Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
tpsbmam (778 posts) Thu Jun-12-08 06:49 AMOriginal messageUnlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech (call to limit free speech) VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.............“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,†Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.â€â€œBut in the United States,†Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.â€...................Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.By contrast, American courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though a march would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.....................Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,†Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.â€Professor Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment†by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Mr. Lewis has been critical of efforts to use the law to limit hate speech.But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.†In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence....................The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry mob to immediately assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article — or any publication — intended to stir up racial hatred surely does not.Mr. Lewis wrote that there was “genuinely dangerous†speech that did not meet the imminence requirement.“I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging,†Mr. Lewis wrote. “That is imminence enough.â€Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., disagreed. “When times are tough,†he said, “there seems to be a tendency to say there is too much freedom.â€â€œFree speech matters because it works,†Mr. Silverglate continued. Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship, he said, and all the more so in the post-Sept. 11 era.“The world didn’t suffer because too many people read ‘Mein Kampf,’ †Mr. Silverglate said. “Sending Hitler on a speaking tour of the United States would have been quite a good idea.â€Mr. Silverglate seemed to be echoing the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., whose 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States eventually formed the basis for modern First Amendment law.“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,†Justice Holmes wrote.“I think that we should be eternally vigilant,†he added, “against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.â€http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?_r=1&h... +++++++++++++It's worth reading the whole article. "Liberals" want to chip away at our free speech -- I haven't had time to look any of these "scholars" up but I want to know more about them. If the "liberals" don't get that this is a slippery slope and wildly subjective, I give up.
