I know that sounds kinda rough, but consider it..

If I call Muhhammed a Stinky PoopHead and some asshole wants to behead me for it, I would like that person shot.

Preferably, BEFORE he beheads me... :D

Michale

But is it smart? Does it incite violence?

Only in ONE of those groups..

So, if two groups can control themselves and one group cannot..

Where does the problem lie??

With the offensive speech??

Or with the group??

I think the answer is clear...

The other consideration is that in many places in the world, they do not have a free press. Residents in those countries are used to having all published material come from, & be approved by, the Ministry of Information. Thus when they see a video from America, they assume it is the official position of the American Government.

Their ignorance is the problem..

Not our freedoms..

So, "Well, that is solely and completely on the uncivilized group...".

No.

Yes..

If I call you every vile name in the book and you deck me, guess who's going to jail??

Mere words are not sufficient justification for violence..

At least, not in civilized societies...

It's on the unwise makers of the video who made their video knowing that it could incite some to anti-American violence.

While I would dispute that point, it's not relevant to the discussion.

unwise =! illegal

I do not have a concrete answer; but it strikes me that if you can restrict the incitement to violence of the Speaker's Group then you equally ought to be able to restrict an incitement of another group.

You lost me on this point..

The SCOTUS has held that how a person or a group might react to speech is not sufficient cause to restrict that speech, as long as all other caveats are observed..

In other words, it's perfectly permissible to restrict speech in a FIRE/THEATER scenario...

But saying that I can't call Muhhammed a pedophile and a deflower'er of dogs because someone on the other side of the planet MIGHT be offended enough to do violence?? Not permissible...

If a person or group is offended enough to do violence, then the problem is WITH that person/group..

NOT with the speaker...

It's the person/group that needs to be restricted/restrained/shot..

NOT the speaker..

This is how it is in civilized societies..

OK, OK, Maybe not the "shot" part.. That's just my own personal preference.. :D

Michale

Offensive speech is not, of necessity, hate speech. I'd cite Mitt Romney's 47% comments as an example. Offensive, but not inciting hatred or violence. He had an absolute right to say those things.

But was it smart?

Does anyone have the right to make a video that ridicules Christians, Jews, or Muslims?

But is it smart? Does it incite violence?

The other consideration is that in many places in the world, they do not have a free press. Residents in those countries are used to having all published material come from, & be approved by, the Ministry of Information. Thus when they see a video from America, they assume it is the official position of the American Government.

So, "Well, that is solely and completely on the uncivilized group...".

No.

It's on the unwise makers of the video who made their video knowing that it could incite some to anti-American violence.

I do not have a concrete answer; but it strikes me that if you can restrict the incitement to violence of the Speaker's Group then you equally ought to be able to restrict an incitement of another group.

But I wouldn't be making any video that incited violence against Muslims..

Just like the guy who made the Anti-Islam video didn't make a video that incited violence AGAINST Muslims..

He made a video that RIDICULED Muslims and THAT incited violence FROM Muslims..

I completely agree that FREE SPEECH doesn't cover speech or videos that incite violence AGAINST people. ANY people, "protected" or not...

But we're not talking about that kind of speech..

We are talking about speech that is offensive to a group of people.. THAT is the very definition of Protected Free Speech..

The fact that the offensive speech prompts this particular uncivilized group to be violent??

Well, that is solely and completely on the uncivilized group...

The latter is, in NO WAY, excused by the former..

I see your mistake now and I understand a little more where you are coming from..

I believe they are protected under these laws on exactly the same footing as everyone else. A 'protected group' by it's very nature is afforded some particular protection that applies to that group only.

When you kill Joe Blow off the street, it's Murder....

When you kill Officer Joe Blow, it's Capital Murder..

Cops are a protected group insofar as killing one results in a much harsher penalty than killing any old civilian..

Michale

Yes you can do this to me. I am not a protected group for this purpose.

I can even make a YouTube video of mohammed in various sexual positions with a variety of animals and it's not Hate Speech...

