Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)

That seems reasonable, and that was what I was trying to get at by saying that many of the founders of the US were Christians. I was just trying to get some clarification on the statement in the OP which was being defended:

quote:

---

(From Paul Harvey)
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles.

---

I was trying to find out which Christian principles those were. Clearly the founders were influenced by their understanding of the world (religion) but it has always seemed to me that they wrote the founding documents carefully to keep that out. In other words (hypothetically speaking) if you didn't know that the people who wrote the documents were Christians, what specifically would lead you to believe that they were from reading those documents?BG

quote:

---

It two different situations, the precise same words might be directly aimed at one person by another. In one context they might be harmless, even friendly chatter. In another context, they might rightfully be considered a harmful threat. And these two contexts might well blur into each other.

---

Thats the same bullshit that results in two white boys calling each other "nigger" because contextually it has been defanged as neither of them are black and thus threatened by the denigrating term. But what it also does is keep the denigrating term in circulation as a denigrating term, and the users commitment to keep using that term in its fully denigrating meaning.Context is not everything, but it is a huge part I agree. And it is precisely becuase of the CONTEXT of a PUBLIC EVENT - regardless of who payed for it or whose land it happens to be occurring on (IIRC all land is alienable by the state anyway so private property is really just an open ended loan from the state afer all) - that makes both prayer and racist abuse in that PUBLIC EVENT totally unacceptable.

quote:

---

Sure. I believe that the people who participate in deliberate hate speech are backwards and uncivilized. I also feel that their right to assemble and practice their backwards and uncivilized hate speech is and should continue to be protected by the Constitution.

---

Is the fact that it is protected by some elderly document meant to be some kind of clinching argument? I'm pretty sure the Salic Law is in a charter somewhere but that does not mean I am obliged to accept that women should not inherit property.What you are saying is, you are perfectly happy with someone calling for "race war", the limitation of democracy, to forcible repatriation, all the usual stuff, and you are pleased, nay proud, top protect that speech.Well fine. Then I hold you responsible for the speech you are proud to protect. If you are willing to defend this hateful and antidemocratic nonsense, then it is YOU is is barbaric as far as I am concerned. You are serving as an enabler and a facilitator of hate speech by offering it such protection.

Hi Schraf,Can I make a couple of comments?I seem to be a little confused about what can and can’t be done in the USA, and whether the kind of things Brian is shocked by would really be allowed to happen in the States. According to Holmes there are laws to protect people from verbal abuse, so the kind of things that Brian is so against (like monkey noises at football matches, or other examples of raw race hatred) would also be illegal. If this is true then there isn’t too much difference on either side of the pond, although our laws (from what I can gather) might be a tad stricter as to what is defined as racial hatred. I think very oppressive is a bit harsh and that this is where the emphasis probably differs between the UK and the US. I suspect (although I’m no expert on the law) that the thing that shaped the UK laws was the need to protect people from unacceptable treatment. It’s all well and good saying that if everybody can answer back etc but does this take human nature into account? I don’t think it does — people just keep their heads down and mutter about how wrong it is. That’s why legislation was passed to stop people being treated differently because they happen to be in the minority. So when you say: you’re missing the point slightly. The way to reduce racism etc is to increase education of the issues, and while part of the function of such laws is educating people that such behaviour is wrong, their main use is protection.Whether to extend this protection to religion is a much more confusing thing (you should see the problems involved in a new incitement to religious hatred bill over here), although you could ask what right a majority have to effectively crow about how superior they are to everyone else? This isn’t about simply feeling superior remember it’s about forcefully (and despite the protestations of Paul Harvey) loudly stating it. I’m not entirely sure exactly where I stand on this but, on balance, I feel that giving privileges to one religion just because they are in the majority is unfair.

quote:

---

It should still not be illegal. I don't want the government telling anyone what to think or say, as long as there is no physical threat involved or intimidation. It is not the government's job.

---

Think <> say
say <> public pronouncementHow can there not possibly be inti idation in a call for repatriation or violence or describing someone as a lesser being, subhuman. Of COURSE hate speech is intimidating - that is one of its purposes.And it most certainly IS the governments job to protect its citizens. This line of argument amounts to saying black people are not entitled to the protection of the state, because the state is perfectly happy for people to call for a retraction of protection from violence for these people, or for the withdrawal of citzenship, or some other significant sanction.Organised public hate-mongering is a clear and present danger to human life and it is most certainly the very purpose of the democratic state to protect its citizens.

quote:

---

So, you passed very oppressive speech laws. I'd be very uncomfortable with that in America.

