Free Speech / Hate Speech

[Zarniwoop]

Thought maybe we could get a thread on this as it is popping up more and more in the news and is clearly becoming a driver of both our culture and politics.

I just listened to a great interview with Nadine Strossen, the former head of the ACLU from 1991 to 2008. I'm pretty much in full agreement with the views that she talks about here. She just released a new book, Hate: Why we should resists it with free speech, not censorship...it might be worth checking out.

[Stuart]

anything from the ACLU is hate speech IMO

[Zarniwoop]

anything from the ACLU is hate speech IMO

that's a silly thing to say

[NYBF]

anything from the ACLU is hate speech IMO

that's a silly thing to say

Zarni, I'd like you to meet Stu

[Stuart]

pretty simple really, their in bed with soros

[bucfanclw]

Hate speech legislation is dumb. If "hate speech" hits the level that it becomes assault, then local law enforcement should take action. I really don't know why that is a hard concept for some people to grasp.

[bucfanclw]

pretty simple really, their in bed with soros

Is English your second language?

[Stuart]

[DreadNaught]

Hate speech legislation is dumb. If "hate speech" hits the level that it becomes assault, then local law enforcement should take action. I really don't know why that is a hard concept for some people to grasp.

This

Free Speech is a bedrock principle of freedom/free society/free thinking. It's not a partisan issue.

Only Authoritarians promote "hate speech" legislation that would infringe upon and/or restrict free speech.

[Ken Carson]

Hate speech legislation is dumb. If "hate speech" hits the level that it becomes assault, then local law enforcement should take action. I really don't know why that is a hard concept for some people to grasp.

Exactly.

[The Outsider]

Hate speech legislation is dumb. If "hate speech" hits the level that it becomes assault, then local law enforcement should take action. I really don't know why that is a hard concept for some people to grasp.

Pretty much this.

[The Outsider]

pretty simple really, their in bed with soros

Say what you want but those Sorosbux paid for my house.

[Zarniwoop]

Everyone remember that gal who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter because she told her boyfriend to commit suicide and he later did?

Well she is now appealing the court's decision claiming that it violates her 1st amendment rights.

Michelle Carter was convicted last year of involuntary manslaughter because she told her boyfriend to kill himself. She has now appealed this decision on grounds that her conduct was permissible under the First Amendment.

"Carter's words encouraging Roy's suicide, however distasteful to this Court, were protected speech," wrote her lawyers in a recently filed brief. "A criminal law that penalizes a person who encourages another person to commit suicide cannot survive strict scrutiny."

I know we talked about this at the time....but does anyone thing her appeal is valid?

[Mountaineer Buc]

Not only should that be bounced out of court with zeal, her attorney should be censured for making that kind of argument.

[uscbucsfan]

Not only should that be bounced out of court with zeal, her attorney should be censured for making that kind of argument.

While I understand it's gross/disgusting/ abhorrent, whatever, the question is whether or not that sort of speech is protected by the first amendment or whether or not she broke the law. The judge cited an 1816 case from a Massachusetts jail. I can't say, if it does make it to the SC, what they will rule, but if they use SC precedence, it seems obvious that her words would lead to imminent lawless action and the production of such...which is not protected by 1A.

[NYBF]

Stand her next to her attorney. put a bullet through her skull. Whatever happpens, happens

[uscbucsfan]

Stand her next to her attorney. put a bullet through her skull. Whatever happpens, happens

Been drinkin?

[Mountaineer Buc]

Not only should that be bounced out of court with zeal, her attorney should be censured for making that kind of argument.

While I understand it's gross/disgusting/ abhorrent, whatever, the question is whether or not that sort of speech is protected by the first amendment or whether or not she broke the law. The judge cited an 1816 case from a Massachusetts jail. I can't say, if it does make it to the SC, what they will rule, but if they use SC precedence, it seems obvious that her words would lead to imminent lawless action and the production of such...which is not protected by 1A.

It doesn't even pass the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" sniff test for protected speech. Just a piss poor argument.

Edit: by the attorney, of course.

[Zarniwoop]

Not only should that be bounced out of court with zeal, her attorney should be censured for making that kind of argument.

While I understand it's gross/disgusting/ abhorrent, whatever, the question is whether or not that sort of speech is protected by the first amendment or whether or not she broke the law. The judge cited an 1816 case from a Massachusetts jail. I can't say, if it does make it to the SC, what they will rule, but if they use SC precedence, it seems obvious that her words would lead to imminent lawless action and the production of such...which is not protected by 1A.

I think this is something we need to flush out in our society.

What if someone gets in an argument and rashly says "Go kill yourself moron" then walks away. And later that person kills themself...is that unlawful? We see it on this board...people jokingly saying stuff like "go drink bleach".... Is that unlawful if someone actually then does it? Or what about kids who are bullies and their constant bullying causes someone to take their life ... is that unlawful?

How active and persistent must the behavior to be in order to be unlawful????