Well you actually could do this and sit-back as the consequences of you doing this don't affect you at all. I would argue that you shouldn't be allowed to do this. Just as you shouldn't be allowed to make anti-semitic videos that incite violance against Jews.

Murder?? Capital Murder?? Ringing any bells???

I believe they are protected under these laws on exactly the same footing as everyone else. A 'protected group' by it's very nature is afforded some particular protection that applies to that group only.

OK So, we agree...

I can say that Muhammed is a pedophile and draw a picture of him boinking a pig in the barnyard and it's not Hate Speech..

I can even make a YouTube video of mohammed in various sexual positions with a variety of animals and it's not Hate Speech...

I am glad you finally saw reason...

Congrats...

be against the police as, by definition, they are not and never will be a protected group...

In some laws, they are..

Murder?? Capital Murder?? Ringing any bells???

Now, I will agree that, in speech, cops are not a protected group..

Michale

I know it. You know it. Everyone else here knows it..

Lolol you have to be kidding. At least if you're going to lie and mis-quote me then do it to a quote that isn't 5 inches up the page for everyone to see! Offensive speech has nothing to do with hate speech - but hate speech can NEVER be against the police as, by definition, they are not and never will be a protected group...

OK, so NOW you are saying that offensive speech directed towards a "protected group" is NOT "Hate Speech"???

Is THAT what you are saying now???

Yup that is what I'm saying now and have never said any different. We go through this whole song and dance every time on this topic because every single time you can't understand the definition of hate speech!

Which such restrictive free speech laws, I don't think so.. :D

Nope this still sounds like this other 'michty' guy, although at least his definition is getting gradually closer to the real one I use every time you write it ;)

You tap dance better than anyone on here..

You are on record as stating that offensive speech against a protected group is free speech.. As recently as post #5 above..

I know it. You know it. Everyone else here knows it..

I would suggest to this other michty guy that you are quoting that he should consider the 'offensive speech' part of his definition as it is incorrect...

OK, so NOW you are saying that offensive speech directed towards a "protected group" is NOT "Hate Speech"???

Is THAT what you are saying now???

Michale

Last time I checked we were part of the "civilised world". In fact, depending on how you define "civilised world", the US is miles behind when it comes to hate speech. Just wikipedia hate speech and read through the list of 'civilised' countries and how we deal with this crime...

But don't worry, you've got bigger fish to fry before 'hate crime' is a major issue. Healthcare is (almost) sorted for one...

Uhh, that would be you..

You are on record as stating that offensive speech against a "protected" ground = Hate Speech....

Nope this still sounds like this other 'michty' guy, although at least his definition is getting gradually closer to the real one I use every time you write it ;) I would suggest to this other michty guy that you are quoting that he should consider the 'offensive speech' part of his definition as it is incorrect...

Newsflash for ya, Sunny Jim.. The UK hasn't been "the rest of the world" since we kicked ya'alls asses back in the 1770s... :D

Who is this michty character you refer to here?

Uhh, that would be you..

You are on record as stating that offensive speech against a "protected" ground = Hate Speech....

Michale

Wow I didn't know we did any of the stuff in the UK. Well I guess it has been a few months since I've been there, I guess things must have changed a lot under our new Tory Government.

Unless you, like michty, think that offensive speech = hate speech..

Who is this michty character you refer to here? Must be someone copying my username in an effort to slander me by saying such stupid statements!

"Free Speech" is a misnomer. There have been always laws against libel, slander, or defamation. Fraud & false Advertising are also restricted. Obscenity isn't protected. (not to get too far into it, you have a right to publish obscene materials to willing receivers only) Hate speech is included here as well.

No mention of offensive speech there..

Unless you, like michty, think that offensive speech = hate speech..

Michale

You say "hate speech" I say "free speech"..

But that's no surprise as the US is in a minority with a lot of these things since it still draws on a document written in the 18th century for a bunch of it's stupid laws instead of progressing forward with the rest of the world into the 21st century...

Yea, shooting guns in the air for celebration, forcing women to outlandish costumes, legalizing rape and beheading people for being offensive is REALLY 21st century...

If THAT is the 21st century, then I am happy to stay in the 18th... :D

Michale...

"That First Amendment is there for a reason. It is to protect offensive and rude speech."

Need to disagree. The First Amendment protects POLITICAL speech. We can debate any political issue or hold any political viewpoint & have it Constitutionally protected. Except advocacy of violence.

"Free Speech" is a misnomer. There have been always laws against libel, slander, or defamation. Fraud & false Advertising are also restricted. Obscenity isn't protected. (not to get too far into it, you have a right to publish obscene materials to willing receivers only) Hate speech is included here as well.

BTW, I think G. Julius Caesar refers to it as "the ancient gesture of defiance" in his "Gallic Wars".

Lololol I've got bad news for you. In terms of 'civilized countries' the US is in the minority with regards to protection against hate speech.

But that's no surprise as the US is in a minority with a lot of these things since it still draws on a document written in the 18th century for a bunch of it's stupid laws instead of progressing forward with the rest of the world into the 21st century...

I am constrained to point out that police ARE a protected group insofar as other laws go..

It's the difference between murder and Capital Murder..

Irregardless, it would seem that the Hate Crime laws are in conflict with the First Amendment..

If I want to call Muhammed a pedophile and draw a picture of him boinking the barnyard pig, then I have a RIGHT to do so, ANY hate crime law be damned..

What you seem to be saying is in direct conflict with what CW wrote..

" "That First Amendment is there for a reason. It is to protect offensive and rude speech."

You seem to want to add... "... unless offensive and/or rude speech is directed towards a 'protected group'."

Guess what??

That won't fly in the US... Or any civilized country...

Rude and/or offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment here in the US..

REGARDLESS of who it is directed at...

Michale

Police aren't considered a 'protected group' under hate crime laws. There. That was easy.

And yet, when Muslims get offended, the Left can't jump fast enough to censor the speech that offended them.. Can't condemn it fast enough as "Hate Speech"...

Can ANYONE explain this inconsistency??

For the record, CW, I am not saying you have ever come down against Free Speech in this regard.

While you have remained silent whenever that issue has arisen, I assumed it was because you agreed with my position. Especially in light of you stating unequivocally that "That First Amendment is there for a reason. It is to protect offensive and rude speech. Nice and unprovocative speech has never needed protection, when you stop and think about it.

Which is exactly what I have said time and again whenever someone has offended the poor Muslims and rank and file Weigantians want to clap the offender in irons or cut out his tongue.. Or both!!

Just wanted to make sure I was clear on that point..

Michale

Does that mean I can flip off Obama when he comes to town???

Yea, let's see how well THAT flies, eh?? Condemnation from the Hysterical Left would be brutal and unforgiving... :D

Michale

And yet, when Muslims get offended, the Left can't jump fast enough to censor the speech that offended them.. Can't condemn it fast enough as "Hate Speech"...

Can ANYONE explain this inconsistency??

"Why the two orders, Colonel? If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, why would his life be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?"
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

And -- once again -- I'm not advocating everyone go out and flip off the next cop you see. It's not a smart thing to do, in normal circumstances.

The problem is, once you get the attention of a cop, they will likely find SOMETHING to ding ya with.. This asshole was lucky that this particular cop wasn't particularly imaginative to come up with something.

Although, kudos to the cop for at least being honest..

In the military, we always had "Provoking Speeches And Gestures" to fall back on, which WAS an apprehension-able offence.. :D

Ahhhh the joys of body slamming a scumbag to the ground, cuff'n and stuff'n and then performing a screen test..

Ahhhhh the memories.. :D

Michale

The passenger in distress doesn't have much time to think about what kind of sign he or she could give and they don't want to alert the driver to it ...

Just thinking out loud ...