Merged Discussions of Hate Speech and the First Amendment

I'm checking:

First Amendment said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope. Nothing about youtube banning nazis.
 
Re the OP...

Bubba said:
What about first amendment and hate speech?

What of the spirit of that expression which goes something like "I may not agree with what you say but I agree you have the right to say it or will defend you right to say it."

This is associated with Youtube's new program of monitoring content, as an example of censorship.

Recognizing that the first amendment may not apply in some places like a privately owned workplace.
Click to expand...



The highlited part was meant to recognize YouTube's right to censor as they wish.

So, where is censoring 'hate speech' not allowed ?
 
theprestige said:
Tony, the whole point of the term "hate speech" is to denote a category of speech that the government is allowed to censor.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense.

As the article states, "Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender."

And as the article goes on to say (quoting the Supreme Court), in the United States, "Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law."
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Nothing about cake shops banning gay cakes, either. And yet...
Click to expand...

You realise that the same law that prevents Bakers refusing service to gay's, also protects straight people from being refused service by bakers that find hetro couples to be morally repugnant, don't you?

In other words, the law equally protects both gay and straight people from being discriminated against because of their sexuality.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
There are a couple of differences. At least until this October, the issue is that laws have created protected classes. A cake shop can refuse to serve Nazis, but they can't refuse to serve blacks, because blacks are a protected class and Nazis are not.
Click to expand...

I hear this kind of stuff a lot. Sad.

There are downsides to democracy, and to protect all from the excesses of the moment, there are restrictions, such as three independent branches of government, representative democracy in place of direct mob rule, and, for the issue at hand, guaranteed constitutional rights that cannot be overruled by momentary passions.

Not serving others on the basis of partisan beliefs is a violation of other's rights, yes. However, refusing to serve on the basis of identity is a no go.

Refusing to serve Nazis who otherwise are "doing nothing" is still OK, given that they are known to support terrorism, and have a track record of violent imposition of their views. There is reasonable cause to keep any Nazi under close surveillance, and as far from innocent lives as possible, same as for any Islamist nutjob. Peas in a very sick pod.

Any other flimsy moral equivalence?
 
Hlafordlaes said:
I hear this kind of stuff a lot. Sad.

There are downsides to democracy, and to protect all from the excesses of the moment, there are restrictions, such as three independent branches of government, representative democracy in place of direct mob rule, and, for the issue at hand, guaranteed constitutional rights that cannot be overruled by momentary passions.

Not serving others on the basis of partisan beliefs is a violation of other's rights, yes. However, refusing to serve on the basis of identity is a no go.

Refusing to serve Nazis who otherwise are "doing nothing" is still OK, given that they are known to support terrorism, and have a track record of violent imposition of their views. There is reasonable cause to keep any Nazi under close surveillance, and as far from innocent lives as possible, same as for any Islamist nutjob. Peas in a very sick pod.

Any other flimsy moral equivalence?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

There is nothing in my post having anything to do with "moral equivalence". It is simply a statement about the law.
 
Garrison said:
Some people seem to have a really hard time understanding this, the right to free speech does not mean that any person or company has to provide you with a platform to speak on.

Frankly the US seems overly enamoured of the idea of free speech as an absolute, other people have the right to live a life free of threats and unwarranted abuse.
Click to expand...

Only in a narrow limit of what the government can and can't do. Other countries have different approaches.
 
Free Speech is a protection afforded between citizens and their government.

It is not between citizens and businesses or citizens and other citizens.
 
Molinaro said:
Free Speech is a protection afforded between citizens and their government.

It is not between citizens and businesses or citizens and other citizens.
Click to expand...

That is a good statement of the USA view, but many countries - such as those in the EU - don't take the same view.
 
uke2se said:
What's the issue with the laws concerning protected classes then?
Click to expand...

"Issue"?

There is no issue. It's just a statement about the law. There are protected classes. Black people are a protected class. Nazis are not.

ETA: Oh, I see. You are reacting to: "At least until this October, the issue is that laws have created protected classes"

There's nothing meant by "issue" there. It's just a statement of why you can discriminate on some classes and not others. It's because some classes are protected.

And as PhantomWolf is about to say, "black people" are not the class that is protected, it's "race".


In October, the Supreme Court will decide a case that will affect how those class protections can be applied to businesses that are claiming an exemption based on freedom of expression or religion.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
"Issue"?

There is no issue. It's just a statement about the law. There are protected classes. Black people are a protected class. Nazis are not.
Click to expand...

The is actually incorrect. Race is a protected class, you cannot discriminate against someone because of their skin colour or race, that means you can't discriminate against black people, but also white people, asians, arabs, Persians, etc. as well.

The protected classes are: Race, Religion, Gender, and Sexuality (in some places Age also)

Political Affiliation (which Nazism falls under) is not a Protected Class.
 
Last edited:
However, political position and participation is protected in many states via state laws, so that guy who just got fired for Nazi marching may or may not have a legal case against his employer, depending on the state, and whether he participated in illegal violence, which is protected nowhere.
 
Tony Stark said:
That doesn't make them equivalent. But you knew that.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of the current debate, it does make them equivalent. Morals are not absolute, but we can surely say that a certain breed of Christian hates gay people just as much as the average person hates Nazis. You may think those Christians are wrong, stupid and evil but that's really irrelevant.

So if Shopkeeper Bob hates Nazis and Gay people, why can he turn one of those away but not the other? Keep in mind that it isn't the government's place to dictate morals or interfere with sincerely held religious views.

You might argue: "Because Nazis are morally repugnant and gays are not." OK, that's your viewpoint, but Shopkeeper Bob disagrees. Why should the government reinforce your sincerely held beliefs but not Shopkeeper Bob's?

And please, I know what the law is. I'm trying to get at the underlying principle.
 
xjx388 said:
For the purposes of the current debate, it does make them equivalent. Morals are not absolute, but we can surely say that a certain breed of Christian hates gay people just as much as the average person hates Nazis. You may think those Christians are wrong, stupid and evil but that's really irrelevant.

So if Shopkeeper Bob hates Nazis and Gay people, why can he turn one of those away but not the other? Keep in mind that it isn't the government's place to dictate morals or interfere with sincerely held religious views.

You might argue: "Because Nazis are morally repugnant and gays are not." OK, that's your viewpoint, but Shopkeeper Bob disagrees. Why should the government reinforce your sincerely held beliefs but not Shopkeeper Bob's?

And please, I know what the law is. I'm trying to get at the underlying principle.
Click to expand...

Maybe examine the underlying principles of what it means to be a Nazi, and then you might begin to understand why someone might not want a violent extremist for a patron.

Hating gays is rooted in ignorance and bigotry. Hating Nazis is rooted in history and common sense. Your attempt to equate the two is both sad and offensive.
 
Last edited:
It's kind of amazing.

This is the one time where the only rational thing right wingers can do is to say "Nazis and white supremacists have no place in our society" and "Nazism is not just another view point" or words to that effect, and then leave it at that. Instead, there's always a 'but', or a quibble here or there.

Take a ******* stance against this filth! Stop your equivocating. Defending Trump on this will only make you look bad.
 
uke2se said:
It's kind of amazing.

This is the one time where the only rational thing right wingers can do is to say "Nazis and white supremacists have no place in our society" and "Nazism is not just another view point" or words to that effect, and then leave it at that. Instead, there's always a 'but', or a quibble here or there.

Take a ******* stance against this filth! Stop your equivocating. Defending Trump on this will only make you look bad.
Click to expand...

Nazis is literally another viewpoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom