5 ms·
Should there perhaps be some limits, though? For some reason, I can't imagine that advocating genocide should ever be considered legitimate free speech. I can
by Navarr 9y ago
Should there perhaps be some limits, though?
For some reason, I can't imagine that advocating genocide should ever be considered legitimate free speech. I can understand political ideologies, even authoritarianism being protected - but advocation of genocide?
Why do we refuse to draw lines?
- pjscott 9y agoForgive me if I'm being dense here, but how is genocide a form of speech? Genocide is a form of killing.
- scarmig 9y agoIn Rwanda, there was a radio station literally advocating genocide and organizing slaughters. It played a major role in inflaming tensions that were already really high. You can reasonably see it as an exercise in free speech, but it was also very much an active participant of the genocide. Needless to say, the USA is not 90's Rwanda.
- Navarr 9y agoAdvocation thereof
- jayd16 9y agoThere are limits. You can't incite violence or shout fire in a crowded theater or plenty of other reasons.
- thanatropism 9y agoFunny story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... > The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- the8472 9y agoIf you ban the advocates of genocide speaking publicly they will simply speak underground. If they do it in the open you'll at least know who they are.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago>We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. -Dr. King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail
- pharrington 9y agoIdentifying with those who advocate for violence is not equivalent to advocating for violence.
- Navarr 9y agoNot saying it is, I'm not making any comments on the protest itself or the lawsuits for/against it.
- pharrington 9y agoReasonable. In the US, the limit where speech stops being constitutionally protected seems to be incitement to imminent lawless action. See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.htm..., and a later clarification in https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/105/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/105/.
- valuearb 9y agoWe draw the line where reprehensible speech turns into actual reprehensible actions. "I hate <ethnic group> and wish they were all dead" is far different from "There are <ethnic group> living a 333 Evergreen Terrace, please join me at 7 pm so we can kill them".
- Navarr 9y agoThe problem is I'm pretty sure the only illegal thing in that is giving away private information, if that.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- SamReidHughes 9y agoBy genocide do you mean mass abortion? Should we ban pro-choice speech?
- tnzn 9y agocare to tell us how foetus or whatever stage of development they are is a national, ethnic or religious group ?