I have seen the future.

It's amazing. The whole point of the First Fucking Amendment is that, no, you don't get to ban things that make you unhappy or uncomfortable. You have no right to not be offended.

Fucking idiots. Even the teachers don't know their own goddamned history.

I love America. It's too bad I can't figure out where it went.

From:

So, what are your feelings on obscenity and hate crimes laws? What about "free speech" used to harass and intimidate?

From:

Hate crimes laws are bullshit. it effectively criminlizes thought. Why you did the crime doesn't fucking matter, you did it, you pay for it.

On your second point, I don't give a shit. I reiterate that you have no right to not be offended. If someone gives you shit, you give it back. They don't have the right to not be offended either.

From:

What right do you have to tell people not to be offended?

From:

I'm not telling them to not be offended. I don't CARE if they're offended, it's irrelevant.

From:

Ok, do you care if they get punched in the face?

From:

Physical violence isn't speech.

From:

But the punch might not hurt me, if say the person isn't very tough, and the words most definatly can hurt, especialy if they hit a sensative area.

From:

You have no consititional right to assault.

You do have a constitutional right to free speech unrestricted by the government.

Physical contact isn't speech, and so the government is free to restrict it.

From:

Well, I don't, unless I'm in the US. Canada's laws are different here.

I'll give that the US constitution allows for all sorts of horrible things, like this.

From:

I'll give that the US constitution allows for all sorts of horrible things, like this.

Yes, words are so horrible, they should be censored immediatley!

Or, you know, you could grow a thicker skin.

Personally, I like the first amendment. I may not like what you say, but I'm still in favor of your right to say it.

From:

I'm fully in favour of your right to think and say what you want.

I'm also fully in favour of everyone else's right to not have to hear your shit over and over again. You're welcome to it, and so is anyone who wants to hear it. Sing it loud, say what you want, and never forget that you have the right to think whatever you want, but the instant you step over the line into interfering in other people's lives, you have the right to be beaten and dropped in fucking Pago Pago.

Unless you're already in Pago Pago, in which case you have the right to be beaten and launched in a high arc out over the Pacific Ocean.

I want killfiles for the real world. The person who invents a mute button for ignorant street preachers will make a fucking mint.

From:

the instant you step over the line into interfering in other people's lives, you have the right to be beaten and dropped in fucking Pago Pago.

Absolutely. The corollary to "You have the right to say whatever you want" is "You don't have the right to force anyone else to listen".

Also, people forget that the First applies to governmental involvment and public institutions. The federal gubbmint may not tell me to stop pouring blots in my backyard, but I'm well within my rights to tell the godbotherers to shut the fuck up and get off my porch (or in the case of a couple forums I run, to shut the fuck up and get off my server). I occasionally get "Freedom of speech!" yelled at me, to which I reply "This ain't the courthouse lawn."

From:

As a matter of fact, the First specifically and explicitly applies only to Congress. It took until the 14th for it to apply to State laws. Government institutions that are not making law are not, in fact, covered at all except by interpretation.

Not that that's a bad interpretation, but I far prefer the Canadian version that explicitly grants the right to the people as opposed to restricting some people from infringing upon the right.

busy, will finish later

From:

> "You don't have the right to force anyone else to listen".

How do you reconcile this with the rights to free assembly, and the fact that there's really nothing illegal about following somebody aroudn shouting "Baby killer!" at them all day long?

There is, in fact, a group in the states that does this, publishing personal information about everyone who works at, goes to, or even works with abortion clinics. A supermarket gets pickets because they "let baby killers shop here!" and a cab company gets negative publicity for being willing to deliver people to that address - and, in a few cases, it's worked.

From:

I think you're missing the "force" bit up there.

Sure, you can follow someone around and scream baby killer at them, but:

-- You can't make them stand still and listen (IOW, you can't prevent them from turning up their headphones or entering a building, bus, taxi, or their own home just because you think you have a right to be listened to.)
-- You can't prevent them from filing a police report or sue you for harassment
-- You can't organize a picket-fest on their front lawn (free assembly doesn't apply to private property - the owner can kick you off AND press trespassing charges).
-- Picketers have to stay on the public sidewalks, and sometimes those are across the street. You can't force someone to come over and listen to your complaints. You can't prevent them from pointing and laughing, either.
-- You can't make them take your leaflets (if you're handing out leaflets). If they take them, there is nothing that forces them to read them, they are within their rights to throw them in the trash (or tear them up and toss them back at you!)
-- You can't make them read the leaflets you stick on their cars or house doors
-- To extend it further, since some asstards like to take their harrassment to the 'net, you can't force someone not to killfile you or block your e-mail address(es).

You can throw a rally on the statehouse lawn (freely assemble), but you can't make anyone pay attention.

