which is why they like the Voltaire quote), but hate speech isn’t affected by reason. It’s based on hate and targets fear. Neither of those things are reasonable.
Hate speech is when Fred Phelps appears on TV and says that it’s a known fact that gays secretly like to fuck pigs and babies, and that they’re coming for your pigs and babies. Liberals think that they can counter this by running multi-million dollar PSAs showing friendly, smiling gay couples. But Fred Phelps has already won. When soccer mom goes to vote on Prop 8, in the back of her mind, she’s fearing for her baby. And pig.
Alexa
@getreal: “When it leads to violence then it is illegal. And speech meant to incite violence already is illegal.”
I don’t think the laws are strong enough. Too many people are allowed to get away with saying things that encourage others to violence, just because they aren’t explicit in their encouragement. Just expressing an opinion, however obnoxious, should be protected, but people should not be allowed to even hint at violence when they talk.
getreal
@Ted C.: I’ve been to Singapore beautiful country but would not want to live there. Our country was founded on the “idea of freedom” no offense but we don’t need someone from a country where people’s civil liberties are tightly controlled that we are “too” free. Yes we are free that is the point. If I was from a country where there were laws about where and when i can chew gum I would probably be uncomfortable with freedom too.
getreal
@Ted C.: Oops I misunderstood I thought you were saying you were from Singapore. I obviously have a bit of a bone to pick with the country.
getreal
@Alexa: I agree that inciting violence should be illegal. But yes obnoxious people have rights too. Case in point Olive Yurdich’s post. When they say it it’s evil when we say it it’s funny? I don’t understand the hypocrisy. It reminds me of a roommate I had in college who hated white people and felt completely justified being a complete and total bigot.White people are racist they hate me so I hate them. The fact is all white people didn’t hate her or do anything to her and she was judging them all by the ones who had hurt her. The fact is she was a racist jerk. All white people aren’t racist all christians aren’t evil. I know that Olive thought she was being clever I don’t. I don’t want to agree with Fred Phelps on anything and I don’t believe in hating a whole group of people be it a race, religion, or sexual orientation. I choose not to be a bigot no matter who hates me.
getreal
@Chitown Kev: Oops thanks
Sebbe
@Ted C. – Agree completely. I also agree that the interpretation of the first amendment has been taken to far.
@getreal – Yes Singapore has a lot of good and positive things especially in that part of the world and many bad things as well. If you “follow the rules” though (lol) can be enjoyable stop.
Ted C.
@getreal: No, I’m not from Singapore.
I can kinda understand the gum thing, though. I live in a part of town with a lot of pedestrian traffic, and the sidewalks are filthy from all the blackened gum on them. I can only speculate about how much worse it must be in Singapore where the entire population lives in a single city.
I’d continue, but I think I’m off-topic now.
P.S. I’m Canadian, and I think hate-speech laws are working very well here.
tarxien
I agree it’s sometimes difficult to know when to draw the line on freedom of speech but I think it should be when freedom of speech for bigots interferes with the right of their victims to a life free from verbal and physical assault.
People like Fred Phelps do not just say that they personally hate gays, I could live with that, but that it’s acceptable for gays to be attacked and killed. Their statements on the murder of Matthew shephard, for example, are sickening, and should be illegal.
In a civilised society gays and other minority groups should not have to walk down the street seeing signs that ‘God Hates Fags’ ‘Fags Burn In Hell’ ‘Jews Killed Jesus’ etc etc. This makes normal civilised life impossible.
The UK is right to ban people who encourage hate crimes. They have also banned some extreme muslim fanatics and Louis Farrakhan, for example.
I think the US bends over too much to safeguard ‘free speech’ at the risk of promoting hatred against minorities.
kevin (not that one)
Should hate speech be outlawed? My gut reaction is: absolutely.
But let’s take a quick example of the adornment of swastikas.
In Germany, anything containing or anyone wearing a swastika is illegal and subject to prison time. And yet, this has not stopped the rise of neo-nazis, particularly in former Communist East Berlin.
In the United States, wearing a swastika is seen as being in poor taste and is offensive to many people, but it is legal. And yet, while we certainly have our own neo-nazis, they are such a tiny percentage of the total population that their significance is eclipsed by the realization that America is full of wacko fringe groups, some of whom have much larger memberships.
So, in some respects I see the only solution to hate speech in free speech. But here’s the catch: one of the American government’s, my/our government’s, primary functions is to protect citizens from violence. Protection from violence is part of the American social contract, and as you and I know, it’s not always something our government has been very adept at.
But taking into account that our government has a duty to protect us from harm, then the government can make a legitimate case to ban certain types of hate speech. You cannot incite violence in this country. That is illegal. Many would argue that it is also protected free speech, but again the government has a legitimate case to protect citizens from violence. In this area, I don’t think our government is pro-active enough on curbing hate speech.
For instance, that racist cartoon that showed a stimulus-signing chimpanzee being shot by a police officer: I believe that is hate speech with a potential intent to incite violence against Obama. I think the FBI should take that cartoon at face value and see it for what it really is: a racist threat against our President.
But then, those are just my two cents. Nothing I’m really willing to scream over, fyi.
strumpetwindsock
We have had hate crimes legislation in Canada for decades, and while (as with all laws) I can think of cases where it was not applied well, I am happy it is there. Since 2004, sexual orientation has been included.
You can find lots of background, and the legislation itself, here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/
FYI, I am a former journalist, so believe me I hold freedom of speech and access to information in very high regard. Even so, absolute freedom (ie. no law) is no freedom at all either. I don’t think the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision preventing firearms restriction was a good decision, even though it supported freedom. The law is a blunt instrument for dealing with a delicate problem, and there is no one perfect answer to this question. It all comes down to application.
Like anything there are reasonable limits to freedom of expression – like not showing full frontal nudity or vivisection on a billboard in front of an elementary school, tobacco advertising, playing stereos at night or collect rotting garbage on our property.
Freedom of expression is already limited in the civil courts. If someone has enough money they can bring a defamation suit. The rich can protect themselves; enacting hate legislation simply puts that responsibility on the state to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Has it been abused and applied unfairly? I can certainly think of cases. In the early 80s the RCMP confiscated a collection of Nazi books used for research at the University of Calgary. After it hit the press how ridiculous that move was they gave them back.
Another important thing to remember is that hate leglsiation has not ended public racism. The freedom to say discriminatory things is still there – go to any Canadian website.
I can nail my argument down to two things which, although they are certainly subjective, should be understood by any reasonable person:
1)The law should be a shield and not a sword. It should be used to protect, not to attack.
2)If people know how to find your message you have some freedom of expression. I do not agree with holocaust denial, but I do think their information should be available if someone wants access to it. So in that respect, I agree with the right of a person to say “nigger”, even though I disagree with the sentiment.
There is a big difference between that right and postering the city with placards that the Jews started WW2. Basically, if someone has the ability to get their information out (and with the internet it is hard to say someone does not have that freedom). Beyond that, I think control of how you express potentially hurtful material is perfectly reasonable.
Again, there is the potential for unfair application, but no matter what we do we are faced with that problem. Is it better to do nothing and leave it to mob rule because of our principles?
Chitown Kev
@kevin (not that one):
In the chimp cartoon, I don’t mind the chimp itself, racist as that is. It’s the assassination piece that is obscene and illeagal, IMO.
Chitown Kev
illegal, I mean
ConservativeRepublican
No, no, no, hate speech should not be outlawed. One man’s hate is another man’s legitimate discussion. The government has no business saying what speech of private individuals is valuable or “harmful” and it has little business regulating the speech of corporations or political campaigns.
The second you start banning content you consider to be hate speech you start down a dangerous path where other content can be banned, but it’s not just that concern that is the problem. It’s also the chilling effect that even carefully crafted bans have on the “gray areas”. People are less likely to exercise their right by asking even legitimate questions that could possibly be construed by some government official as crossing over into the banned area. Thus, censorship has an effect far beyond the narrow range of banned speech.
The same freedom that protects the WBC when it protests outside a funeral protects pro-gay groups when they stand outside LDS temples to protest Proposition 8.
The same freedom that protects pro-life protestors protects anti-war protestors.
The same freedom that protects people who boycott the Dixie Chicks protects people who boycott Florida Orange Juice.
From the point of view of the government, all of the above should be equal in the sense that all should be free from censorship of any kind.
And yes, that goes for the seedy and stupid stuff, too. I am glad to live in a country where people can view S&M porn, play uncensored versions of games such as Grand Theft Auto, say whatever they want about government officials so long as they don’t issue death threats, criticize religion or atheism as they see fit, and so on.
I hope we keep it that way. Long live the 1st Amendment!
Chitown Kev
@ConservativeRepublican:
Yep.
Jaroslaw
Conservative Republican & Chitown Kev – why don’t you guys address some points in Strumpetwindsock’s post. They actually have hate legislation in Canada and it seems to be working.
Also lost on you guys, apparently, is that no one has absolute “freedom” of speech HERE now. There are limits as outlined in SWS’s post.
And there is a difference in anyone’s mind I hope, between WBC saying “death to faggots” on their posters and people protesting at LDS church. The LDS protesters are not calling for anyone’s death that I have ever heard. They don’t even say on their signs “Mormons are perverts.”
Protesting FOR rights, or to be treated equally is very different than denigrating another group of people based on their race or religion.
How odd that for a country to be the most religious in the world by far and yet have the highest income inequity in the developed world, the most people incarcerated and (I”m guessing) the most race problems (again in the developed world).
ConservativeRepublican
@Jaroslaw:
You might want to read my post a bit closer next time.
I’m well aware that ‘hate crime’ laws in Canada are ‘working’, but the fact that something ‘works’ in the sense that it accomplishes some set of goals and supposedly doesn’t interfere too much with other things doesn’t mean it’s right. (I highly doubt the latter part though. The chilling effect is quite real, and the point of the effect is not that it discourages ALL gray area speech, but some. Even if it discourages only a handful from speaking freely in other areas, that’s a bad thing. ) Sure, bans might ‘work’ in other countries, but they’re still oppressive.
We have very few limits on speech in this country. Adding more is the wrong path to go down. And that’s what is apparently lost on you.
And yes, unless the WBC is issuing direct death threats, then it’s speech should be treated by the government just the same as if it’s message was, “Bunnies are so cute.” The government has no business in that area.
Oh, and some of the pro-gay signs did indeed say the moral equivalent of “Mormons are perverts”.
ConservativeRepublican
@ConservativeRepublican:
Apologies for the it’s/its mistakes in the WBC sentence. I almost never make such mistakes and often criticize others for making them, LOL.
Ezekiel
Hate speech is one thing; as it has been famously noted, “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” (even though they sometimes do). Actions always speak louder than words, though, and it’s completely unacceptable to commit hate CRIMES — that is to say, if somebody calls me an evil faggot I can shrug it off; if somebody calls me an evil faggot and hits me with a bat, that’s a hell of a lot different. It’s dangerous to start telling people what to think, but telling them not to go out and hurt people is just fine in my estimation.
Chitown Kev
@Jaroslaw:
“God Hates Fags” is detestable but OK. “Death to Faggots” is NOT OK.
strumpetwindsock
@ConservativeRepublican: Actually you are mistaken about the “chilling effect” thing.
I case you are worried about it, hate speech and discrimination are alive and well in Canada. Hate crimes legislation has usually just been invoked in cases of blatant and extreme attacks.
I agree that application of these laws is not perfect, but neither is your death penalty, which has a considerably harsher outcome.
If you want to have a real discussion about this issue, lets deal with its practical application rather than just have an armchair talk about airy-fairy theory. I am willing to admit you are partially right on the law’s abuse. No law has ever been mis-used, but does that mean there should be no law?
ConservativeRepublican
Strumpet,
Actually, I am not wrong on the chilling effect. I know of several cases where message boards and sites have been ‘investigated’ by your so-called ‘liberal’ system. The investigation itself is part of that effect. You don’t have to actually find someone in violation of the law for it be part of the chilling effect. The fact that complaints have been filed and investigations have happened has caused other sites to censor their speech, which is exactly what some “airy-fairy theory” types knew would happen. It’s the chilling effect that separates speech law from law in other areas.
Chitown Kev
A grayer area would be if “God Hates Fags” and other similar materials that are not a direct call to violence are found during the course of enough investigations gay-bashings, gay murders, etc. If the exact same materials are found consistently enough in such cases, then I would consider that hate speech that should be subject to banning.
ConservativeRepublican
BTW, as much as we Americans like to complain about judges, I think most of my fellow Americans will agree that we’re glad to have a 1st Amendment and a Supreme Court that has interpreted it broadly over the years.
ConservativeRepublican
“I don’t think the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision preventing firearms restriction was a good decision, even though it supported freedom.”
Somehow I missed this earlier. We have two very different views of life then. It’s fine, but I didn’t realize I was talking to someone who had such an opinion on freedom and the important question of the individual vs. the group, so I’ll try to keep this in mind for future discussions, because obviously some arguments are not going to work as well with you as others.
Oh, BTW, I feel that I must point out that the DC law at issue in Heller was a total ban on handguns in the home and it required long guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked. That’s quite the restriction. The majority opinion makes clear that many other firearm regulations are still constitutional.
ConservativeRepublican
Strumpet,
One last thing. Despite my harsh criticism of Canada’s laws on hate, and as much as I oppose similar laws in the USA , I do respect the right of your country to do what it wants on this issue. I also recognize that different traditions can lead to different opinions on what is acceptable. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Friends?
Scott
I must say, this has been a stimulating conversation! I’m usually circuitous with my thoughts on the topic because I assume my peers are enthusiastic about hate speech legislation by default. I am heartened by the heterogeneity of opinions.
The notion of free speech being “taken too far” is absurd on its face. Free speech is about the freedom to have and express ideas. Ideas can be dangerous. Some of the best ones are. But truly dangerous ideas – the kind you think you’d love to ban – are all the more pernicious when made criminal.
Which raises the practical points that censorship doesn’t work, and doesn’t work the way you want. By whose standards are books to be banned? Upon whose sensitivities are criminal charges to hinge? By what right is one to judge the ideas of another as, not merely distasteful, misguided or morally damnable, but illegal, arrestable, and punishable under law. You may have censorship by the handle at first, but that knife is notoriously slippery. It cuts just about anyone it can.
This is one of my all-time favorite videos on the internet. It is Christopher Hitchens speaking at the University of Toronto about Canadian hate speech laws. It’s about 20 minutes long. I highly recommend you watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603
Sebbe
Christopher Hitches, is he sober?
strumpetwindsock
@ConservativeRepublican:
As I said, I agree with you that you that the law can sometimes be unfairly applied, like any law.
But hate speech is still very alive, and in public here in Canada. A few examples:
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2009/02/12/cbc-chiefs.html
Here are a couple of news threads from Canada’s public (government-owned) broadcaster. It doesn’t seem like racists are afraid to speak out here, and they aren’t being shut down:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/11/khadr-appeal.html#socialcomments
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/22/omar-khadr.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/pauchay-trial.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/17/bc-nicole-alemy-shooting.html
As well, when if comes to issues of nudity and profanity in public, we actually have a lot more freedom here in Canada. Your TV broadcasters are prudish to to point of being laughable. You in the U.S. also have Patriot Act and DMCA laws which we fortunately do not.
And before you get all “home of the brave” on me, red this:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/america/23prison.php
Don’t imagine that your country is the pinnacle of freedom, because it is not true. And please don’t think I am gloating; I am just stating my opinion, based on a fair amount of good evidence.
I am happy to have a real discussion, as this is a serious and complex issue. But give me some meat to chew on, not just smoke. I think if we got into it you and I might agree on more than you expect.
strumpetwindsock
@ConservativeRepublican: Just read your more recent post.
Of course I’ll shake your hand (virtually) as a friend. I enjoy having an open exchange of opinions, especially since we disagree on some things, and I appreciate that we’re doing it in a civil manner.
Thanks for checking in on that , and carry on
Scott
Is he ever?
Mark
We should definitely not ban hate speech. Let your enemies announce themselves.
Attmay
I don’t support hate speech laws because defining hate speech is like defining pornography.
Attacking someone who commits hate speech against you should be a crime, punishable by five minutes in police custody and a fine of a buck and a quarter.
Attmay
And furthermore, what if we want to commit hate speech right back at those who attack us?
strumpetwindsock
@ConservativeRepublican:
Just re-read this. Beyond our respective world-views, there is a difference in the foundations of the constitutions of our countries. Yours is “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; ours is “peace, order and good government”.
I think we can all learn from each others’ countries, but by contrast what works in one culture does not necessarily work in another.
Robert, NYC
Lets not forget that we in the U.S. do not have total freedom of speech under the 1st amendment if you consider that almost all t.v. stations beep out foul language just because they think it might offend some viewers, especially the religious nutjobs. So in that case, the FCC (our government) does in fact censor and curtail freedom of speech which boils down to hypocrisy and the doublestandard. Allowing people to say hateful things about anyone and causing offense to those on the receiving end is tolerated yet using foul language is a no-no. Totally f____d up if you ask me. If people don’t like hearing bad language or sexually explicit material on their screens, change the channel. This is of course is yet another form of oppression when such things are prohibited.
Sebbe
@Scott – thank you for the reply, because of it I will watch the clip tonight. I just cannot decide if it better to watch Hitchens before going out or after coming home. A bit of liquor in the system might make him more comprehendable.
cheers
Ted C.
@Scott: “Which raises the practical points that censorship doesn’t work […]”
Well, our hate speech laws got that horrible Dr Laura show pulled off our airwaves. I consider that to be a success.
kevin (not that one)
If you think about it, hate speech is criminalized already in the US. Whenever someone commits a murder or bashing, there is an enhancement to the sentencing if there is reasonable evidence that it was done as a hate crime. Often that is determined if hate speech accompanied the crime.
Whatever libertarian misgivings some may have, hate crimes legislation has led to a more vigorous prosecution (and I’d like to believe prevention) of crimes based on race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation – crimes that previously were treated with less seriousness. And it has been hate crimes legislation that has allowed us to track these type of crimes and compiled statistics that have been helped law enforcement and human rights groups.
ConservativeRepublican
@strumpetwindsock:
With respect, I think that before you get quite rude and accuse me of blowing smoke, you should consider focusing on the topic at hand. I was talking about the freedom of speech specifically (and made any flag-waving kind of comment in relation to that), which is why I see no need (in this conversation) to discuss the size of our prison population. If I’m being critical of your windows and not criticizing your house as a whole, then it makes little sense to respond by pointing out the quality of my washer. Not trying to be rude here, but I like to keep the debate focused.
You do make a good point about some television here (though there is absolutely no government regulation in terms of content for cable or other forms of premium television, and that’s something that the large majority of Americans have), but there are many other ways for that content to get out. The content itself is not banned (with the exception of child pornography, explicit death threats, and a few other things that you can be sued for), but occasionally it is made harder for minors to easily obtain more adult content.
Given the choice between the two systems when it comes to free speech, I would stick with the USA’s. As I said before, that doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the differences between our countries and how those differences lead us in different directions on the question of free speech. Nor does it mean that I think the USA is preferable in all areas. We’ve made some major mistakes, and unfortunately, I suspect we will continue to make them. Hopefully we will learn from history and not make the same ones again.
So, a handshake back at you. Canada is a great country with nice, beautiful people.
petted
Catch 22
Jon B
No Hate Speech Laws! Freedom of speech all the way. I’d prefer people have the right to sling as my insults my way as they can think of, so long as I can hurl them right back. Its nonsense to complain about name calling and the like.
That being said, some sort of public accountability law would be fine by me. If something is going to be published or broadcast, it should have to be supported by something, and if you can’t support it, you should have to make that known. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to diseminate falicy.
ConservativeRepublican
@strumpetwindsock:
Yes, very good point. I respect that difference. In fact, I respect most such differences between nations, even when the differences are great (though I admit that I find it very difficult to respect countries that are extremist, like those that hang teens for being gay or stone rape victims).
kevin (not that one)
Freedom requires responsibility – responsibility of self, words, and deeds.
Freedom without responsibility isn’t what our founding fathers had in mind. Hate speech on the loose looks like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Télévision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines
So be careful with what you wish for in the name of “freedom”.
Charles J. Mueller
@Ted C.:
Excellent post, Ted C.
The bad guys have taken a law, specifically designed to protect our freedom of speech, in this case hate speech, and used it to take away the civil rights, which we already had by law, of a minority group in California.
That’s what Prop 8 was all about. Using freedom of speech, backed with tens of millions of dollars to spread and disseminate hate speech, dressed up as decency, morality to protect the baby. And pig.
Not a very level playing field, is it?
Charles J. Mueller
@Sebbe:
“Christopher Hitches, is he sober?”
I will give you benefit of the doubt, that the misspelling of his name was merely a typo and not a put-down of the man for a well educated, researched and intelligent man. 😉
Yes, Sebbe, Mr. Hitchens is sober.
A great deal more so, I might add, than was the Christian biggot, Ted Haggard, who attempted to debate him publicly and waggled his finger at Hitchens while accusing him of being “arrogant”, just before his fall from grace when he was discovered with a dick up his ass and coke up his nose.
So much for arrogance.
Charles J. Mueller
@Charles J. Mueller:
Oh, boy. Now it is I who is drunk! lol
I am confusing Christopher Hitchens with Richard Dawkins.
It was Richard Dawkins with whom Ted Haggard debated.
Right Church. Wrong pew. 😉
Sorry about that.
Sebbe
@charles – It was and I noticed immediately after posting it, but didn’t see the point in adding another comment to correct an obvious typo.
Hitchens has written and said some interesting things throughout the years. His stance on the war was/is frightening though and he clearly has a drinking problem. He’s usually a hoot to watch though.
ericwh
Well, I once read something to the effect that hatred doesn’t come from the mouth, but rather from the mind, so to simply monitor speech would not really solve the problem.
I believe we must not use government force to erase hatred, but rather we should work change people and ideologies through awareness and understanding.
Sebbe
@Charles – just saw your last post correcting yourself.
Dawkins is usually worth listening to IMO. Did you see his documentary, I forget the name and I am not in front of a real computer…..something evil? Was done in Britain, very well done.
strumpetwindsock
@ConservativeRepublican:
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn’t mean “smoke” as in “blowing smoke”… not trying to say you were being rude. I just meant that I’d prefer to have concrete examples to discuss instead of theory. Of course we all like freedom of speech; I agree with you there 100 percent… but in the real world it is sometimes an elusive and nebulous (hence my smoke reference) ideal. It’s the details of practical application that are really important.
I have presented a few examples of how hate crimes legislation works in Canada, and I am sure there are examples (good and bad) of how they work in other countries. If we want to have a real discussion, that is what we need to talk about; anything else is speculation.
And the prison reference… yeah, touche… it was a bit of a tangent. But that, along with the laws I refered to are valid evidence that the U.S. is not entirely as free as some would make out. I know the spirit of your law leans more toward the individual and not the community, but that can sometimes make for some very rough justice.
And yes, I like Americans too, and I have loved visiting your country. I am truly sorry to say I won’t be coming there any time soon given the new powers your border services have (and no, I’ve never been convicted of anything). Things are a bit scary down there still IMO, and I’ll stay up here, thank you.
strumpetwindsock
To move this forward a bit… here are a couple of articles regarding what falls under hate crimes legislation up here:
The “anonymous” protests against Scientology
http://torontoist.com/2008/02/was_that_a_hate.php
Jim Pankiw, a former member of parliament hwo sent out pamphlets saying “Stop Indian Crime” to his constituents. His action was fount to not be a hate crime, though he still faces human rights complaints
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2914
Jim Keegstra, an Alberta school teacher convicted of hate speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra
David Ahenakew, a Saksatchewan Indian leader convicted of promoting hatred against Jews. His conviction was overturned and he faces a new trial.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDavid_Ahenakew&ei=CWufScCPHYKEsAONv_zGCQ&usg=AFQjCNG61doPP23-xV_RfYBYikksvIrFYg&sig2=vhRIM666hFeuRDuHGQmFIg
As I said, I can think of some problems in the application of this law (the Ahenakew case is fairly contentious).
On the other hand, if I said publicly that someone was a criminal or an evil influence s/he could quite rightly haul me into court for defamation. I think it is good that there is a criminal law that allows the state to do the same thing for those who don’t have the money to hire lawyers.
Bill Perdue
Yes, and specifically to indict ultrarightists, christers, islamist or other cult leaders who advocate violence against GLBT people as co-defendants, accessories or accomplices to murder.
The Bill of Rights was never meant to protect incitement to violence like that of christobigot televangelist Jimmy Swaggart, who, on a live broadcast said
“I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I’m going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I’m going to kill him and tell God he died”
The Bill of Rights is an important tool to defend ourselves from the corporate rich, but I think the law should have zero tolerance for comments like that. I think Swaggart is a co-conspirator, an accomplice and an accessory in the murders of every GLBT person shot, stabbed, tortured, bludgeoned, crushed or beaten to death since he said that, which is probably in excess of 125 persons. Cults or cult leaders who are convicted of hate speech should have their assets confiscated to pay reparations to the victims of anti-GLBT violence.
lyssa
@Bill Perdue:
Of course, that should apply to all groups, amirite?
What would noted lesbian Janice Raymond’s 1979 call to genocide merit? When she demanded that trans women (and men) be “morally mandated out of existence.”, what response should have been made?
Or do gays and lesbians get a “get out of consequences free” card?
What about all the lesbian and gay folks who bought into the idea that it was okay to dehumanize trans women?
What about the trans victims of gay and lesbian oppression over the last 30 years? Does lesbian author Julie Bindel get to advocate reparative therapy for trans folks without consequences?
What about the gay and lesbian organization that honored her as a “lesbian voice in media?” Any consequences for them?
If you look at what many gay pundits say about transfolks, there are some eerie paralells to what gay haters say about gay and lesbian folks. This is something to think about when talking about hate speech.
Because, the hate speech gays ignore most is the hate speech that comes from their own lips.
Arlen Rothberg
Free speech is apparently an arbitrary term meaning free speech and who can deliver it should be predicated by those who approve of what is being said beforehand.I think a panel should be appointed to determine in advance if the speech and message is appropriate.If it is deemed unappropriate then the offenders must be placed in special compounds for some “re-education”.
Anon
I like my native Sweden’s laws regarding hate-speech.
It basically says that it is allowed in closed rooms, but as soon as you turn it onto a target or in a public space you are fucked.
This goes for racism, sexism, homophobia and even remarks on someones age. “Fucking retiree” could get me fined. Yup, not kidding.
“I don’t agree with what you are saying, but I will die for your right to say it” is usually my motto though.
Sebbe
I would add to Anon’s post that in Sweden there are governmental agencies with Ombudsman including:
1. against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation (HomO)
2. for children
3. disability
4. against ethnic discrimination
5. for equal opportunities (JämO)
There is also a cabinet level position in the government known as the Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality. Of which I believe the aforementioned Ombudsman’s departments fall under. There has been some recent reorganization of which I am not knowledgeable about the particulars and Anon might be.
I believe there is little doubt that these departments as well as support by the government of these issues have allowed Sweden to be a leader (and example)in the world in regards to gay rights and acceptance, equality and representation of women in the government and workforce and the integration of immigrants. While things are not perfect and there is still room for improvement, there are certainly many things that we could learn from Sweden that might be applied here in the states.
AKA William
The recent Sean Delonas “Obama/Chimp” cartoon atrocity helped me locate my own free speech/freedom of the press boundaries — I think Delonas’ grotesque display of racism was jaw-droppingly disgusting, but it was his promotion of violence against Obama that made me think Delonas and his editor should be punished for the publication of the cartoon.
HYHYBT
Would you rather know who your enemies are, or would you rather they keep their mouths shut, then gather in secret?
John
I’ve lived and worked on four continents and five countries now (including 10 years in the US). Most places recognize hate speech as a crime. Hate speech laws do not work. The Pope will not be arrested or hate, hate-filled though the man is (Australia). The more powerful you are, the less the laws will be respected. So from a practical point of view they don’t work. On the other hand, it is clearly beyond the pale to say “Kill the fag” when a bunch of ignorami are beating some poor person thought to offend their ideas of what is a proper human being (the Pope may have some responsibility here, but it isn’t clear to me that it is legal responsibility). That is adding tinder to the fire, and any reasonable person can see that it has criminal intent. The US has an unreasonable position on freedom of speech (there are historical issues at work here), but generally I think that hate speech laws simply don’t work where they matter. I’ve discussed this with Jewish friends over the years (in case anybody had not noticed, this is a major issue for many Jews as well), and they are conflicted. My feeling is that it is best not to consider hate a crime in itself, but an aggravating factor in any actual crime. In other words, I think the US is generally moving in the right direction on this issue.
Kid A
@Sebbe: It’s called “The Root of All Evil?” (not the title that Dawkins wanted) and you can see it in its entirety on Google Video.
Charles J. Mueller
I’d like to make this little contribution to the thread that my dear friend and classmate kindly sent along to me.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296382,00.html
As usual, the the Catholic Church speaks with forked tongue.
The Church says anything it damned well pleases…and they call it freedom of speech.
But, when someone ways something that they do not like, they call it “vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech.” – Bill Donahue, President Catholic League, and immediately call for censorship.
Apparently, freedom if speech is also a God-given right that belongs only to the believers….you know…like the word marriage?
Sebbe
@Charles if you haven’t seen the documentary, I think you would enjoy it.
Sebbe
@Kid A – thanks the title slipped my mind.
Distingué Traces
In a word: no.
ron
Hate laws stifle freedom of expression. They create thought crimes.
TANK
Yeah, we need to stop punishing thought like we do when we distinguish murder in the first degree from manslaughter, or intent and motive. After all, it’s wrong to punish thought because, well…thoughts don’t matter.
For chrissakes, learn what a speech act is. It all falls into the same arguments against hate crimes in general.
Charles J. Mueller
@Sebbe:
Sorry for the tardy delay. Things have been a bit hectic here at the campsite the last couple of days. My next door neighbor took a fall yesterday and broke his arm in four places.
I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins and yes, I did, in fact, see the Richard Dawkins documentary awhile back. He confirms what I have always suspected about religion since early childhood and that it, that religion is a giant hoax and a fantastic money maker to boot.
I also read his book, The God Delusion last year. A good read.
Another one I am currently reading and which you might enjoy, is The End of Faith by Sam Harris. There are any number of good books out there that expose religion for what it is. An Amazon search will give you a good run down on them.
Here’s to a post-religious world.
BrianPrince
Speech is highly regulated and just as highly debated in the United States. When somebody uses words to entice an action like “Go ahead, punch me… see what happens” the Supreme Court has held it to be an action – not a speech. Conversely the Supreme Court has held that symbolic actions which are meant to voice an opinion… such a burning the flag are protected speech.
I don’t necessarily agree with the words that come out of everybody’s mouths – but I don’t think that it would be appropriate to prevent people from speaking as they chose. Free speech, like all of our other rights have limitations — it’s commonly believed (by people with brains) that our rights end when they infringe upon another’s rights.
I’ve not been guaranteed that nobody will make a comment about gay people to me, any more than I’ve been guaranteed that anybody wouldn’t make comment about straight people, black people, handicapped people, or uneducated people to me. Somebody having an opinion which differs from mine – and voicing that opinion, whether I agree with it or not, certainly is not an infringement of any right I’ve ever been guaranteed.
Even more compelling is that if we were to limit one’s ability to speak thoughts or opinions which are unpopular – we have to ask ourselves where the line is to be drawn.
We also have to ask what the cost of our censoring will be. Will we lose our tendency toward tolerance due to a lack of exposure to differing opinions? Will we lose the next revolution in science, technology, or math because the idea is novel and contrary to current thought?
At what cost are we willing to glue closed the lips of others so that we’re no longer plagued with words and ideas that promote tolerance – even when that tolerance is of intolerance?
Tallskin
John
General Pinochet was arrested here in Britain many years ago, after an arrest warrant was issued in Spain by a magistrate.
And although political machinations ensured he was released on “compassionate” grounds a few months later, the precedent was established. Pinochet was totally humiliated and his aura of invincibility smashed.
The reason the US govt refuses to sign up to the International Criminal Justice court at the Hague is because it fears its citizens, its ex-torturers and its retired leaders will suffer the same fate. I believe Henry Kissinger is particularly worried at the prospect.
therefore if I were you I wouldn’t be to gloomy and cynical about, one day, the Poop being arrested.
Sebbe
It is rather a joke that the US has not and likely will not ratify the Rome Statue of the ICC. Other nations who have not signed are of course China, Russia and India to name a few.
As far as Kissinger, he himself has of course been accused of illegal actions in regards to Vietnam and Cambodia. General/President Pincohet was also of course a consistent violator of human rights. Weren’t he and Thatcher bff back in the day to?