---

No, very LIBERAL laws that protect people according to their status as HUMAN BEINGS, and not according to their status as OWNERS OF PROPERTY. And I'm quite sure that many Americans would be uncomfortable with so liberal a measure.

quote:

---

Remember, the US is made up of 50 states, and each state has many laws which are unique to each state. The Founders wanted the individual states to remain as independent from the federal government as possible.

---

The founders are dead and what they wanted is utterly unimportant. They were just people, not saints or polymaths whose insight should somehow be priviliged across the centuries. Thats no better than theists privileging their prophets regardless of how badly out of date and manifestly backward their claims are.

quote:

---

If someone is angry at their black ancestors being enslaved by white slave owners, do they have the right to make a sculpture showing a white man being lynched by a bunch of black men? Wouldn't that offend and demean the whites?

---

It might bbut that may not be relevant. The contexts are very different where whites are a mahority and occupy most of the positions of power. A verbal threat therefore stands a reasonable chance of being translated into action, wheras a single statement by a member of a not-very-empowered minority carries no such danger.

quote:

---

But should the name callers be arrested and prosecuted by the government?

---

Racist abuse <> name calling. Calling someone a dweeb is not the same as suggesting someone is sub-human.

quote:

---

With great freedom comes great responsibility.

---

The problem is the manifest failure to uphold that responsibility. And if you cannot be held accountable, how can you be said to be responsible?

quote:

---

I guess the Founders didn't want the federal government to be a parental figure to it's citizens.

---

The "founders" are worm-food and don't matter. Live in the now.

quote:

---

I would not want a homogeneous society, where I was told what I could or couldn't say.

---

And I don't want a society that considers racist abuse to be acceptable.

quote:

---

Can I make a couple of comments?

---

But of course.

quote:

---

I seem to be a little confused about what can and can’t be done in the USA, and whether the kind of things Brian is shocked by would really be allowed to happen in the States. According to Holmes there are laws to protect people from verbal abuse, so the kind of things that Brian is so against (like monkey noises at football matches, or other examples of raw race hatred) would also be illegal.

---

In the US you are not allowed to badger or intimidate or threaten someone. IOW, you cannot get in their face, impede their movement, touch them, shout or yell in their face, etc. That would be considered an assault, no matter if what you said to them was race related or not.If you add racial flavor into it then you are subject to additional penalty if you are convicted.

quote:

---

If this is true then there isn’t too much difference on either side of the pond, although our laws (from what I can gather) might be a tad stricter as to what is defined as racial hatred.

---

Actually, compared to the US, the UK is quite a lot more restrictive WRT freedom of speech. IT is much easier to convict someone of slander or libel in the UK than in the US, for example, because your laws regarding acceptable speech are quite a lot more restrictive.

quote:

---

I think very oppressive is a bit harsh and that this is where the emphasis probably differs between the UK and the US. I suspect (although I’m no expert on the law) that the thing that shaped the UK laws was the need to protect people from unacceptable treatment. It’s all well and good saying that if everybody can answer back etc but does this take human nature into account?

---

This is where I am thinking that I don't want the government as a parent.

quote:

---

I don’t think it does — people just keep their heads down and mutter about how wrong it is.

---

Well, perhaps in the US people feel freer to speak up and counter that kind of bullshit themselves instead of waiting for the government to "make Johhny stop touching them". Indeed, that is what we see here.Remember, nobody is allowed to put their hands on you, nor are they allowed to threaten or intimidate you.

quote:

---

That’s why legislation was passed to stop people being treated differently because they happen to be in the minority.

---

In business, and employnent and education, yes. However, the government has no right to legislate personal opinion, nor the voicing of that personal opinion. I think very oppressive is a bit harsh and that this is where the emphasis probably differs between the UK and the US. I suspect (although I’m no expert on the law) that the thing that shaped the UK laws was the need to protect people from unacceptable treatment. It’s all well and good saying that if everybody can answer back etc but does this take human nature into account? I don’t think it does — people just keep their heads down and mutter about how wrong it is. That’s why legislation was passed to stop people being treated differently because they happen to be in the minority. So when you say:

quote:

---

you’re missing the point slightly. The way to reduce racism etc is to increase education of the issues, and while part of the function of such laws is educating people that such behaviour is wrong, their main use is protection.

---

There are already laws against assault and intimidation and threatening behavior.Is it the government's job to protect each citizen against being insulted or offended?I think not.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-06-2005 08:30 AM

Ooook!,Isn't it illegal in England to disrespect the Queen. I remember when the Sex Pistols got in legal trouble for the lyrics of one of there songs that went "God save the Queen, she's not a human being". In the US we can have the right to speak what's on our mind both good and bad. I'm not in favor of hate speach or verbal thuggery, but I would not want our freedoms reduced just to keep from offending people.

"God save the queen, her fascist regime
It made you a moron a potential h bomb!God save the queen, she ain’t no human being
There is no future in england’s dreaming"
--
Not as such, as far as I am aware. The pistols were arrested for:"The charges run like this (approximately): Malcolm McLaren/'Using Insulting words likely to provoke a breach of the peace': Vivien Westwood/'Obstructing a policeman': Sophie Richmond and Alex McDowell/'Assault': Debbie and Tracy/'Obstruction': Ben Kelly and Chris Walsh/'Obstruction': Jose Esquibel/'Threatening behaviour': Jamie Reid/'Assault'. All have denied the alleged charges, and have been released on bail/surety until their case will be heard."This has not prevented the Sex Pistols mutilated image of the queen being the most reproduced item of brit pop art, nor the rerelease of the single going to number 1 again in 2000. Compare and contrast with "you have to respect the office of the president".This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-06-2005 09:07 AM

quote:

---

Actually, compared to the US, the UK is quite a lot more restrictive WRT freedom of speech. IT is much easier to convict someone of slander or libel in the UK than in the US, for example, because your laws regarding acceptable speech are quite a lot more restrictive.

---

Actually that is wrong. the problem with british Libel laws - and it is a very sever problem - is that it places the burden of proof on the person who issued the alleged libel to prove that the claim is true. It is the only case on which the burden of proof lies on the defendant, and accordingly is very unlikely to succeed. This is especially the case when the alleged libeller is poor and the alleged victim wealthy, as court proceedings can be dragged out to the point that the defendant goes bankrupt.However I'm pleased to say that this provision in English law is much criticised and under attack and the government has agreed to look into the issue.

quote:

---

Well, perhaps in the US people feel freer to speak up and counter that kind of bullshit themselves instead of waiting for the government to "make Johhny stop touching them". Indeed, that is what we see here.

---

That is both insulting and wrong IMO. What we actually have is a sense that the government belongs to us and is not some fairytale monster that will gobble us all up if we ever relax our vigilance.The leader of the BNP was recently arrested for incitement to racial hatred after being secretly filmed in a party meeting in the back room of a (presumably) priovately owned pub. And rightly so. Incitement to racial hatred is incitementy to racial hatred whether its carried out on public property or private.The American system by contrast accepts that any amount of hate speech is viable as long as the speaker is wealthy enough to own the land they stand on. That is a betrayal of all citizens and and even more unbalanced legal position than the English libel laws.

quote:

---

Is it the government's job to protect each citizen against being insulted or offended? I think not.

---

And as has already been pointed out to you, the issue is not offence, the issue is denigration and dehumanisation. Please deal with the subject honestly.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-06-2005 09:20 AM

Contra, you are confusing the issue.There are laws against assault, including verbal assault, harrassment, intimidation, and threats in the US, regardless of race.There are also "ethnic intimidation" laws with add extra penalties if you commit a crime with that flavor.Now, if a teacher assigns "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" in her class, and someone gets insulted by the repeated use of the word "nigger" which appears in that book, should she be arrested?Should the producers and arists who make gangsta rap in which whites are vilified and insulted, be prosecuted?

quote:

---

The founders are dead and what they wanted is utterly unimportant. They were just people, not saints or polymaths whose insight should somehow be priviliged across the centuries. Thats no better than theists privileging their prophets regardless of how badly out of date and manifestly backward their claims are.

​

The "founders" are worm-food and don't matter. Live in the now.

---

The founders of the Socialist and Communist movements are dead and what they wanted is utterly unimportant. They were just people, not saints or polymaths whose insight should somehow be priviliged across the centuries. Thats no better than theists privileging their prophets regardless of how badly out of date and manifestly backward their claims are.The "founders" of Communism and Socialsism are worm-food and don't matter. Live in the now.OK, using your logic, neither one of our preferred governmental models is valid because of the obvious non-living status of their respecive founders.Now what?

