SUMMER PROJECT: This one may spark some spirited debate. The New York Times article linked below examines how much farther the United States has been willing to go to protect free speech -- even offensive hateful speech -- than other developed nations have.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Questions to Ponder:
According to the article, what criteria are necessary in order for our court system to restrict free speech in the United States?
Describe a hypothetical case for us to consider whether it is an example of the type of speech that should be restricted in the U.S.
Do you think the U.S. should become more strict about what types of speech are protected by law? Why or why not?
31 comments:
Bonjour,Mrs. Stotler, you just can't get rid of me. You said that I could still post on here, so I shall. I LOVE it how I'm usually the first person to post on here. Anyway, I think that the court of the U.S contradict themselves sometimes when it comes to free speech, since some things can be "offensive" to some and not to others. One could say that "The man slaughtered fifty men, taking the time to remove the skin from each victim, using them as bags to haul out the skin's owner's organs, whereas then he could pick and choose his meal" See, that could be offensive to some, but to others, it's just creative writing. Also, the use of "Hate" speech, and the use of what is considered "curse" words when it could also be called "slang" can be taken different ways. Apparently, you can't call anyone ignorant because way back when, people used that word to describe a race of people. But they will say anything in the movies, they will call each other children of un-married men, they will call each other sexual terms and ANYTHING-but we are still ALLOWED to buy that stuff. I think it depends on the case, also, because anyone in American can say that they HATE Bush, but if someone from, say, a country that we are at war with, says that, we take it seriously and say that it is a threat against America when we ourselves are threatening. I think that the U.S should actually THINK about what really should be protected and said in this country, and what should not be said, and the consequences, before they say that the laws are too strict or not strict enough.
~H. Baker
I think this whole arguement about free speech is DUMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....if you're gay, you should be allowed to be gay. If you hate gay people, than you can hate gay people. One thing that gets me is that people protest them. THEY WON'T STOP BEING GAY BECAUSE YOU WANT THEM TO!!!...people...gosh! But yes you can protest about it, but protest things that matter people...PLEASE! People should be allowed to say "curse" words if they want. IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL! People just need to get over themselves. I mean they're not even allowed to say "GOD" on the radio really. People should just get their priorities straight and stop worrying about what people say, and start worrying about let's say...drugs...obesity...world hunger...THINGS THAT MATTER!
This law is incredibly pointless. Seeing as we're humans and we feel an impulsive need to insult things sometimes, or, there are some cases where a person was charged with hate crimes and slandering when they weren't even AWARE of the crime they were commiting. As shocking as this may be, we're not all perfect. And with this law would just come more unneeded court cases, which would weigh down our judiciary system for no reason, an increase in the number of incarcerated citizens, which would- in the end- cost us, the tax-payers more. We should just learn to be like our ancestors. Part of the blame lays in society in general, it's offensive because we're told it is. Our ancestors were mad when they needed to be (ex. American Revolutionary War)and polite when there was no urgent need for rude comments. In our society, when one curses, people look. It could be a plead for attention but this law won't stop someone from saying what they think needs to be said.
Wow, we've got some serious civil libertarians posting on this blog (That means you guys think we ought to have the maximum amount of freedom possible.) But here's a WHAT IF scenario for you: let's say, using Sabrina's example, that someone does hate gay people, and that person makes a speech in public directing his/her audience to go out and commit violence against someone who is gay, and one or more people in the audience actually do it. Does the speaker share in the responsibility for the violence that is committed? Should you be able to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater if the result is that people get trampled to death? (The Supreme Court says no to that one, BTW.)
Mrs. Stot, this is just like the debate we had. I will play both sides on this to give both views on this matter...because I can't decide which side to weigh to. ANYWAY. If that person does say voilent offensive things towards gay people and says "Hey! Let's hang all the gays!" And people actually do that in his name, he is responsible since he put those ideas in their heads. Say, like Ms. Jenkins talking about helping the environment, and giving examples of what we should do, and people go out and help the enviroment from pollution. She is responsible for those people taking a stand. But ON THE OTHER HAND-Committing violence or helping the environment are the actions of specific people. We don't jail the abusive parents of a serial killer, do we? No. We blame solely the killer. Why? Because he didn't HAVE to kill people, he WANTED to kill them...or the voices told him to. Those are both sides of the scenario.
~H.BAker
Yes Mrs. Stotler, it's third-party influence or "assisting in murder". A scenario where that happened was during the German regime of Adolf Hitler, he never himself killed any jews, gays, or gypsies... but whose name is in the history books? Hitler's. The fine print has the head of the SS's name, but we would hardly say that we directly relate the Holocaust automatically to Himmler. Here's a blog with a this similar topic- http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5999. Hitler never murdered anyone, but he sure did do SOMETHING.
