Is 'Hate Speech' protected by the Constitution ?

Someome from the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] is on a major network TV show highlighting college campuses where the students try to
block viewpoints 'they' don't like - Including 'so-called' 'Hate Speech' - the ACLU rep says hate speech is protected !

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So if I want to walk into a movie theater and yell Fire, Fire, Fire! - I can do this under the Constitution ?
- No you can't, you will be arrested and charged with somehing, maybe disturbing the peace, or worse - Should you be protected and get away
with it under The First Amendment?

So you want to set up and attend a rally of like minded bigots and preach discrimnation against an ehtinic group say blacks, Jews or Mexicans, because they are inferior or criminals, or whatever - Should you be allowed to do this under the First Ammendmetnt of the Constitution?

I don't think so - This speech/agenda has one main purpose - to degrade by 'hate speech' the rights of an ethnic group
- It is an attempt to undermine the very foundations ot the Republic of The United States of America

- And is not only not protected by the First Ammendment, but in fact is treasonous and should be illegal.

What do you think

Who defines what qualifies as "hate speech?"

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Who defines what qualifies as "hate speech?"

Exactly...

Yelling fire in a theater is hardly the same thing and not an apt comparison.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Who defines what qualifies as "hate speech?"

That is simple... .Progressives!

If they don't agree with it, then it is hate speech.... see how easy that is.

a reply to: AlienView

Firstly speech is protected by the constitution.

Second SCotUS says. Speech is free unless it will cause Imminent Lawless action. This is where you can't say "Fire in a Theater".

So you can go out and say whatever you wish up until the point someone is going to get hurt or a riot happens.

You can google all this up if you want to.

I almost got fired for saying something negative about police on social media. Some bootlicker emailed HR and said I was advocating the murder of cops. Which I wasn't, at least not in direct words. It's crazy what can get you in trouble these days. America, a modern police state.

a reply to: AlienView

So Islamic folks can't talk about Sharia law?

Leftists can't say bad things about us "deplorables"?

Would Kathy Griffin still be allowed to show the decapitated head of Trump?

Would Samantha Bee still be allowed to call the presidents daughter a "feckless ####"?

a reply to: AlienView

As long as you don't incite violence speech is protected by the 1st amendment and that includes the new loosely used term "hate speech"

a reply to: infolurker

Leftists are looking for any reason to censor.

Since when does anyone care exactly what the Constitution actually means? It's all relative, isn't it? If someone calls you a piece of # and you don't like it, you want them banned, right?

a reply to: AlienView

What do you think?

I think speech is protected as long as it's not Obscenity, Fighting words, Defamation (including libel and slander), Child pornography, Perjury, Blackmail, Incitement to imminent lawless action, True threats or Solicitations to commit crimes
.
I think the way the laws are set up and the way we have been handling it has been working just fine. If it ain't broke don't try and fix it.

If you want protection from "hate speech" move to Britain.

That's what I think.

Second SCotUS says. Speech is free unless it will cause Imminent Lawless action. This is where you can't say "Fire in a Theater".

So you can go out and say whatever you wish up until the point someone is going to get hurt or a riot happens.

And this is what they're counting on ...

Oh, look, you talked and there was a riot. Nevermind that we caused it specifically to make someone stop you from talking so we wouldn't riot ... look, your speech "caused" us to riot. So it shouldn't be protected because it "provokes" violence.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Who defines what qualifies as "hate speech?"

"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[1][2] The law of some countries describes hate speech as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[6] And additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.[7][8][9] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that contains hate speech (online hate speech) may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.........

See whole article here:
en.wikipedia.org...

As President Trump just stated that the 'press' is sometimes dangerous and might even cause wars.
- That may sometimes be true - But a free press must be protected.

Hate mongers on the other hand, of any sort, and for any reason - Particularly when it is dissemination of disparaging comments about a group or people - is anathema to the prinicples and Constitution of the United States and is not only not
protected - But in fact should be defined as illegal !

a reply to: AlienView

These days if I talk about supporting traditional marriage, it's considered hate speech and I would be a hate monger in some circles.

That's the reason why hate speech is protected. It's too easy to let one group or another define what it is based on what they decide to consider hateful and not based on the motive or intent of the speaker.

All laws are not covered under the Constitution
The Constitution was a framework
Any conflicts are adjudicated by the Supreme Court
Done
Over
Next

Let's take this one step further since most of you seem set on defending 'hate speech''

Your a high school student say at All Ameica High and your a little bit 'nerdy' and fellow students see you as strange

- So you become the mark and 'the in crowd' singles you out - Starts an 'online campaign disparaging you, saying your
weird, smell weird, etc., etc.
- And they do a good job bullying you and messing up you life.

- And after awihle you can't take it anymore and commit suicide

- Hate speech, protected by the Constitution - So what if it kills people, right


"“There seems to be a direct correlation between the spike in suicides by young people and the increase in cyberbullying amongst young people.” ― Germany Kent

originally posted by: ketsuko

Second SCotUS says. Speech is free unless it will cause Imminent Lawless action. This is where you can't say "Fire in a Theater".

So you can go out and say whatever you wish up until the point someone is going to get hurt or a riot happens.

And this is what they're counting on ...

Oh, look, you talked and there was a riot. Nevermind that we caused it specifically to make someone stop you from talking so we wouldn't riot ... look, your speech "caused" us to riot. So it shouldn't be protected because it "provokes" violence.

Yep. It's so obvious, isn't it? It's unbelievable how easily most people are emotionally manipulated by anyone with even the slightest amount of skill at it. But what we have been watching over the years has been masterful manipulation. And this could have only been done with deliberate coordination and organization. They have steered us into this and put the hammer down so blatantly that it's hard to do anything but watch in awe.

a reply to: AlienView

Yeah, I was that kid. I had largely figured out how to be resilient by high school, but damn it sure did hurt a lot in my younger days.

Those words didn't kill me.

If you kill yourself over speech, then you have deeper problems than just that your peers are calling you names.

I'm pretty sure the phrase "No taxation without representation" was considered hate speech at one time.

a reply to: AlienView

As President Trump just stated that the 'press' is sometimes dangerous and might even cause wars.
- That may sometimes be true - But a free press must be protected.

I agree free journalism must be protected. I think Trump could more elequantly vocalize that the press is generally gearing our populace towards war. Might have something to do with major defence contractors giving them plenty of adverts to run.

But plenty have stated Russia has attacked us, and compare it to 9/11.

I'll admit they meddled, but to the extent I know they did, I'd hardly call it an attack, and I wouldn't piss on graves, and I sure as hell wouldn't disrespect the families of those who were lost by comparing that to what led to the longest active wars of our countries history.

There are plenty of journalists out there. Cable news is not a good place to look for them. That goes for all of them.