Actually it is the responsibility of the country for which the law is written and ALL who live in it.I also could care less of your opinion of me or your self-righteous application of responsibility to all who live in a free country for the exercise of free. You can pout on these forums all day about how wrong you think it is annoying everyone in the process and I would also fight to protect your right to be such an exorbitant malcontent.No amount of personal sense of wrongness about a thought, opinion, idea, or personal expression should ever be legislated against lest we descend into fascism. Take that as facilitator of hate if YOU wish but to the rest who know the difference it is an endorsement of freedom.{Fixed spelling mistakes}This message has been edited by Jazzns, 01-06-2005 10:45 AM

quote:

---

The leader of the BNP was recently arrested for incitement to racial hatred after being secretly filmed in a party meeting in the back room of a (presumably) priovately owned pub. And rightly so. Incitement to racial hatred is incitementy to racial hatred whether its carried out on public property or private.

---

So, someone in the UK can be secretly bugged or filmed in his own home saying "I hate those black bastards" and then be sent to prison?Anyway, what exactly did that man do to incite racial hatred?

quote:

---

The American system by contrast accepts that any amount of hate speech is viable as long as the speaker is wealthy enough to own the land they stand on.

---

What the fuck are you talking about?Gosh, contra, you do have your head up your ass when it comes to what things are like here in America.I would say that the greated amount of overt racial hate speech comes from poor, uneducated people living in isolated rural areas who have a desire for a scapegoat to blame all of their problems on and to feel superior to.

quote:

---

Now, if a teacher assigns "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" in her class, and someone gets insulted by the repeated use of the word "nigger" which appears in that book, should she be arrested?

---

Quite obviously not. There does not appear to be a plausible case of dehumanisation or degrading treatment in this context. As I have already pointed out, it is you who are comflating mere offense with hate speech, not I.

quote:

---

Should the producers and artists who make gangsta rap in which whites are vilified and insulted, be prosecuted?

---

Shrug. You get what you give. It's a kind of circular question, because the reason you see this phenomenon is precisely because of the blind eye that is turned to whites dehumanising blacks. So in your free-for-all system, this is an entirely reasonable and logical response. But it's certainly illegal in South African law, largely because we all recognise the need to move past divisions is much more important than some abstraction of property rights. The idea that denigrating a human being can be addressed by a counter-denigration is futile and serves only to entrench the existing differences.A quick google shows some interesting differences in perspective:

quote:

---

2 Section 16(1) of the South African Constitution: Freedom of expression

​

Section 16(1) of the Constitution provides for freedom of expression:

​

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes -
(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

​

Any limitation of this category of expression must satisfy the requirements of the general limitations clause contained in section 36(1) - discussed below - to be constitutionally valid.

​

Section 16(1) of the South African Constitution protects free expression generally. Freedom of expression includes verbal, written, pictorial and physical expression as well as expression via visual images. It therefore includes speech and activities such as displaying posters, painting and sculpting, dancing, the publication of photographs, symbolic acts such as flag burning, the wearing of certain items of clothing, physical gestures - in principle every act by which a person attempts to express some emotion, opinion, idea, belief or grievance. However, the closer the expression comes to action, and the further it drifts from conveying ideas and opinions, the less protection it will receive under the right to freedom of expression.18

​

Section 16(1) makes specific reference to certain forms of expression, such as freedom of the press and media, and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. The notion that this special reference means that these forms of expression enjoy a higher degree of protection than other forms not specifically mentioned, has been rejected by academic writers.19 They remark that if anything, the expression of political opinion, which is not listed, should rather be given this honour.20 The idea that the press or journalists must enjoy special constitutional protection has emphatically been rejected by South African courts.21

​

3 Limitations on freedom of expression

​

No right, including fundamental rights, is absolute. They are limited by common-law rules (such as the law of defamation in the case of freedom of expression) to the extent that these are consistent with the Bill of Rights,22 and by state interests, such as national security, public order, the constitutional order, the pursuit of national unity and reconciliation, public safety, public health, public morals and democratic values.23 The right to freedom of expression is also limited by the rights of others, and conflicting rights often have to be balanced. Freedom of expression does not enjoy superior status in South African law and does not automatically trump the right to human dignity,24 or the right to equality. Furthermore, like other rights, freedom of expression as entrenched in section 16(1) may be limited by complying with the provisions of the general limitations clause (section 36) of the Constitution.

​

It has to be noted, however, that freedom of expression is also limited "internally" in terms of section 16(2) of the Constitution, which limitation operates independently of section 36. Section 16(2) introduces a curtailment of the right of freedom of expression and can therefore be regarded as an exception to the right of freedom of expression, which must be interpreted restrictively.

​

4 Section 16(2) as an internal limitation

​

Section 16(2) defines the boundaries beyond which the right to freedom of expression contained in subsection (1) does not extend. Freedom of expression does not extend to-

​

(a) propaganda for war;
(b) incitement of imminent violence; or
(c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

​

Section 16(2) places certain forms of expression - including certain forms of "hate speech" - outside the right to freedom of expression and removes them from the ambit of constitutional protection. The right to freedom of expression does not extend to the listed categories of speech, which have in advance been singled out by the framers of the South African Constitution as not deserving constitutional protection, since they have, among other things, the potential to impinge adversely on the dignity (one of the core values of the Constitution)25 of others and cause them harm.26

​

Burns remarks that, unlike people in many other countries, South Africans do not have to examine, analyse and agonise over the question whether or not to prohibit "hate speech".27 There is no need to debate issues such as whether hate speech should be heard and the consequences dealt with, or whether censorship should be applied, with the danger that the ideas of bigots may be driven underground, sympathy for their views increased and resentment towards minority groups - who are seen as benefitting from the censorship -fuelled.28 The debate which has been raging elsewhere, namely whether hate speech should be protected as expressions of thought, or whether it should be repressed as infringements on the right to equality - in short whether equality or freedom of expression should be considered as the most important constitutional value - has to a large extent been made unnecessary in South Africa. By excluding advocacy of hatred from constitutional protection, South Africa has also implemented various international documents which demand that hate speech should be proscribed.29 Although South Africa has signed some, but has not ratified any of the international hate speech conventions, it nevertheless respects the spirit of international law,30 which in turns has a deep influence on the South African Constitution and its interpretation.31

​

The internal limitation contained in section 16(2) has the effect that parliament can introduce hate speech legislation or regulation for the class of speech listed in section 16(2). Such legislation would not be subject to a general limitation analysis in terms of section 36, since it would not amount to a limitation of the right contained in section 16(1). In short, a statute prohibiting hate speech as defined in the Constitution cannot be subject to a freedom of expression challenge, because there is not constitutional right to speech of this nature.

---

quote:

---

The "founders" of Communism and Socialsism are worm-food and don't matter. Live in the now.

---

Yep... what they wanted it completely, totally, utterly irrelevant. As I often remark, their personal desires are no more relevant to the quality of their research than Newton's religion was to the quality of his. What matters is what *I* want. And what I want is to be free.

Moreover, the right to free speech is protected by more than just a 200 year old law. It is also protected by 200 years of legal precedent and application in the courts. Our Constitution is not a religion where some immutable law is scribed into stone by beings of higher power.As soon as you make it Constitutionally legal to have a law that prevents hate speech you open the door to have laws that also prevent political dissent, religious dissent, artistic expression, and potentially even your right to come here on this form and say the things that you do. For instance, if we lived in Brian's perfect world where people are arrested for offending someone then surly you would be one of the first in jail due to your very abrasive debate style.The moment you are able to limit one kind of speech you set a viral example of how other types of speech that are disliked by the majority can also be outlawed. If you don't like the fact that this kind of thing is limited by the Constitution of the USA, don't live in America.

quote:

---

So, someone in the UK can be secretly bugged or filmed in his own home saying "I hate those black bastards" and then be sent to prison?

---

Private property is an insufficent basis on which to claim an exemption from the law. Ian Huntley committed murder in his own home and was duly arrested an sentenced.Nick Griffin was secretly recorded by an undercover BBC reporter investigating the British National Party for a programme called Secret Agent. The BNP has recently been trying to move into the main stream by claiming that it is not an actively racist organisation but has instead been smeared as such by Leftists who hate Britain.

quote:

---

The police was triggered by a BBC documentary, broadcast in July, which included footage of Griffin giving a speech in the northern town of Keighley in which he railed against the Koran and Islam.

​

He said: "This wicked, vicious faith has expanded through a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago until it's now sweeping country after country."

​

Other footage in "The Secret Agent" documentary shows another BNP member expressing a wish to blow up mosques with a rocket launcher and machine-gun worshippers with "about a million bullets."

​

Another member told how he put dog faeces through an Asian shop's letterbox, while a third described how he beat up a Muslim man. "I'm kicking away ... it was fantastic," he said.

​

West Yorkshire Police said the three men charged, from Bradford, were due to appear at Leeds Magistrates' Court on Thursday. Griffin is the 12th man to be detained in connection with the documentary.

---

quote:

---

What the fuck are you talking about? Gosh, contra, you do have your head up your ass when it comes to what things are like here in America.

---

Really. And yet this very thread has consistently argued that if a bunch of bigots own or control a stadium they are entirely free to use it for the dissemination of hate speech on the basis that it is their private property. What is it that I am misunderstanding?