4 ms·

There's free speech, and there's hate speech.

ryanwaggoner 16y ago
Who decides the difference? EDIT: It should also be noted that in the United States (where Phelps is based), restrictions on "hate speech" have not fared well in the courts, as they are usually seen as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States Looks like the Supreme Court is due to rule on a case involving Phelps that may settle some of these questions from a legal perspective: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snyder-v-phelps/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snyder-v-phelps/
- mathgladiator 16y ago
  Property owners
moxiemk1 16y ago
What's always concerned me is that I don't know how to draw that line. Where do you put it?
- kabuks 16y ago
  Not knowing where to put the line, is a poor excuse for not drawing one. Any boundary will be imperfect, but that does not mean we don't set boundaries. Who decides what's too much? I do. And you do too. And we keep trying to get better at setting intelligent and fair boundaries.
- rick_2047 16y ago
  I know it when I see it. --Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.
adolph 16y ago
Is there a difference between the two? What's the distinction? Who gets to decide? Does the distinction change over time?
philwelch 16y ago
Absolute bullshit. Free speech isn't meant as a defense of reasonable, well-mannered expression, because such speech needs no protection. It's meant to defend the kinds of expressions that people would actually want to censor. Let's be clear here. Stalking, harassment, and invasion of privacy--those all may or may not be legitimate things WBC can be rightly accused of. If the WBC is in the wrong, they're in the wrong for disrupting people's funerals by shouting at the top of their lungs, not for the specific things they happen to say in the process. "Hate speech" is a bullshit political euphemism, and the right to march down the street or stand on a street corner to share your views is the essence of free speech. It doesn't matter whether you're the WBC, the Ku Klux Klan, or Lyndon LaRouche.

Who decides the difference? EDIT: It should also be noted that in the United States (where Phelps is based), restrictions on "hate speech" have not fared well in the courts, as they are usually seen as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States Looks like the Supreme Court is due to rule on a case involving Phelps that may settle some of these questions from a legal perspective: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snyder-v-phelps/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snyder-v-phelps/

mathgladiator 16y ago
Property owners

moxiemk1 16y ago

What's always concerned me is that I don't know how to draw that line. Where do you put it?

kabuks 16y ago
Not knowing where to put the line, is a poor excuse for not drawing one. Any boundary will be imperfect, but that does not mean we don't set boundaries. Who decides what's too much? I do. And you do too. And we keep trying to get better at setting intelligent and fair boundaries.
rick_2047 16y ago
I know it when I see it. --Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

adolph 16y ago

Is there a difference between the two? What's the distinction? Who gets to decide? Does the distinction change over time?

philwelch 16y ago

Absolute bullshit. Free speech isn't meant as a defense of reasonable, well-mannered expression, because such speech needs no protection. It's meant to defend the kinds of expressions that people would actually want to censor. Let's be clear here. Stalking, harassment, and invasion of privacy--those all may or may not be legitimate things WBC can be rightly accused of. If the WBC is in the wrong, they're in the wrong for disrupting people's funerals by shouting at the top of their lungs, not for the specific things they happen to say in the process. "Hate speech" is a bullshit political euphemism, and the right to march down the street or stand on a street corner to share your views is the essence of free speech. It doesn't matter whether you're the WBC, the Ku Klux Klan, or Lyndon LaRouche.