4 ms·

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of restrictions on free speech before; the First Amendment is not absolute. It is not unthinkable that with changing so

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of restrictions on free speech before; the First Amendment is not absolute. It is not unthinkable that with changing society and changing judicial review, the USA too may one day find hate speech to be a crime.

bluthru 6y ago
>favour Hello non-American. The Supreme Court has ruled that "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment, because of court it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
dexterdog 6y ago
Hate speech being a crime is not the problem. The power of the arbiter of what defines hate speech is.
- bityard 6y ago
  In China, "hate speech" includes anything that is critical of the government. I'm very happy that the U.S. has a very high bar for free speech, otherwise we would have been in a very bad spot all throughout the previous presidential administration.
  - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
    Yes. In india criticizing the government lands you in soup for "destroying the social fabric of the country" and "against the interests of the nation". Smh
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  It's also unclear to me why that, in turn, is a problem. There are several fuzzy areas in American free speech law as it stands, and arguably most people are already happy to allow (and encourage) regulation in other important areas of life, from medical/food regulation to warranty regulations, to electrical safety regulations, to frequency band regulations. The 'power of the arbiter' there is almost never brought up as a problem, despite the fact that this immense power can have very real consequences. If a democratically-elected government can be trusted (by the populace who influence the laws) to regulate what you can sell and what you can transmit in the airwaves, to regulate the minimum amount you can pay people, to regulate the age at which someone can be employed, etc. - why shouldn't the same government, subject to the same safeguards against misregulation, also have the ability to regulate this portion of speech too? This is more of a devil's advocate argument than anything, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
  - dexterdog 6y ago
    So you're saying that because we've already given the government too much power in areas that it was never meant to be involved we should just keep going?

bluthru 6y ago

>favour Hello non-American. The Supreme Court has ruled that "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment, because of court it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

dexterdog 6y ago

Hate speech being a crime is not the problem. The power of the arbiter of what defines hate speech is.

bityard 6y ago
In China, "hate speech" includes anything that is critical of the government. I'm very happy that the U.S. has a very high bar for free speech, otherwise we would have been in a very bad spot all throughout the previous presidential administration.
- 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
  Yes. In india criticizing the government lands you in soup for "destroying the social fabric of the country" and "against the interests of the nation". Smh
claudiawerner 6y ago
It's also unclear to me why that, in turn, is a problem. There are several fuzzy areas in American free speech law as it stands, and arguably most people are already happy to allow (and encourage) regulation in other important areas of life, from medical/food regulation to warranty regulations, to electrical safety regulations, to frequency band regulations. The 'power of the arbiter' there is almost never brought up as a problem, despite the fact that this immense power can have very real consequences. If a democratically-elected government can be trusted (by the populace who influence the laws) to regulate what you can sell and what you can transmit in the airwaves, to regulate the minimum amount you can pay people, to regulate the age at which someone can be employed, etc. - why shouldn't the same government, subject to the same safeguards against misregulation, also have the ability to regulate this portion of speech too? This is more of a devil's advocate argument than anything, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
- dexterdog 6y ago
  So you're saying that because we've already given the government too much power in areas that it was never meant to be involved we should just keep going?