From:

So threatening rape against someone who was just raped is ok in your book?

From:

Threats aren't free speech here. They're classified as assault and are illegal.

That aside, yes, speaking the words is fine, so long as you're prepared to pay the consequences for them - be that being hauled up on assault or harassment charges or finding yourself on the receiving end of an impromptu bobbitectomy.

From:

> Well, I don't, unless I'm in the US.

I invite you to check out the Constitution Act, 1982, section 2. Yes, you do. It is, in fact, more comprehensive than the American version.

> Canada's laws are different here.

Indeed they are, and better in almost all cases. That's not the point. In Canada, advocation of violence against a subject even if you're not saying that you're going to commit it is considered a threat, and covered under the associated laws.

You still *do* have the right to say what you want provided that it is not a threat, and you still *do not* have the right to touch the person you're talking about.

In the USA, you're allowed to say anything you want, unless it's about the President or a religious figure, in which case men with guns show up at your house. In one case, they're there legally.

From:

No, that's wrong. I can't call fire in a theater for instance, which isn't a threat. I also can't lie under oath.

From:

Don't be stupid.

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it IS a threat - it incites panic, which is harmful to the people there. You can't lie under oath because YOU TOOK AN OATH SAYING YOU WOULDN'T. There are specific punishments set forth for doing this.

Crime is not speech and is not covered by the first amendment.

From:

Actually, he's *almost* got a point on the perjury laws. You're right, crime is not speech - but, at the same time, perjury *is* speech, and it is speech of a type rendered illegal by an act of Congress.

I wonder what happened when they tried to argue that. Somebody has to have claimed First Amenedment protection on a perjury charge at some point.

From:

Um, huh?

It's not a threat. It's doing something wrong, that's for sure, but it doesn't qualify as threat. Also, where are threats not allowed for under the US constitution?

As to purgury, it's illegal because it's illegal? You realize that makes no sense, right?

I'm not saying that these should be legal (far from it), I'm just saying that this shows that either the constitution is not being followed at all (and thus it's kind of hard to justifty enforcing it selectivly), or everyone, including politicians, are misunderstanding it.

From:

Crying fire in a crowded theater is not what we're talking about. It does involve, however, the same sort of logic that leads to why, in Canada, it's illegal to attempt to incite violence.

From:

You forgot section one.

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

From:

> Why you did the crime doesn't fucking matter, you did it, you pay
> for it.

So, you don't consider choosing to commit a crime and choosing a victim based on ethnic or social implications to be an aggravating factor?

Even when the criminal's own statements indicate not only a lack of remorse but an intention to do so again and again?

> On your second point, I don't give a shit.

So, you'd say there's nothing wrong with and doesn't need to be a law against, say, a group of people picketing a gay man's house, day and night, for months at a time, while expressing the desire that he die horribly and suggesting that his murder would be an act of mercy? What happens if you do so while prominently exercising your *second* amendment rights, too?

And where does "free speech" end and "uttering threats" begin? Would you consider a threat to be protected under the First Amendment?

(I'm asking to clarify the position, not advocate one of my own, at this point)

From:

No, I don't. They are useful to determine guilt and and appropriate sentencing. I don't care if you killed someone for money or hate, other than establishing your motive for doing so as part of the prosecution against you. We've had this debate on rasfwr-j in the past, and I held then, and still hold, that hate crimes statutes make second class citizens out of victims of identical crimes done for differing motives, while criminalizing thought as a bonus. We don't do that here. We're not supposed to anyway.

As far as threats go, I can't make it illegal to speak them. The First is funny like that, it's written in extremely plain language that is very broad and leaves no room for wiggle. You can make an asshole of yourself in public, and if local statutes allow you to carry while doing so, you're still an asshole, and I get to mock you for it in return. Perhaps the Gay people need to start picketing right wing zealot's houses while carrying as well, with big posters suggesting stupid people who breed should be killed. It's not pretty, but it is legal.

Now I'm late for a meeting, so if I don't resond to further comments immediately, I'm trapped in hell.

From:

torrain.livejournal.com

> Hate crimes laws are bullshit. it effectively criminlizes thought.

I'm thrown, here.

Say I beat someone up because they're gay. This is classified as a hate crime, and I am charged and convicted.

Say I beat someone up because he looked at me funny. This is classified as a crime, and I am charged and convicted.

I grant you that the first situation may criminalize my thought (here summarized as "Don't like him because he's gay, must smash!"). But if it does, I fail to see how the second situation *doesn't* criminalize my thought (here summarized as "Don't like him, must smash!").

If it is alredy acknowledged that the behaviour was deliberate and wrong, then all calling something a "hate crime" does is identify that the thought you are criminalizing had specific characteristics.

From: