The KKK and Free Speech

[Thor Henning]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Many countries besides mine have instituted hate speech laws in the past decade or so- Denmark, Sweden, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland, France, etc.

And Norway! Racism is not allowed here.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by Thor Henning

And Norway! Racism is not allowed here.

Well, Thor, that is worded a bit...ingenously, if that is remotely the right word. Having the laws in place has nothing to do with whether or not racism exists in a country- right?


I mean there is still lots of racism in Canada, France, Australia, etc. And I am sure there is some in Norway as well.



Well, what I don't get is....if the vast majority of people in a society agree that something is reprehensible, such as giving the KKK the right to rally in public to attempt to sway people to their side- to the point where most posters in here were saying they would go and protest against them, drown them out, etc.....which isn't exactly allowing them free speech anyway, right?



Then why not say, hey, we're all in agreement that we don't accept this, so let's make it against the law?


There isn't any such thing as true 'freedom of speech' there anyway....can you go up to your boss and call him a %$#ing fa*#@* and get away with it?

[Heather]

Originally Posted by Rissask

There isn't any such thing as true 'freedom of speech' there anyway....can you go up to your boss and call him a %$#ing fa*#@* and get away with it?

Well, you might lose your job, but you won't go to jail because it's not illegal.

[Thor Henning]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Well, Thor, that is worded a bit...ingenously, if that is remotely the right word. Having the laws in place has nothing to do with whether or not racism exists in a country- right?


I mean there is still lots of racism in Canada, France, Australia, etc. And I am sure there is some in Norway as well.



Well, what I don't get is....if the vast majority of people in a society agree that something is reprehensible, such as giving the KKK the right to rally in public to attempt to sway people to their side- to the point where most posters in here were saying they would go and protest against them, drown them out, etc.....which isn't exactly allowing them free speech anyway, right?



Then why not say, hey, we're all in agreement that we don't accept this, so let's make it against the law?


There isn't any such thing as true 'freedom of speech' there anyway....can you go up to your boss and call him a %$#ing fa*#@* and get away with it?

I agree with you Maggie!

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Well, Thor, that is worded a bit...ingenously, if that is remotely the right word. Having the laws in place has nothing to do with whether or not racism exists in a country- right?


I mean there is still lots of racism in Canada, France, Australia, etc. And I am sure there is some in Norway as well.



Well, what I don't get is....if the vast majority of people in a society agree that something is reprehensible, such as giving the KKK the right to rally in public to attempt to sway people to their side- to the point where most posters in here were saying they would go and protest against them, drown them out, etc.....which isn't exactly allowing them free speech anyway, right?



Then why not say, hey, we're all in agreement that we don't accept this, so let's make it against the law?


There isn't any such thing as true 'freedom of speech' there anyway....can you go up to your boss and call him a %$#ing fa*#@* and get away with it?

Jefferson thought in the free marketplace the most rational ideas would eventually always win. I believe that as well.

People in the KKK are already marginalized. Further marginalization tends to make these type of groups go underground and become more radical and often more violent. I want them to spew their hate where everyone can see exactly what they are.

Oh, and there's the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And the case law regarding the 1st Amendment.

[Thor Henning]

Originally Posted by Rissask

There isn't any such thing as true 'freedom of speech' there anyway....can you go up to your boss and call him a %$#ing fa*#@* and get away with it?

Here it's not allowed either. But it is quite possible to say what you want without using bad words and/or doing racism.

[taotoon]

We have the power as humans with free will to simply not listen. Walk away and let them carry on. It is hard to gain support when your bandstand is empty.
By placing the limit of "your speech is free as long as it does not offend the masses,” you place yourself at the risk of later being unable to speak out in times of great injustices. Think about all the revolutions throughout history and the secrecy in which they had to be conducted. Maybe they would have gained ground faster if they had not been forced into silence because they were not free to speak. Look at the monks in Burma, if they could garner support openly, then maybe they could overthrow the oppression but because that is not allowed by law, they suffer
I think the KKK are vile but just because one person finds it vile does not mean another person doesn't and no one has the right to say whose moral standing is firmer when it comes to the freedom of speech.

[Rissask]

Yes, it was a bad analogy on my behalf, Heather. But you could get arrested for mischief for yelling fire in a crowded building!

Just Lucky:

Jefferson thought in the free marketplace the most rational ideas would eventually always win. I believe that as well.

Maybe that is true. In a free society anyway, I can see it.

Everyone makes very good points. It's a tough one!


Believe me, it's a controversial topic up here too. Lots of people find it unconstitutional (or un-Chartertutional ).

[melliedee]

Also, who would decide which group's views are acceptable by the majority? I'm not a fan of satanic death metal, but I wouldn't want to infringe on their right to gather, etc. If you banned groups based on what the reprehensible test is, well, that's a lot of room for subjectivity?

[Heather]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Also, who would decide which group's views are acceptable by the majority? I'm not a fan of satanic death metal, but I wouldn't want to infringe on their right to gather, etc. If you banned groups based on what the reprehensible test is, well, that's a lot of room for subjectivity?

Exactly, melliedee. In the case of satanic death metal worshipers, for example, the best course of action is simply pointing and laughing.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Heather

Exactly, melliedee. In the case of satanic death metal worshipers, for example, the best course of action is simply pointing and laughing.

Or get Daddy b to talk them out of their religious ways?

[StephenB]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I guess I am the exception.

Many countries besides mine have instituted hate speech laws in the past decade or so- Denmark, Sweden, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland, France, etc.

The question for me is where do one person's right to freedom of speech end and the other person's right to not be publicly humiliated, lied about and slandered start. Allowing people like the KKK to hold public rallies seems to me like the country is condoning that kind of attitude or treatment of minorities.

I don't believe in censorship in literature or the arts, which is what I think George Orwell was thinking of when he wrote that, hrlydavison, not people crying for blood in the town square and scaring small children. Or carrying placards with pictures of aborted fetuses for little children to see, and calling for the assasination of doctors, etc.

It's a real can of worms Riss. If you muffle one group you find offensive, where does it all end? There's a real love for the Constitution and it's amendments in the US that people are extremely reluctant to mess with. And, it's impossible to legislate an opinion. I know there are some tough laws on the books in other countries. For example, I guess in some parts of Europe, flipping the bird to a fellow motorist can result in a heavy fine!

Stogey would be screwed, and I'd probably be out a few bucks too!

[Thor Henning]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Also, who would decide which group's views are acceptable by the majority? I'm not a fan of satanic death metal, but I wouldn't want to infringe on their right to gather, etc. If you banned groups based on what the reprehensible test is, well, that's a lot of room for subjectivity?

The law defines it.

[Tommygurl]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Well, Thor, that is worded a bit...ingenously, if that is remotely the right word. Having the laws in place has nothing to do with whether or not racism exists in a country- right?


I mean there is still lots of racism in Canada, France, Australia, etc. And I am sure there is some in Norway as well.



Well, what I don't get is....if the vast majority of people in a society agree that something is reprehensible, such as giving the KKK the right to rally in public to attempt to sway people to their side- to the point where most posters in here were saying they would go and protest against them, drown them out, etc.....which isn't exactly allowing them free speech anyway, right?



Then why not say, hey, we're all in agreement that we don't accept this, so let's make it against the law?


There isn't any such thing as true 'freedom of speech' there anyway....can you go up to your boss and call him a %$#ing fa*#@* and get away with it?

I agree!
Says the Canadian.

[Thor Henning]

I found this:

As indicated in the U.S. Report on CERD, the Federal Government has laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on race (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).