I think the court will soon be taking more 1A cases.

[uscbucsfan]

While I understand it's gross/disgusting/ abhorrent, whatever, the question is whether or not that sort of speech is protected by the first amendment or whether or not she broke the law. The judge cited an 1816 case from a Massachusetts jail. I can't say, if it does make it to the SC, what they will rule, but if they use SC precedence, it seems obvious that her words would lead to imminent lawless action and the production of such...which is not protected by 1A.

It doesn't even pass the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" sniff test for protected speech. Just a piss poor argument.

I think you should re-read my post...and "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a different exclusion.

edit: Ok. I thought you were saying I was arguing against it.

[Mountaineer Buc]

It doesn't even pass the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" sniff test for protected speech. Just a piss poor argument.

I think you should re-read my post...and "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a different exclusion.

edit: Ok. I thought you were saying I was arguing against it.

We disagree so often, it's disorienting when we agree.

[uscbucsfan]

While I understand it's gross/disgusting/ abhorrent, whatever, the question is whether or not that sort of speech is protected by the first amendment or whether or not she broke the law. The judge cited an 1816 case from a Massachusetts jail. I can't say, if it does make it to the SC, what they will rule, but if they use SC precedence, it seems obvious that her words would lead to imminent lawless action and the production of such...which is not protected by 1A.

I think this is something we need to flush out in our society.

What if someone gets in an argument and rashly says "Go kill yourself moron" then walks away. And later that person kills themself...is that unlawful? We see it on this board...people jokingly saying stuff like "go drink bleach".... Is that unlawful if someone actually then does it? Or what about kids who are bullies and their constant bullying causes someone to take their life ... is that unlawful?

How active and persistent must the behavior to be in order to be unlawful????

I think the court will soon be taking more 1A cases.

I think it's silly, but using legal precedent, I feel that many will believe that 1A doesn't protect her.

Imminent lawless action exclusion was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it basically states, "advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action."

Now...depending on where you are suicide or the attempt thereof is not a crime. So if it's not a crime, is she inciting or producing imminent lawless action?

It's interesting that a Minnesota case ruled that "the court held that merely advising or encouraging suicide was speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that those prohibitions were unconstitutional. It went on to hold, however, that speech which actually assisted a suicide was not protected." This leads us back to who is interpreting it and which precedence they choose to use.

So in the end I don't know. I would have to go through and re-read (it's been since college) Badenburg v Ohio or Schenck v. United States or "case x" and read how these exclusions were born in the first place and then determine if it fit what 1A originally intended.

As an aside, the flock of, "I can't believe a lawyer would take that" are ridiculous. If this is an avenue that she wants to take and someone feels confident they can articulate this logically, I see no issue. It's her right to fight this.

[Zarniwoop]

I think this is something we need to flush out in our society.

What if someone gets in an argument and rashly says "Go kill yourself moron" then walks away. And later that person kills themself...is that unlawful? We see it on this board...people jokingly saying stuff like "go drink bleach".... Is that unlawful if someone actually then does it? Or what about kids who are bullies and their constant bullying causes someone to take their life ... is that unlawful?

How active and persistent must the behavior to be in order to be unlawful????

I think the court will soon be taking more 1A cases.

I think it's silly, but using legal precedent, I feel that many will believe that 1A doesn't protect her.

Imminent lawless action exclusion was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it basically states, "advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action."

Now...depending on where you are suicide or the attempt thereof is not a crime. So if it's not a crime, is she inciting or producing imminent lawless action?

It's interesting that a Minnesota case ruled that "the court held that merely advising or encouraging suicide was speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that those prohibitions were unconstitutional. It went on to hold, however, that speech which actually assisted a suicide was not protected." This leads us back to who is interpreting it and which precedence they choose to use.

So in the end I don't know. I would have to go through and re-read (it's been since college) Badenburg v Ohio or Schenck v. United States or "case x" and read how these exclusions were born in the first place and then determine if it fit what 1A originally intended.

As an aside, the flock of, "I can't believe a lawyer would take that" are ridiculous. If this is an avenue that she wants to take and someone feels confident they can articulate this logically, I see no issue. It's her right to fight this.

It is certainly a tough issue to parse out. It's easy to jump to a reaction and say this woman was awful because she tried hard to get her boyfriend to kill himself...and that actions like hers are not protected. Even if someone espouses those views, the examples I gave above are worth discussing.

If someone tells another poster on the board to drink bleach under what reasoning is it different then what the girl did?

1.) Simply because they wrote it jokingly? If that's the case what if the person it was directed at didn't take it as a joke?
2.) Simply because it wasn't persistent? If that's the case how many times must you tell someone to kill themselves before its persistent?
3.) Is it different because the two posters aren't close friends? If so, what degree of closeness is required?

Etc.

[uscbucsfan]

I think it's silly, but using legal precedent, I feel that many will believe that 1A doesn't protect her.

