Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The case for restricting hate speech
LA Times ^ | June 21, 2017 | Laura Beth Nielsen

Posted on 06/22/2017 6:39:53 AM PDT by C19fan

As a sociologist and legal scholar, I struggle to explain the boundaries of free speech to undergraduates. Despite the 1st Amendment—I tell my students—local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech. We regulate advertising, obscenity, slander, libel, and inciting lawless action to name just a few. My students nod along until we get to racist and sexist speech. Some can’t grasp why, if we restrict so many forms of speech, we don’t also restrict hate speech. Why, for example, did the Supreme Court on Monday rule that the trademark office cannot reject “disparaging” applications—like a request from an Oregon band to trademark “the Slants” as in Asian “slant eyes.”

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: freedom; speech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: C19fan

Hate speech is code for criticism among others. By selectively applying hate speech they can end all criticism of their ideas, policies and actions.


21 posted on 06/22/2017 7:09:26 AM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

First we need a definition of hate speech.

As Democrats understand it, they can angrily yell threats and it is free speech. When Ann Coulter calmly mocks liberal views, it is hate speech.

Perhaps the very first standard should be rejection of self-serving double-standards.


22 posted on 06/22/2017 7:14:08 AM PDT by ChessExpert (It's not compassion when you use government to give other people's money away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The restrictions on speech, such as libel, obscenity, and incitement are based on direct and reasonable harm.

Reasonable harm.

Obscenity is the weakest of that and is your “in” on arguing hate speech regulation but obscenity has long since been regulated to a narrow issue.

Hate speech is so very subjective that you can’t generally get most people to agree on what precisely harm comes from it. Ego? Self-identity? Who cares.

But if the government wants to lock up folks who advocate for melanin theory, say that Europeans are cavebeasts, and that whiteness is problematic, who am I to say “no”?


23 posted on 06/22/2017 7:14:54 AM PDT by Bogey78O (So far so good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

sure, as long as “I” get to decide what is “hate speech”

I personally find most leftist speeches quite hateful, so we will start the banning with those! and then move on to Hollywood!


24 posted on 06/22/2017 7:16:42 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Make America Great Again !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I suppose the professor would be the one to define who is to be considered as marginalized or disadvantaged. I would bet that fat cats, capitalist pigs and crackers would not be among them.


25 posted on 06/22/2017 7:20:20 AM PDT by ggboss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Congress shall make no law...


26 posted on 06/22/2017 7:20:23 AM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

https://brooks.house.gov/media-center/news-releases/news-release-brooks-introduces-congressional-self-defense-act-allow

Free speech for me, but not for thee. That’s some tired stuff.
As can be seen from the article above, this `OK for me but not you’ attitude is even held by critters who claim to defend the 2nd: if you want to issue gun carry permits in DC, why just to yourselves?
The BOR only applies in some states? To some Americans?
DC isn’t a part of the US?


27 posted on 06/22/2017 7:21:24 AM PDT by tumblindice ("Fight for your country." Hector)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

“hate speech” = everything I disagree with.


28 posted on 06/22/2017 7:21:24 AM PDT by wastedyears (Prophecy of sky Gods, the sun and moon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
The Left's position to restrict "hate speech" while they say they proudly support the First Amendment is untenable ... it falls apart on who defines "hate speech".

That is, "hate speech" to one is simply a contrary position to another.

29 posted on 06/22/2017 7:25:22 AM PDT by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djpg

“Shut up those whe disagree with us by designating everything they say as “hate speech.”.............

Would be a great idea to shut down the liberal demodummies, everything coming out of their mouths seems to be “hate speech” these days.


30 posted on 06/22/2017 7:28:08 AM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rightwingcrazy

Great response! Exposes the left’s hypocrisy


31 posted on 06/22/2017 7:30:08 AM PDT by Jan_Sobieski (Sanctification)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: djpg

Exactly!


32 posted on 06/22/2017 7:30:52 AM PDT by Jan_Sobieski (Sanctification)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jan_Sobieski

The word diversity is sometimes used by some people in a way that is demeaning and hateful to some other people.... so how about we start by banning the word diversity.


33 posted on 06/22/2017 7:32:06 AM PDT by csivils
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The case for restricting press freedom.

How’s that taste, Times?


34 posted on 06/22/2017 7:32:56 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The concept of “hate speech” is a toxic fiction invented to facilitate the imposition of tyranny.

It is incumbent on every decent person to oppose this effort in every way. When someone utters the words “hate speech,” they should be ridiculed, scorned, abominated, driven from the society of sane people.

Many today are too young to remember the world before the forces of evil concocted and sold this vile notion. I don’t know if those people can be brought back to rationality, but at the very least they must be kept from positions of power.

No one who thinks “hate speech” is a real thing should ever be in charge of anything, not even a mop and bucket.


35 posted on 06/22/2017 7:34:46 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
So IOW "progressives" would restrict "hate speech" by giving a white guy 2 years for something like "n*gger" while a black guy would get a wink and a nod for "cracker".

Actually...the very fact that I can type "cracker" but not "n*gger" is revealing in and of itself.

36 posted on 06/22/2017 7:38:55 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Comey = The Swamp Fighting Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
I'm curious.If I was to point out that blacks,who make up about 15% of the population,commit about half the country's murders (according to FBI stats) could I be punished in any way under the Rat Party's “hate speech” legislation?
37 posted on 06/22/2017 7:41:24 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Comey = The Swamp Fighting Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I quit reading after the second sentence or so. She is precisely wrong - we DON’T regulate obscenity libel, or inciting violence, at least not against liberals.


38 posted on 06/22/2017 7:43:14 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (Three most annoying words on the internet - "Watch the Video")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
My students nod along until we get to racist and sexist speech. Some can’t grasp why, if we restrict so many forms of speech, we don’t also restrict hate speech.

No offense lady, but your students are stupid.

39 posted on 06/22/2017 7:47:50 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Great News!

The LA Times will no longer publish comments by Democrat politicians.


40 posted on 06/22/2017 7:57:51 AM PDT by oldbill (ure wa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson