• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

(Senator) Markey (D-MA) proposal may threaten free speech

A study! Why, I think I am getting the vapors!

From the article:

Michael Lieberman of the Anti-Defamation League said he backs the bill, which is similar to a Markey-backed 1993 study that found hate crimes linked to media “scattered and largely anecdotal” and recommended no government bans.
Click to expand...

The judiciary has made sure that hate speech-like laws aren't constitutional (see funeral protest law). I don't see the threat.

Looking at the actual bill, it is very short. Here is the meat:

SEC. 2. REPORT.

Section 155 of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration Organization Act (enacted as section 135 of Public Law
102-538; 106 Stat. 3542) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 155. REPORT ON THE ROLE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN HATE CRIMES.

``(a) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014, the NTIA, with the
assistance of the Department of Justice, the Commission, and the United
States Commission on Civil Rights, shall submit a report to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate on
the role of telecommunications in hate crimes in accordance with
subsection (b).
``(b) Scope of Report.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall--
``(1) analyze information on the use of telecommunications,
including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable
television, public access television, commercial mobile
services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage
violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate, as described
in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note);
``(2) include any recommendations, consistent with the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that
the NTIA determines are appropriate and necessary to address
the use of telecommunications described in paragraph (1); and
``(3) update the previous report submitted under this
section (as in effect before the date of enactment of the Hate
Crime Reporting Act of 2014).''.
Click to expand...

Linky.

Given the world didn't end the last time the report was made, I don't see why this time will be catastrophic. Those who would say that study leads to government action curtailing free speech would have to explain why that hasn't happened.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Stopping people from encouraging crime is against the first amendment?
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but I certainly hope stopping people from speaking in favor of breaking the law is a violation of the First Amendment. Abolitionists urging people to help runaway slaves, Henry David Thoreau's encouraging civil disobedience to protest a U.S. war, Susan B. Anthony's asking women to vote in the federal elections of 1872 - our country has a long history of protecting free speech - even speech encouraging crime.

Thumbs down on the democrat who wants the government to monitor TV, radio, and the internet for speech that leads to criminal behavior. Brandenburg v Ohio is good enough for me.
 
So the bill doesn't actually do anything beyond a study and report?

It probably won't be very useful, but whatever.
 
thaiboxerken said:
So you support inciting violent hate crimes, Ladewig?
Click to expand...

Short answer: yes.
I believe the Nazis and the KKK have a right to speak their messages in public. I find their messages abhorrent and will do what I can to show that their messages will push society backwards. But the U.S. government is not the entity that should prevent these groups from spreading their hateful, stupid message.


The Brandenburg test is where I would draw the line. Unless speech is "likely to produce imminent lawless action," the government should not restrict it. I do not see "the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, ..." as likely to produce imminent lawlessness.
 
Last edited:
OOps, they come under that fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) thing. I.e. a direct action draws the punishment.
 
Do you happen to know what the case was when the "fire in a crowded theater" meme was coined? Look it up.

It's not to your credit to perpetuate it.
 
Ladewig said:
I am not a lawyer, but I certainly hope stopping people from speaking in favor of breaking the law is a violation of the First Amendment. Abolitionists urging people to help runaway slaves, Henry David Thoreau's encouraging civil disobedience to protest a U.S. war, Susan B. Anthony's asking women to vote in the federal elections of 1872 - our country has a long history of protecting free speech - even speech encouraging crime.
Click to expand...

Criminal acts require an action that breaks the law and intent to commit that action. (There are some laws without the intent requirement.) You can scream up and down that "I want to do X," but until you actually do X, there is no crime.

For a more modern example, see all the elected officials who are saying states should seceded from the US. Doing so would be treason. Saying it is just playing politics.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Markey proposal may threaten free speech
Boston Herald

Proposed meme (with tune): M.A.R.K.E.Y M.O.U.S.E :)
Click to expand...

International Readers: This is like citing the Daily Mail as a news source.

It's an opinion piece in the Benghazi! Blade!. Staunch conservative paper that was formerly Hearst and formerly Murdoch. It has stayed with its tradition of yellow journalism.

Nice to see such tabloids still get a following from Thinking Conservatives.

It's a study. I'd personally like to see if there are mechanisms (I've yet to see ones I'm satisfied with, e.g. cannot be abused) for hindering hate speech, myself. I'm not proposing any such laws, but I sure as hell am not going to panic over a study on the topic.
 
Analysis (not original with me):

Some wealthy contributor of his thought it was a good idea. So he offered it up knowing it would go nowhere.
 
Ladewig said:
Short answer: yes.
I believe the Nazis and the KKK have a right to speak their messages in public. I find their messages abhorrent and will do what I can to show that their messages will push society backwards. But the U.S. government is not the entity that should prevent these groups from spreading their hateful, stupid message.


The Brandenburg test is where I would draw the line. Unless speech is "likely to produce imminent lawless action," the government should not restrict it. I do not see "the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, ..." as likely to produce imminent lawlessness.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on how he's trying to discourage the messaging. He's proposing a study.

With that study, he may simply use the information gathered to simply counter the hate message.

Would that be a violation of free speech?
 
thaiboxerken said:
I think it depends on how he's trying to discourage the messaging. He's proposing a study.

With that study, he may simply use the information gathered to simply counter the hate message.

Would that be a violation of free speech?
Click to expand...

From my perspective, that would not be a violation of free speech.
 
The OP article is simple fear-mongering. A study on how to stop hate speech is hardly a step towards censorship. They probably want to know how to do it without violating the Constitution, such as countering such speech with messages of tolerance..etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom