Posted on 01/31/2014 5:53:39 AM PST by PaulCruz2016
New studies show that unbridled hateful speech can cause emotional harm. Is it time for the United States to follow other democracies and impose limits on what Neo-Nazis and other haters say?
Over the past several weeks, free speech has gotten costlier—at least in France and Israel.
In France, Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, an anti-Semitic stand-up comic infamous for popularizing the quenelle, an inverted Nazi salute, was banned from performing in two cities. M’Bala M’Bala has been repeatedly fined for hate speech, and this was not the first time his act was perceived as a threat to public order.
Meanwhile, Israel’s parliament is soon to pass a bill outlawing the word Nazi for non-educational purposes. Indeed, any slur against another that invokes the Third Reich could land the speaker in jail for six months with a fine of $29,000. The Israelis are concerned about both the rise of anti-Semitism globally, and the trivialization of the Holocaust—even locally.
To Americans, these actions in France and Israel seem positively undemocratic. The First Amendment would never prohibit the quenelle, regardless of its symbolic meaning. And any lover of “Seinfeld” would regard banning the “Soup Nazi” episode as scandalously un-American. After all, in 1977 a federal court upheld the right of neo-Nazis to goose-step right through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which had a disproportionately large number of Holocaust survivors as residents. And more recently, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read, “God Hates Fags.”
While what is happening in France and Israel is wholly foreign to Americans, perhaps it’s time to consider whether these and other countries may be right. Perhaps America’s fixation on free speech has gone too far.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
IIRC, they paraded in NYC during WWII.
Adios, mofo.
A little too late. The sotu was Tuesday night.
Leftists are so predictable.
Unpleasant speech can be emotionally stressful. Of course. But unpleasant experiences are unfortunately part of life. The way leftist talk cause me distress. Seeing Obama or Pelosi on TV causes me distress. Threats to free speech cause me very great distress. Life itself tends to be stressful to most people.
Americans once faced and conquered a wild and hostile continent. Now they want to be protected from unpleasant words. Heaven help us.
No, “they” shouldn’t outlaw it.
The scary part here is not the speech itself, but who is “they”? What do “they” believe and how far will “they” go after this.
What would “they” consider next to be outlawed. Pretty soon everyone speeks the way “they” want them to.
Should KKK rallies be outlawed?
What about Black Panthers?
Duh. Protects everyone from David Duke to Barry.
The First Ammendment was INTENDED to protect speech that the majority finds offensive. There would be no need for an ammendment to protect only that speech which is generally found to be inoffensive. I certainly don’t agree with what the neo-nazis say, but they do have the right to say it. The remedy is not to stifle their speech, but to oppose it by presenting contrary ideas.
Gee, maybe while we’re at it we should outlaw free speech for commie progressive leftists, too.
I thought the followers of the is-lamish “faith” already had free speech. Or they’ll cut your head off.
Despite the emotional harm that he causes, I support Thane Rosenbaun’s right to freedom of speech. But perhaps he would be happier if he took up Israeli citizenship and moved to that socialist paradise.
Yes. (answer to the headline)
In the US, it is a stupid question. We are the land of “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”
Own it.
“Ammendment”
The word you are looking for is ‘amendment’. You might want to work on your spell checker.
Of course, that does bring up the problems with degree. Just how hateful, harmful, and hurtful does something have to be in order to be noticed and action taken against the speaker?
Then there is the determination of exactly what is considered hateful, harmful, and hurtful...
Or the problem of who gets to decide...
Or who/what is protected from such speech. How big of a group or demographic counts? You don't want to discriminate on size do you?
What if it is hateful speech against something that is harmful? Hmmm...
Did Nancy Pelosi write this for them???
I’m offended by gay pride parades. Are they going to ban those too? They don’t want to discriminate do they? Hey, let’s ban anything that offends anyone...
From Il Duce Cuomo.
”Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro assault weapon, anti-gay, is that who they are? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York. Because that is not who New Yorkers are.” Il Duce Cuomo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.