Albright while acknowledging the complexities of re-signing, has been an advocate of the court and expressed her opinion that it is a necessary step in rehabilitating our image and reputation in the global arena.
Sebbe
@Charles J. Mueller – No apologies necessary at all. Hope your neighbor is recuperating quickly. I did never get around to reading “End of Faith”, but yes, from what I have heard of it, I would enjoy it.
I second your motion to a post-religious world.
Cheers
strumpetwindsock
I think it is far too simplistic (and pointless) to argue that restriction of speech is absolutely wrong and that any such law will threaten anything any of us says or does.
Even in the U.S. there are already of plenty of legal and political methods which are actively used to retrict speech… libel and defamation law, copyright and patent law, criminal law (against uttering threats), laws restricting porn and violence. Even witholding of parade, postering and fire permits are means used (fairly or unfairly) to hinder expression. There are also non-legal restrictions such as the ability of the press to ignore or manipulate news, corporate bodies controlling what happens on their property (malls, universities and other semi-public spaces).
As well, there are plenty of social myths which stand in the way of the public listening to ideas they do not want to hear (something is communist, blasphemous, foreign or unpatriotic).
We already have limits on what we say and do. Some of them are good, and some bad. But respectfully, to argue whether we should have restrictions or not is nonsense.
They Are Here.
To properly evaluate hate laws, you have to look at their practical application. We have them in my country, and it has not meant an automatic end to freedom of expression – even racist, homophobic and discriminatory expression. I have presented several examples of discrimination which were not strong enough to fall under the definition of hate crime. The notion that the cops grap people off the street and throw them into a black maria for using racist language is completely false.
I can certainly think of cases where our laws were used unfairly, you can say the same thing of any law, or any part of our government or corporate world. The solution is not to throw out the law if it is generally working well.
Sorry… I don’t mean to harp on this. And it feels a bit odd to be arguing from this position because my greater concern is with threats to our expression and freedom to information. But I think an important issue like this needs to be dealt with in a real world context… nor speculation and theory.
For starters… think about how your world would be if anyone, inlcuding those who hate you, had absolute free rein on their words and actions.
Matti
I don’t get you guys… to me this all sounds so absurd. Of course hate speech should be outlawed, and I don’t get why you Americans have not done this already. Thankfully here in Canada one does have the right to free speech but citizens also have the right to feel safe (physically, mentally & spiritually). As such, the loonie tunes of the Westboro Baptist Church would have the right to assemble all they want but they would have play nice and respect the others rights to feel safe. Say what you want, just be polite about it. eh?
When I hear of things like this nothing makes me prouder to be A Gay Canadian Citizen!
I just hope that you guys can have the experience of the same rights, freedoms and privileges has I do. Best of Luck to You!
Ted C.
@BrianPrince: “if we were to limit one’s ability to speak thoughts or opinions which are unpopular – we have to ask ourselves where the line is to be drawn”
According to one of the articles that StrumptWindsock linked to, Canadian legal precedent says that you cross the line if you deliberately promote the feeling that someone should be “despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation”.
I would sum it up even more simply: You cross the line if you state that some group doesn’t possess Human Dignity or Human Rights.
It’s really a very simple line. I don’t see the controversy.
TANK
But it’s not a simple line at all, especially when you use FEELING and the promotion of said FEELING in the assessment. What it leaves room for is judicial legislation. But, ya know, that’s the problem with all laws. Application of a law that vaguely worded depends on the weather, really.
Speech that is an act that results in violence toward a group (hate speech) doesn’t merit protection. I’m just wary when lawyers start to get involved in advocating for new laws. It’s like a heroin dealer wanting more junkies.
Ryan
I’m against hate crimes. I don’t think its right to punish people for what they think, punish what they ACTUALLY DO. They only way to prevent hate speech from happening is to take away its power, and the only way to do that is through education. People become afraid of us and hate us because in many places homosexuality is such a taboo concept that it dare not be talked about in any sort of meaningful length, they don’t really understand what it is.
Now I say education as if that’s an easy way to fix it. I know its not, but in my opinion its the best way and the only way and that’s where our efforts should be focused.
p²
So, here’s my question. Since the definition of hate speech would have to be written by the same congress that won’t give gays and lesbians equal protection against discrimination, what on earth makes you think gays would even be protected by hate speech laws?
That will just be a delightful world to live in where hate speech against gays and lesbians is essentially legitimized by our government by having it ignored in the written law. If you get your wish, I hope you enjoy it.
TANK
@Ryan:
But hate crimes don’t punish people for what they “think,” but for what they do. In the case of a hate crime in which a man kills a person because that person is black, he is killing a person because he’s black; not merely thinking, “I want to kill that person because he’s black”. A hate crime is a crime, first and foremost.
Should it be punished like any other similar crime? No, because clearly it’s not any other crime; its target a trait, not an individual. The purpose is to terrorize a group, not a person. The motive is not the individual victim, and the victim isn’t just the person attacked.
Keith G
[====Bigblackconnect.com====] which is the biggest club in world for 18+ singles from each race to meet cute girls with big boobs online.It is also a site where sexy black singles like discussing ebony relationship….Sign up for free, and check it out….
Good luck for you, wish you find your girls or guys.
Darling
It makes me sick that someone would even suggest outlawing a form of speech. While groups such as NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) who promote having sexual relations with boys five years old or up are allowed to have a say in what they want, what you deem as “hate speech” would be forbidden. As a woman, there is a lot of sexism that is geared toward my gender, especially when it comes to speech. Should it not be allowed? No, of course not. The thing about America is EVERYONE has a right to their opinion, whatever it may be. This includes racists, sexists, homophobics, NAMBLA, GLBT and so on.
This isn’t Sweden, or Canada, or any other socialistic country, and if that’s what type of government you favor, maybe you should move to one of them. It is the freedom of speech here that gives the gay and lesbian community the right to protest and fight for equal rights. Why in the world would we want to deny anyone else their opinion when we so vocally voice our own? It’s hypocritical and ridiculous. We have been fighting for so long to have the ability to speak about the issue, and then to turn around and say others couldn’t speak their minds AGAINST us would not only be a step backwards, but it would also prove to everyone just how right they were in the first place.
Hate speech doesn’t always lead to violence. If a person has it in their head that they are going to act out physically against an individual, they are going to do it whether they can speak about it or not. As much as I truly hate what homophobics say about us, they are just as much as citizens of America as we are, and thus should have the same rights of speech as we do.
Robert, NYC
@Darling:
Darling….you said…”This isn’t Sweden, or Canada, or any other socialistic country, and if that’s what type of government you favor, maybe you should move to one of them.”
Oh my, so you’re an anti-socialist? Really? Are you aware that in the U.S. we endorse many socialist programs, some of which you take for granted. Let me clarify. They are:
1. Public school system
2. Public libraries
3. The Military, Army, Navy, Air Force
4. The Fire Department
5. Law Enforcement, police, FBI, CIA
6. Medicaid
7. Medicare
8. Social Security
So, I take it you will be refusing your social security check when the time comes, or perhaps refuse socialized medicine when you have no private health insurance after retirement or the money to pay for it, or heaven forbid, lose your home because of catastrophic illness that most health insurance carriers don’t cover? Think before you denigrate socialized programs, millions of Americans depend on them. Try telling a senior citizen without any financial security that he or she should rely on him or herself, that they should go back to work instead of sponging off of socialized programs.
I don’t see the republicans saying anything about that every time they chant the “no socialism here” mantra. Bunch of hypocrites and bigots.
strumpetwindsock
@Darling: It’s not my intention to slam the U.S., but like you I much prefer things in my country.
I did post a few examples further up this thread of laws in the states that are even more invasive and restrictive than what we have here in Canada.
From things as simple as censoring TV shows (which is much worse down there) to your Patriot Act and DMCA, in many ways we have more freedom to express ourselves. We certainly have more of a chance of being listened to.
I certainly know our system is not perfect and I don’t mind hearing criticism, but if you imagine you really have absolute free speech in the U.S. you are sadly mistaken
After all, Soviet Canuckistan (Pat Buchanan coined that cute name for Canada) didn’t create McCarthyism – your country did.
yours truly, burning in Hell and enjoying same-sex marriage and free medical care
S.W.
strumpetwindsock
@Darling:
I finished my last post and went onto other things… then I got angry.
I have no problem discussing facts and opinions, and I fully recognize that the U.S. has some protections of freedom of speech that Canada does not (better protection for fair comment against public figures, for one).
But there are also many ways in which other countries, including ours, are far more advanced than yours. The U.S. is a great country, and in many ways has led the world. But you are in no way the greatest country in the world. No one can make that claim.
And given the U.S. record on illegal torture and rendition, your prison population (the highest in the entire world), and yor slavery to religious and capitalist dogma, you have no call to look down on us about anything. You may imagine yourselves the land of the free, but it is not true. I do not say that to gloat in any way, but for some reason many Americans do not seem to be able to grasp the fact your country is less than perfect.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/2002/1016sue.htm
A friend of mine was at this protest. After they were rounded up the cops blared white noise at them for two days, and refused medical care to detainees.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/fight-shaping-up-over-oregons-state-law-copyright-claims.ars
And trying to stop people from knowing what the law is, or to make it public.. the Catholics stopped trying to do that with the Bible 500 years ago.
None of our countries is perfect, so why do you want to stand in the way of a law to help protect people just to defend an ideal that does not exist in the first place?
alan brickman
Isn’t it also a hate crime when gays see two straight guys walking down the street and call them faggots…they have no problem using the same words they wish to ban too you know….
Robert, NYC
@strumpetwindsock:
Hi Strumpetwindsock, I totally agree with you. There is no total freedom of speech in the U.S. I’ve said this many times before but t.v. stations in the U.S. often censor foul language, and nudity on network t.v. is prohibited, including some some cable stations. Also, you can be prosecuted for shouting “fire” in a movie theater. Buring a cross on someone’s lawn can result in prosecution as can painting a nazi swastika on a synagogue wall. If an American were to issue a threat on the life of the president, that person would be arrested. So you’re right….no country can claim to have “free speech or expression” more than others. The 1st amendment may protect free speech and expression, but not everything as many Americans seem to think it does. You’re also right that in Canada you enjoy a lot more freedoms than most others including the right to marry a person of the same gender, the right to serve openly in the military as do several others that have surpassed the U.S. on equality such as Holland, Belgium, Spain, Norway,South Africa and soon, Sweden and to some extent even the UK. The “land of the free” should have been the world leader on equality and human rights issues to make that statement credible. The U.S is indeed a great country, but it can no longer claim to be number one, its delusional to even think that when you look around and see what others are doing as I’ve mentioned above.
strumpetwindsock
@Robert, NYC: Yes, I appreciate your posts too, and I am glad someone can see that I am not just being anti-American (though our favourite hobby up here is pointing out how unlike Americans we are).
Just an aside, and I know this is getting a bit off-topic. My investment portfolio is down practically 20% and the entire world is suffering because the U.S. government refused to set boundaries on thieving pirates… all because of the ideal that there should be no restrictions on business. And in order to save yourselves now your government is practically having to expropriate the banks and car companies (and I don’t want to hear any backtalk that the market should have been left to sort itself out. I have personally lost enough money on your shenanigans already).
My point? There are limits in this world – on expression, growth, consumption, everything. You can recognise them and support yourself and the community… or you can pretend the wall is not there and eventually you will learn a hard lesson.
Most children have to learn at least one hard lesson before they grow up and learn adult behaviour.
Robert, NYC
@strumpetwindsock:
Hi bud, I hear you. I’ve lost quite a bit too, no thanks to the greed on Wall Street and unscrupulous laissez-faire attitude of the entire American financial services industry. Its amazing, the republicans lead by Phil Gramm in 1999 signed off on no regulation or oversight and what followed was supposed to be a boom in job creation and expansion of the economy. In Bush’s term in office, we witnessed unparalleled corruption, thievery, fraud, subversion of the constitution, a suspension of habeus corpus for Guantanamo inmates, an illicit war, manipulation of the Attorney General’s office to favor Bush’s policies, the exposure of a CIA agent (treasonous act) and the total collapse of the American and international economies as a result of the greed and corruption on Wall Street. The jobs that were supposed to be created were all shipped overseas to China, India and elsewhere, with China owning most of our economy. Can you believe shortly after the collapse, some CEO’s at Merrill Lynch and Bank of America were paying out over $120 million in bonuses? Its beyond obscenity. I only hope the bailout succeeds to even further alienate the Grand Old Party of hate into oblivion, the most obstructive party in the history of American politics.
strumpetwindsock
Breaking news this morning from right in my city, Saskatoon:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/02/23/ahenakew.html
See… you can actually say some pretty terrible things and still not be convicted of a hate crime.
Jaroslaw
Robert NYC – Lovely sentiments to hope for GOP alienating the public but alas the public has such short memories!
I’d say more, but the people who are open minded know who they are and the folks who don’t, nothing will open their eyes. You, Strumpet and a couple others have outlined the case very well for limited hate speech legislation, and others refuse to see. “Wrap me in the flag” and proclaim free speech even where there is none… :_)
Robert, NYC
@Jaroslaw:
Jaroslaw, thank you for your kind words. I daresay there are some who will not be moved. Hate is everywhere….as evidenced by Sean Penn’s observations on his way to the Oscars. Placards and posters plastered with hateful words about our right to marry and praise for the success of Prop. 8 or H8. A classical example of hate. I’m glad Sean brought it up during his acceptance speech to let society know that this isn’t going away, ever.
accellpaX
I’m the only one in this world. Can please someone join me in this life? Or maybe death…
Hydrolyze
Just wanted to say hello all. This is my first post.
I would like to learn a ton here.
dreamer101
???????????? ??? ??????????? ????? ??????????? ?????, ? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ?????????????? ?????? ????????? ???????, ????????, ? ???, ??? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????, ?????????????? – ?? ????? ????????. ??????????, ??? ? ??, ??? ???????, ?? ?? ?? ?????? ? ?????????? ????? ? ?????, ?????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ???? ? ?????????? ???????????? ??????????, ???.
??????? ??????? ???????
DBZFun
How are you my fellow forumers i am a new member and i would like to present to you my greate web site where you can watch dragonball online for free.
There are movies and episodes of dragonballz series online
scretre
?????? ?????? ????????? ???? ????????, ????? ??????, ??? ????? ???????, ? ???? ?????? — ??? ????? ??????????. ? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?????????, ?????? ? ??????? ??????. ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ? ????? ????, ??????? ????????.
????? ????????????? ??????????
GgfDFGGGyF
espec genethlic nonfertile yarmalke unskirmished sulfureously smoothcoat seniorities muzjik plumularian austerity papyrotamia estimation dub splake dromornis uniramous tellies remarries afterburners horseshoeing indefensibly glimpser tripedal snowberry trinomen searches muggletonian foresay unbrokenly trifa pentastichy nonspuriously bergomask hemopoietic mistrust ihp nautch industrialization halidoms palmitinic cataloger opacification gunroom lavroffite triangle’s spermolysis vascularized baikie rhizoplast incognoscibility entypies ambisporangiate redhibitory synop ultraconcomitant suborbiculate cytherea mea crandall greengrocer trauchle subdisciplines gandoura perichondrial marshalate dabbles bestials flab byland equilin probant swatted concavation fulfilment cholecystotomies postdoctorate baliti the north face outlet pulmonaria gratifiedly dextrer pug underchurched thyroparathyroidectomize oicks grandams drillmaster incompleted affixable coengager strauss polypus rubidine uncruelly enteroparesis sleeted pestilencewort sexadecimal backwort kiang unruliest organosilicon schiavones traitless implosively liriodendrons semiabstracted floutingly nonconsecration overdecoratively guinevere repropose fullness sexualize acknowledge overspreading dolt unpolish cattlefold scotomy phasing palladia dosimeter wagnerite unrevested percoct lanceolated pavid skedaddler digressional inesculent glycerinated cachetic shraddha protomala occurring automatize endearedly linearised widorror poorness nondiabolically ferociousness outlines nonspiritous acusection stamba cellist untrill worcestershire macroreaction dysenteries misdivision lipothymia revisionary dispossession stubbleward rearmouse grainage uprighted rascalry trivia untormenting kaliphs itzebu untrustfully capstans timbered scandaliser antilottery extracurricular excruciatingly inexcitability pantsuit octahydrate larked promorphologist nettier belton superfit fringe giddied metachromatinic noncommendable guitarlike chider passionlessly fimbricate anchylosed patchers collectorship resurround indentwise hokerly protogenes unwedged stephanite transferotype surfboarder unequiangular histogenetically musicologue the north face outlet acephala equivocator windingness pulicarious untrespassed melanocyte choledochal subparagraphs pinitol fisc oitava sequestrator observationally cavaliero stopwatch studenthood fairyish algebras ungrazed sagier hammier pinnacling jaypiet impreses pyro trollops electroneutral steplike overreflectiveness captivators bunjara hemorrhoid protorebel trichloroacetic disseminator jibb notalgia softbound collyria syllabical gravemaster tyrian leerish dissevers strut.
steepletop coleseeds foreordination oxygenator sinhalese anociation clamorous pentaphylacaceous gillnet amini legalizing nonmobility cardiosphygmogram unrevivable backfurrow thoracical outnoise pleurobronchitis intumulate sayest hush capreolary oarium emmergoose declivities fados chaos poleyne thereabouts sanguines bangtails headboard idlement simpletons offscape ratoons crotonate rockabies pamprodactylism siroc indiciums antitraditionalist concussions the oometer imperialist’s lernaean locoing unsensitiveness balneatory gluepot skimpingly infusoria niding trioxymethylene domiciliary transferrer premarry harmonised enlivener comparsa subconscious the north face outlet motorist’s underofficial cetanes towzie knits dittography undertub untopographically coreigner mameyes natalist phosphatidyl phonikon henhawk ectocondyloid perfumer pharology converter hydrostatical remass rhynchocephalic slee putrescent davenports neurophysiologically heptoic hypobranchial sowed overexpansive lattermost dissentingly substantialness kannume floriate declarators goldang beclowned oxoindoline mkt inventions repatrolled acetylative rootiness tatterly pharmacoendocrinology squails antiuating herigaut wannesses catasta killicks atheology populariser bajoire extended saurornithic beaneries radiotherapeutics labourer sorbitize dismayed overbrilliancy siamese platyrrhiny metastasis preceding unrope besmutch collodion suppling rebless disulphate yat embezzles ethylsulphuric lituus mesonasal fikie republican’s dulcifies disapprobative straightfoward kartings outpray bacchanalism verjuice brutalitarianism calkins stifflike hexanedione pennill nonbuoyant superengrave subpericranial adoulie foresaddle pseudocubically anagrammatist bescoundrel windsurf boners hereinbelow noddy enthusiastly spectacleless sonic nonobediently xanthocyanopy embryotrophic preinscribe armagnacs trimetrical raise nonsensitizing reiterating multipotent fozy wristikin ablauts thursday’s subretinal querulential shallowed meteorscope north face outlet store recognizers banneret kreis pipestapple undersparred pyrogens chippendale acorned anoxaemic monocarpic bibble heughs nonsensualistic admirative membranin superprinting synechist dressage rhachises gen captivative pussy strategian huile capabler jittery lackwit antagonizes fond extremist’s decadently wristband tipcart unshrinkability nonexportable garad outwrung dollyman piques pedatifid verbosity thebaines botella tentatively whisperous whigging phenomenalness caffeines spectrochemistry hyperacuteness salacity turbinelloid valedictorians peptidic constipation polysomy torvity bumblers unecliptical chalder conventical misnarrate salicylide bliss pretasting resorcinol kenogenesis north face outlet online cranium revarnished systematizes antihypertensive shaftless erotographomania eves nonfarcicality sagy clinched nye nonfluency burnie embryonal appointees unassimilative pariet millibarn slavophile pteropodial.