Title: All Black People Spend Their Time Smoking Marijuana And Popping Out Babies! Source:
[None] URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fElcADwoJI Published:Mar 18, 2013 Author:staff Post Date:2013-03-18 23:03:40 by Horse Keywords:None Views:737 Comments:42
The title of this thread is the kind of stuff you'd read in a Critical Reasoning textbook where it doesn't teach you think but instead plants subliminals in the conscious mind. The seeds of disinformation. Such disinformation tactics are the kind used by CIA to sway people to a way of thinking that creates chaos. It starts with a seed. Be wary here. The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites civil violence.
The incitement of such speech falls under the Fighting Words doctrine which is not protected under the First Amendment. This comment does not pertain to Horse's thread at all but to the woman (named "Anna")from Moscow which the CNN anchorwoman was referring to. I sense that the Moscow lady responsible for the comment may be KGB.
Were I a journalist, I would have asked this "Anna" how long she has been in the U.S. and what is her occupation.
So what if it is either provocative or offensive. The function of the First Amendment is to protect the right of free speech - any speech regardless of whether we personally find it offensive or provocative. Incitement to riot does not justify or excuse rioting.
Unless the speech we abhor is protected then we do not have FREE speech. The First Amendment does not protect just the speech we agree with.
Incitement to riot does not justify or excuse rioting.
That makes no sense at all. What triggers incitement to riot is a kind of action or speech that many refer to as "hate speech". Hate speech notice is placed in just about every police department these days. Such notices exists in L.A. police stations. Hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment when it triggers riots on the streets. The offender responsible for such speech should be held accountable for their actions. In this case, it would be "Anna" from Moscow. It is highly possible that Anna is neither a resident of Philadelphia nor is she a U.S. citizen. Or this video is just a sham.
Hate speech is still speech. It is not an action nor is it a threat or attack on the well being or body of someone else. That does not mean I approve of it, but when government, the law, is allowed to determine what is, and is not, acceptable speech you are no longer free and it opens the door to much mischief. It opens the door to arbitrary determinations that speech which is truthful, but uncomfortable, is forbidden speech. A direct threat of violence etc., is another matter and while someone should not be forbidden to utter such they can be restrained and even sanctioned for making threats, but that is a special case.
Further, hate speech, like pornography, is in the eye/ear of the beholder and not all people are going to to be agreed that any given instance is in fact "hate speech". I frequently disagree with our resident racist pigs but I would not forbid their speaking even though I find it shallow, narrow minded, irrational, and even hateful.
Hate speech is still speech. It is not an action nor is it a threat or attack on the well being or body of someone else.
Hate speech is a verbal attack which may lead to violence. In legal sense, this is called a foreseeable risk injury. The reason why the police put such notice up nearby the front desk where, is because Hate Speech is a foreseeable risk injury that leads to violence to which the police cannot protect you nor can they be sued for somebody else's irresponsible speech because they provided to the public Notice that Hate Speech is not tolerated. The Department of Justice also has this Notice as well. Same with FBI.
Hate speech is a verbal attack which may lead to violence. In legal sense, this is called a foreseeable injury. The reason why the police put such notice up nearby the front desk where, is because Hate Speech is a foreseeable injury that leads to violence to which the police cannot protect you nor can they be sued for somebody else's irresponsible speech because they provided to the public Notice that Hate Speech is not tolerated. The Department of Justice also has this Notice as well. Same with FBI.
It is called by another name as well - creeping totalitarianism. When government is allowed to determine what speech is acceptable and what is not then you are no longer free. You may well wish to be a carefully sheltered slave but I do not.
It is like the famous quote from the English Parliament: I disagree entirely with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Therein also lies the key point. I do not have to like or dislike something someone else utters. What is sacrosanct in a free society is their right to utter it.
Any determination as to what is acceptable or unacceptable speech is ALWAYS arbitrary.
I made a correction in my post #10. "In legal sense, this is called a foreseeable injury. The reason why the police put such notice up nearby the front desk where, is because Hate Speech is a foreseeable injury..."
But it is not necessarily foreseeable. Some people have more self control when confronted with provocative speech than others. Therein lies the disctinction. Someones speech may well be inflammatory but the decision to respond with violence is an individual decision and is not a given nor is it an act necessary to preserve one's physical well being. Speech, however hateful, remains speech.