Imminent lawless action exclusion was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it basically states, "advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action."

Now...depending on where you are suicide or the attempt thereof is not a crime. So if it's not a crime, is she inciting or producing imminent lawless action?

It's interesting that a Minnesota case ruled that "the court held that merely advising or encouraging suicide was speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that those prohibitions were unconstitutional. It went on to hold, however, that speech which actually assisted a suicide was not protected." This leads us back to who is interpreting it and which precedence they choose to use.

So in the end I don't know. I would have to go through and re-read (it's been since college) Badenburg v Ohio or Schenck v. United States or "case x" and read how these exclusions were born in the first place and then determine if it fit what 1A originally intended.

As an aside, the flock of, "I can't believe a lawyer would take that" are ridiculous. If this is an avenue that she wants to take and someone feels confident they can articulate this logically, I see no issue. It's her right to fight this.

It is certainly a tough issue to parse out. It's easy to jump to a reaction and say this woman was awful because she tried hard to get her boyfriend to kill himself...and that actions like hers are not protected. Even if someone espouses those views, the examples I gave above are worth discussing.

If someone tells another poster on the board to drink bleach under what reasoning is it different then what the girl did?

1.) Simply because they wrote it jokingly? If that's the case what if the person it was directed at didn't take it as a joke?
2.) Simply because it wasn't persistent? If that's the case how many times must you tell someone to kill themselves before its persistent?
3.) Is it different because the two posters aren't close friends? If so, what degree of closeness is required?

Etc.

As with a lot of these things intent and circumstances factor into the equation.

Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard Law professor and author of "The Case Against Impeaching Donald Trump" was on NPR arguing his side (even though he's a liberal, which had to be pointed out 1,000 times) and was talking about the crimes necessary for impeachment. He dove into the elements of a crime when it was argued that Trump had committed crimes. He explained the aspects of mens rea or crime's mental element of intent means that the individual must have some sort of intention, whether purposeful, reckless, or knowledge and actus reus, or the act or unlawful omission of the act. While he was talking about Trump not having committed an actual crime that has been proven, yet, it popped in my head with you examples.

The situation is different in your scenarios than the case at hand. She intended for him to take his life, mens rea, she pushed him to do actus reus, and then he did it. This is if we are defining suicide as a criminal act, but the point is her situation is different than the slippery slope you are building.

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks for that info. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to build a slippery slope either way. I’m just suggesting I don’t think it’s a very simple idea. And pointing out where I think there could be difficulties

In this particular case, I do think the girl in question broke the law. In no way am I arguing she shouldn’t be punished.

[uscbucsfan]

Thanks for that info. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to build a slippery slope either way. I’m just suggesting I don’t think it’s a very simple idea. And pointing out where I think there could be difficulties

In this particular case, I do think the girl in question broke the law. In no way am I arguing she shouldn’t be punished.

Listen I'm still parsing this out myself. I do think what she did was wrong, but I'm not positive she actually broke a law considering the potential protections that may or could be applied.That's the battle.

I'm trying to think about it on a neutral basis with logic and disregard my bias against her. Hopefully we get some conservative and progressive input and we can go back and forth and hash this one out like adults, but likely someone will come in with one liner and/or an insult.

edit: And as I've said in the past slopes can be slippery. It's not a fallacy or cop out to bring up slippery slopes. It just shouldn't be the crux of an argument and I'm not saying it is here.

[Buc2]

Yeah... While I think she's a pos, I'm also not sure what she did was or should be against the law. In the end, her bf made the decision to end his life. If I tell Alpha, day after day, to go **** himself, then, after months of harassment to go **** himself, he gets a cucumber and commits sodomy upon himself, is that my fault?

[Ken Carson]

Not everything that is wrong is illegal.

[DreadNaught]

I think nuance/context matters, especially in cases like this.

When I was in the Navy it was not uncommon for the phrase "kill yourself" to be thrown around in joking manner. So while joking about suicide is poor behavior it doesn't make it criminal. This is where intent and context matters and needs to laid out by the prosecutor.

If a cult leader brainwashes people into committing suicide I believe that to be criminal act and not protected under free speech, but if I tell MB to take a "long walk off a short pier" after a disagreement and he goes out and walks off a pier and drowns to death than I don't believe I should be charged criminally for his death.

[Buc2]

I think nuance/context matters, especially in cases like this.

When I was in the Navy it was not uncommon for the phrase "kill yourself" to be thrown around in joking manner. So while joking about suicide is poor behavior it doesn't make it criminal. This is where intent and context matters and needs to laid out by the prosecutor.

If a cult leader brainwashes people into committing suicide I believe that to be criminal act and not protected under free speech, but if I tell MB to take a "long walk off a short pier" after a disagreement and he goes out and walks off a pier and drowns to death than I don't believe I should be charged criminally for his death.

I don't recall she did anything close to brainwashing. Again, telling the guy to kill himself, even though she was serious, makes her a pos, not a murderer, imo.