I think we should have our rights till we are proven to not be worthy of them, at which point they should be revoked. We need to be taught not to say things which would result in others being hurt. I think that it's a shame someone would speak out against another person, and that it would result in violence. But I think it's in our nature, and that if someone wanted to- they would speak out whether or not it's legal.. ex: Nat Turner's rebellion, very illegal- but the people felt a need to do something..
http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/natturner/a/turnerrebellion.htm
..and who triggered it? The orator Nat Turner- and he's the one whose name is in the history books. The orator should always get credit for their bloody work. Adolf Hitler and Nat Turner are just a few examples of this.
Free speech in the U.S. is important. Is our free speech too free? Is thet the question?
The U.S. should keep free speech rights the same. Other countries may not be as free, but i think we should add new rules to limit our freedoms.
-Korinne C
HI MS. KATE!
Geez so much for my hopes of an easy senior year!! lol. Well for this one I am still a bit boggled in the mind. The article says or at least what I can find is that "hate propoganda" should be banned. Well that really doesn't do any good for America. This country was built on a person's free thinking and the thouhgts/ bleiefs that all people should have the same ability. Plus when the government says you can't yell "fire" in a theatre it's for a person's safety. Yelling that is probably not out of hate just cruel minds getting a laugh. Plus when we're young we're taught "stick and stones..." just because someone yells out about hating this, that, or another thing it's not killing anyone. Sure a person can be emotionally hurt by this but everyone experiences that, it's part of life. If our government is going to regulate free speech more closely the need to make up some definate guidelines on what is hate and what is simply how a person feels; as well as where they can draw the line on an individual's mind. Plus when people whine about these hate crimes against their race then maybe they should think about the real reason their ancestors or even themselves came to this country.
-T. Remsburg
In order for the court system to restrict free speech in the U.S., an amendment would have to be passed making “hate propaganda” illegal. “Hate propaganda” would then have to be specifically defined and consequence lines would have to be drawn.
Profanity and race are the major issues that would be targeted by hate speech laws; but, if we let this get out of hand, there could even be laws on issues of political correctness. An example is that it is no longer politically correct for someone to be called a midget. They must be referred to as little people.
No government is perfect, so even when if we were trying to protect people by regulating free speech it would still get twisted in some form. Is regulated “free” speech, free speech anymore??
I don’t think so. There will always someone who will get put down or get their feelings hurt, even if free speech would be regulated. Aren’t we entitled to the right to an opinion? Why would we choose to take the risk of loosing our right to free speech by allowing the government to interfere?
I agree with Alissa all the way. How could there be laws made about what is alright to say and what is not? That is something people need to decide from themselves. And, also, since anyone can say basically whatever they want, I think that people need to be less sensitive. So what if someone said that everyone who wears glasses is a nerd? Why should the people that wear glasses get offended? I think that the people that society sees as different, example "little people" will always get made fun of, no matter what the "politically correct" name for them is. So, I know this might sound mean, but maybe they should learn to grow a little less sensitive, because no law can stop people from being rude. And, as I see it, that is the major problem with free speech. Someone is always mad because someone hurt their feelings.
I also agree with H Baker, everyone has made really good points.
This whole idea of putting limits on free speech is kind of silly. Because, well, limited free speech isn't "free speech" at all now is it? "You can say whatever you want... (as long as it's not negative and doesn't offend anyone)."
With that being said, I feel like a lot of the people that have posted before me are missing what this argument is really about. It's not about banning speech that offends people or hurts their feelings. It's about banning hate speech that is specifically designed to stir up feelings of hostility and animosity towards a group of people, speech that, if acted on, could lead to loss of human life. While the thought of allowing the government to decide what kind of speech is acceptable can be scary, some censorship is needed.
(To Emily, I guess you can make the argument that we shouldn't have laws banning this type of speech because people are going to do it whether it's legal or illegal. I get it. But then, I guess we shouldn't have any laws that ban murder. Afterall, people are going to do it anyway.)
However, if we're talking about banning "offensive" speech, the kind of stuff that just is meant to hurt one's feelings, I think people just need to get some thicker skin. Grow up. Learn to be an adult and take the high road. For example, if someone was to make fun of me for being a Christian, I would simply walk away. As I walked away, I would pray to God that he may smite them. :)
About my first paragraph...
I'm for some censorship. But then we shouldn't call what we would have, "free speech". We need a new name for it... maybe "not so free speech"?
This whole argument is completely ridiculous once you get past the eutopian portrayal it conveys. There is no way to regulate such a ban on free speech because the people who use hateful words don't care who they offend. Are we going to put microphones everywhere? hmmm...Big Brother? Definitely unconstitutional. This country was founded on the basis of free speech, and that has worked for 275 years, why do we need to change it in the name of political correctness. The whole basis of the argument is that we should consider requlating the first amendment because Canada regulates free speech. In my opinion, that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. I say that if you want everyone to regulate free speech, then move to Canada, we don't need you here.
It seems that everyone above has great ideas, and feels strongly about them. But, what we need to realize as people, in the world we live in, is that we can't just say what we want anymore. Sure, I wish I could say whatever I want to whoever I want, but that's just simply not the case and never will be.
Just today, BSHS athletes had a meeting with an attorney from Morgantown about the affects of hazing and harassment. Coach brought up the valid point that this is a different world we live in. He said, "In my day, you could make a mistake and you'd get a slap on the wrist. Today, if you make a mistake, you could lose your life." Correct me if I'm wrong, but much (not all) of the school violence that this country has experienced, has been brought on by some kind of verbal harrassment. I believe there are steps that need to be taken to limit this type of abuse.
I understand, too, that this country was founded on free speech. I do not believe, though, that country was founded on hateful speech. It took some people to come about with some rebellious (not hateful) speech to earn our freedom.
**After all, what is the need for hate? Who is anyone to criticize another person for their race, gender, or sexual preference? No good ever comes of it...
-Andrew Omerzo
I believe "free speech" should be limited, even though it wouldn't necessarily be free anymore. I agree with Mark when he said, "It's not about banning speech that offends people or hurts their feelings. It's about banning hate speech that is specifically designed to stir up feelings of hostility and animosity towards a group of people, speech that, if acted on, could lead to loss of human life."
Just one example of "free speech" that should be limited is in the picture shown below. You wanna see ridiculous? These extreme acts of hate speech are deffinitely unnecessary. Hate who and what you want, but you don't have to put it out there for the world to see.
[IMG]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t233/tino_055/Fag.jpg[/IMG]
uh... since the picture didn't actually show, here is the link. sorry about that.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/god%20hates%20fags/tino_055/Fag.jpg?o=4
The only way the government can restrict free speech according to the article is if the speech includes "threats, fighting words, or violent crimes prompted by racial hatred". I still don't see how the government is going to ban this stuff. Like Joey said, the US is based upon freedom of speech and that policy has worked for the past 275 years, so why change it when it continues to work? People are going to say whatever they want. There is no stopping them. There is a time and place for everything and I do think that people need to be considerate of others but unfortunately, many people don't care. People need to learn that there will be many times in your life that you will get made fun of or teased about something. Its a part of life. Suck it up and deal with it. I don't think that the government has the right to tell us what we can or cannot say. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be allowed to express it. Although people do abuse the freedom of speech, I don't believe that that freedom should be taken away from the rest of us.
-Rachel Shambaugh
I agree that no one can actually stop someone from what they want to say. However, such a ban could prevent large hate rallies that could result in violence. The point is, if someone's out there just to start trouble and is avidly trying to get people killed, they are abusing their right of free speech. Therefore, they should be punished. If you don't abuse your right of free speech, you have nothing to worry about.
I also agree with Omerzo. Today's world is different and we need to adapt. If our country never changes anything in this ever-changing world, how long are we really going to last?
Wow, everybody seems to have strong feelings about this subject. I know America was built on free speech but we are in a different time. You can't just say what you feel like. Omerzo hit it right on the spot we live in a different world now things change. So, I feel we should adjust to it. What do we get out of people saying cruel things nothing. It just makes things worse. We need to put a limit on our speech. Yet, I think it would cause major contraversy in the US and I could never see it being changed.
Josh Wise
Everyone's answers are great and very convincing. In my heart, I have to agree with Omerzo and Josh. It is a different world, and certain comments can cause serious, dangerous responses. Hate never does any good. In reality, though, I feel there is no way to stop it without taking away constitutional rights. According to the article, the criteria needed in order to limit free speech is that there is a "likelihood of imminent violence." There is a difference between saying, "I hate Muslims," and saying, "Let's go bomb this Muslim family." In other words, the speech has to directly say/motivate others to commit harmful acts. An example of a writing provoking hateful acts would be an article saying, "Come on, we all hate Mexicans...Let's go burn their restaurant downtown." I realize that it can be difficult to differentiate between what is directly stirring up violence and what is merely an expression of opinion. With that being said, this is why we have a Supreme Court. There will always be questionable cases that can go either way, depending on how one interprets the Constitution. I feel the the laws are strict enough as they are- they forbid any comments directly calling for violence. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr's quote in the text did it for me:
"I think we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death."
America was founded on principles that we should cherish and protect, one of them being freedom of speech. Just because this world is going through a hard time does not mean we need to alter how we run our country, because if it worked before, it will work again. Sacrificing our freedoms or expression is not worth it. After all, if one person commits a violent crime, in the end, that one citizen is the one held accountable and the only one responsible.
Wow, this brings in so many different laws and rights and it hard to know where to begin. I believe people should be able to say what they want to say. You can't put an idea into someones head, you can't promise someone anything for listening to you, people will believe and do what they choose. I do believe there is a time and a place for such, but thats more of a morale issue not a legal one, although many have brought up interesting points, don't you think our government has enough to deal with, besides it'll be like the prohibition of alchohol, people will just spread the word secretly. I would like to know if there are any potentially violent groups so that I could keep my distance and the gov. could keep a watch on them.
- Heather H.-
Tying to ban hate speech is like trying to ban fingernails, it's never going to happen. People have a biased opinion about everyone and everything. People also have their different veiws of wats ofensive and whats not. Even so it's such a stupid argument because talking is a way of life and a way of thinking and understanding. people will always see things their way no matter what law is passed.
I think there's a very fine line between "violent hate speech" and freedom of speech. The sad truth is that its completely legal to say ignorant racial comments and give speeches and protests. However it's illegal to make hatered comments that incite violence. Let's take the KKK for example, they can have their meetings where they make offensive comments to other races or religious groups, but they can't say "Hey let's go kill some jews," because it's promoting criminal acts towards someone. I think that as long as it's limited to our non-violent opinions, our free speech rights should be kept the same. If we do start limiting freedom of speech where would it end because someone will always be offended.
-Jenny Burdock
Free speech is that what you call it because it sounds like to me that if it was free speech then you could say what ever you wanted to who ever you wanted to. I do agree that some things could be left unsaid but it never seems to happen that way any more. There is always going to be someone that doesn't agree with something. There is always three sides to argument the people who think its right the people who think its wrong and the people who just don't care. For example some people think gay marriage is totally alright then you have the people who think that males and females were put on this earth for a reason that is so that one male and one female can be joined and reproduce. Then you have the people like me that don't care just done come on to me with your ideas. I say let the gays get married and be happy then you won't have to hear them complain how its just not fair. I think that some things are purposely said to stir up trouble those are the things that need to be taken care of for example if someone said we hate school so lets blow it up. That would something that would need to be look into. If someone said I hate school that is just an opinion and it has no threat so it doesn't need further attention.
Many of you have made some great points. I agree that we need to protect our freedom of speech. I think we also need to remember that the freedom of speech is just that, we have the freedom to speak our minds – but that does not give us the right to offend others. What about morals and ethics – or how about just common sense and decency?? I think it’s kind of sad that so many people have taken their individual freedom too far and used it to cause harm others. Wouldn't we all be better off if we remembered our kindergarten rules: Be nice, Take turns, and Keep your hands, feet and objects to yourself!!
--Jenna Hansroth
Limiting what freedom of speech well do no good. It only gives chances to have more of that freedom taken away. Society is too easily offended. People will always have their own opinions about things and most of the time it will offend someone some how. I don't think it is right to go around and speak in such a manner to blatantly offend people but the problem is where would the line be drawn? So many people could take offence in so many different ways. It could easily get too out of control. There are hate crime laws that help protect those who need it. That is enough. People shouldn't be so sensitive. If someone thinks that way about you then too bad. Not everyone is going to see each other in the same perspective or agree.
I again agree with Sabrina, if people are gay, let them be its their life not yours, and it none of your buisness. If people are complaining about lyrics to rap music....well dont let your kids listen to it and dont listen to it yourself. Rap music its like a culture, they have their beliefs on how the music should be written, weather or no it includes curse words. Same goes for country music, if someone doesnt like country music DON'T LISTEN TO IT!!! Its that simple. Country artists have their beliefs also on how the music should be writen and sang. We need to stop worrying about stupid controversies, and start worrying about alternantive fuel and world hunger, things like that!
-Rickli
Sorry for the typos! Is that how you spell it? =]
I think we should havwe the freedom of speech. But i do think you shoud go around and offending people because they can. They should use there heads and see if it is the best time to start up that particular subject. So I think we should have the freedom of speech but don't abuse the right and the freedom you have to say what you want.
I also agree with Carter. It shouldnt be FREEDOM OF SPEECH...but NOT SO FREE SPEECH. Good point Mark, just commenting.
-Rickli
Post a Comment