4 ms·

> I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. Because then claiming of

by cbd1984 12y ago

> I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. Because then claiming offense becomes a sword, not a shield, and can be used to shut down legitimate criticism. For example, saying "There is no honor in honor killings" can be very offensive and humiliating in the wrong crowd, but it is nevertheless a discussion which needs to be held anywhere honor killings take place. Similarly, there are disingenuous morons in my country who claim all criticism of Israeli policy is anti-semitism. That can't possibly be considered valid. If it was, nobody could criticize Israel, which is obviously what the morons want, but a free society can't allow that. > How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected under 'free speech'? How about people who sign NDA's? You can't use "Free speech" as a way to get around other laws, including contract law in the case of NDAs. > How come it would be heavily criticized (and probably illegal) for a newspaper to start running weekly cartoons where they make fun of the black population in America, depicting them with the all the token representations and slurs that are now widely accepted as 'racist'? The KKK is a legal organization in America. David Duke is a legal human being, and is legally considered a human being despite evidence to the contrary, and legally has the right to say everything he's said, past and present. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke And then there's the Westboro Baptist Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church I fear your understanding of American free speech laws is quite flawed. > Are there some written rules about this Yes. A lot of them are in court cases, where judges have made decisions which bind on other judges. This is how a Common Law system works. > or is it just the result of how things are perceived by the majority of the public (i.e. what we like vs what we don't)? No. If it worked like this, the Westboro Baptist Church, for example, wouldn't be legal.

_almosnow 12y ago
Thanks for the explanation and the examples. I'm currently reading about hate speech cases and laws, definitely learning a lot. Apparently, even hate speech is protected as long as it is not thought to be the cause for an 'imminent danger'. Do you think that a terrorist threat could (or should) classify as an 'imminent danger' when it escalates to situations like these?
- cbd1984 12y ago
  Terroristic threats are already illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat Again, though, that's things similar to "I'm going to bomb your store" or "I have placed a hidden explosive near your offices" or similar; things that, even if they're false, cause other people to have to take them seriously and waste time and resources. In short, a terroristic threat doesn't insult someone, it makes that person think some specific terroristic action is going to be performed in the immediate future. It's not really that fine of a line. I'm fully in favor of those threats being illegal. In short: Legal: "[Those people] are stupid and smell bad." Legal: "[Those people] shouldn't live around here." Still Legal: "If [those people] don't move, bad things will happen." Yes, Legal: "I have a gun. [Those people] shouldn't mess with me. I have ever so many firearms. I love to shoot, especially [those people]." Legal: "It is time for [our people] to kill [those people]." Not Legal: "Tonight, we all move in on [those people] and kill them." Not Legal: "There is a bomb in the [Those People] Recreational Center." The line isn't insults. It isn't even threats as such. It's threats of immediate violence.
  - _almosnow 12y ago
    About the terrorist threats, I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? or does the immediate violence threat has to be something implicit within the published message. Btw, thanks, those examples are awesome.
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      > I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? If they made a specific and credible threat to cause death, bodily harm, or serious property damage if someone published something, yes, I think that would qualify as an illegal terroristic threat under the law. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Terrorist-Threat.htm http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal... Note that threatening to picket or boycott or otherwise protest isn't a terroristic threat. The threat has to be about something in the specific list I mentioned above.

by cbd1984 12y ago

_almosnow 12y ago

Thanks for the explanation and the examples. I'm currently reading about hate speech cases and laws, definitely learning a lot. Apparently, even hate speech is protected as long as it is not thought to be the cause for an 'imminent danger'. Do you think that a terrorist threat could (or should) classify as an 'imminent danger' when it escalates to situations like these?

cbd1984 12y ago
Terroristic threats are already illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat Again, though, that's things similar to "I'm going to bomb your store" or "I have placed a hidden explosive near your offices" or similar; things that, even if they're false, cause other people to have to take them seriously and waste time and resources. In short, a terroristic threat doesn't insult someone, it makes that person think some specific terroristic action is going to be performed in the immediate future. It's not really that fine of a line. I'm fully in favor of those threats being illegal. In short: Legal: "[Those people] are stupid and smell bad." Legal: "[Those people] shouldn't live around here." Still Legal: "If [those people] don't move, bad things will happen." Yes, Legal: "I have a gun. [Those people] shouldn't mess with me. I have ever so many firearms. I love to shoot, especially [those people]." Legal: "It is time for [our people] to kill [those people]." Not Legal: "Tonight, we all move in on [those people] and kill them." Not Legal: "There is a bomb in the [Those People] Recreational Center." The line isn't insults. It isn't even threats as such. It's threats of immediate violence.
- _almosnow 12y ago
  About the terrorist threats, I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? or does the immediate violence threat has to be something implicit within the published message. Btw, thanks, those examples are awesome.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? If they made a specific and credible threat to cause death, bodily harm, or serious property damage if someone published something, yes, I think that would qualify as an illegal terroristic threat under the law. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Terrorist-Threat.htm http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal... Note that threatening to picket or boycott or otherwise protest isn't a terroristic threat. The threat has to be about something in the specific list I mentioned above.