Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > International Forum
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

International Forum Discuss Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by GottaGo Of course you see nothing wrong with this statement. You have made your opinion clear that ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-18-2020, 12:25 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,413
Thanks: 7,026
Thanked 6,818 Times in 4,627 Posts
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
Of course you see nothing wrong with this statement. You have made your opinion clear that US citizens should not be able to think differently then you, voice opinions differently then you, and should accept the loving, helping hand of the government in realigning any thinking outside to prescribed train of thought.


People like you are WHY the 1st Amendment exists.

She needs to re-read this part: "The freedom of speech is, in sum, our foremost protection against tyranny. Without it, a tyrant can work his will without any fear of his opponents uttering even one cross word."

Unfortunately, if the tyrant is well spoken, articulate and Democrat, they will be fine with HIM or HER getting rid of the 1st amendment.
__________________
Appeasement, is feeding the crocodiles, hoping they will eat you last.
Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-26-2020, 05:45 PM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,853
Thanks: 1,742
Thanked 1,866 Times in 1,143 Posts
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
I see nothing wrong with this statement.
yelling 'fire' when there isn't one is not in the constitution either.
we would all agree it is wrong and causes harm sometimes unto death.
so does telling people the lie that the election was stolen.
so does hate speech against muslims, mexicans and others.
The whole thing about yelling fire in a crowded theater was basically a judge telling anti-war activists the 1st amendment is not absolute and using that analogy to justify criminalizing speech that opposed the draft during WWI. Our government at the time criminalized anti-war speech and the supreme court at the time sided with the government. That ruling was decades later basically overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/


First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."

The Court's description of the pamphlet proves it to be milder than any of the dozens of protests currently going on around this country every day:

It said, "Do not submit to intimidation," but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed "Assert Your Rights."

The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court's holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a "clear and present danger" to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year--Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.--also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White's excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
criminalising, england, homes, proposed, speech’, ‘hate

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0