Feds suggest anti-Muslim speech can be punished

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Feds suggest anti-Muslim speech can be punished

A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.

Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, was quoted by the Tullahoma News this week suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws.

"We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected," Killian told the newspaper.

I guess he forgot about that little oath that starts out "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States ..."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Arvoitus 1]

From the same article:

Quote

"He’s just wrong," said Floyd Abrams, one of the country's most respected First Amendment attorneys. "The government may, indeed, play a useful and entirely constitutional role in urging people not to engage in speech that amounts to religious discrimination. But it may not, under the First Amendment, prevent or punish speech even if it may be viewed as hostile to a religion."

"And what it most clearly may not do is to stifle political or social debate, however rambunctious or offensive some may think it is," Abrams said.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

"If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?" Killian asked, according to the newspaper.

He does kind of have a point there, at least. If they're talking about hate speech, it's valid (correct me if I'm wrong, but hate speech is not protected under the 1st, yes?). If he's just trying to make people stop saying bad things about Islam, it's not.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

correct me if I'm wrong, but hate speech is not protected under the 1st, yes?

I believe you're wrong, as far as the US is concerned. Just expressing hate against an identifiable group is definitely not illegal. You might start to get in trouble if you advocate violence against specific individuals, and post information obviously intended to facilitate that violence. For example, some years ago people got into some trouble for advocating that doctors who perform abortions should be killed, and then publicizing the names and work and home addresses of those doctors. By "got into trouble" I mean they were just ordered to stop publicizing the names and addresses, after a doctor on the list was shot and killed in his house in front of his kids.

Despite the truism about "shouting fire in a crowed theater", I suspect it would be difficult to prosecute someone in the US even for doing that. They would just have to claim they smelled smoke.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

mistercwood

He does kind of have a point there, at least. If they're talking about hate speech, it's valid (correct me if I'm wrong, but hate speech is not protected under the 1st, yes?). If he's just trying to make people stop saying bad things about Islam, it's not.

The problem with banning hate speech, as most nations have done (but not the US), is that it's easy to use to squash unpopular speech. The point of the First is to prevent the government from doing so. The cost is allowing people like the Westboro type, as well as the nazi type propaganda.

[Andy9o8 2]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

correct me if I'm wrong, but hate speech is not protected under the 1st, yes?

I believe you're wrong, as far as the US is concerned. Just expressing hate against an identifiable group is definitely not illegal. You might start to get in trouble if you advocate violence against specific individuals, and post information obviously intended to facilitate that violence. For example, some years ago people got into some trouble for advocating that doctors who perform abortions should be killed, and then publicizing the names and work and home addresses of those doctors. By "got into trouble" I mean they were just ordered to stop publicizing the names and addresses, after a doctor on the list was shot and killed in his house in front of his kids.

Despite the truism about "shouting fire in a crowed theater", I suspect it would be difficult to prosecute someone in the US even for doing that. They would just have to claim they smelled smoke. Don

Sorry, MrCWood; GeorgiaDon is 100% correct - hate speech is most definitely protected under the US Constitution's First Amendment.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

mistercwood

Quote

"If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?" Killian asked, according to the newspaper.

He does kind of have a point there, at least. If they're talking about hate speech, it's valid (correct me if I'm wrong, but hate speech is not protected under the 1st, yes?). If he's just trying to make people stop saying bad things about Islam, it's not.

Just to pile on a little more, hate speech is most definitely protected. The Westboro Baptists can scream "God Hates Fags!" at funerals, the Illinois Nazi Party can have a parade in a mostly Jewish suburb of Chicago (I hate Illinois Nazis), the KKK can stand on the steps of the State Capitol in Madison WI and denounce the mixing of black and white people.

All of these have been to court. The free speech won.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 3,119]

>The Westboro Baptists can scream "God Hates Fags!" at funerals, the Illinois Nazi
>Party can have a parade in a mostly Jewish suburb of Chicago (I hate Illinois
>Nazis), the KKK can stand on the steps of the State Capitol in Madison WI and
>denounce the mixing of black and white people.

Agreed to all of those examples.

However, to compare it to the OP's case, if the Westboro Baptists published a picture of a Baptist aiming a shotgun at a gay serviceman and entitled it "dealing with the gay problem in the military" - would that be protected? Threats to someone's life are not protected speech, although one could argue that would not be an explicit threat.

[Kennedy 0]

mistercwood

Quote

"If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?" Killian asked, according to the newspaper.

He does kind of have a point there, at least. If they're talking about hate speech, it's valid (correct me if I'm wrong, but hate speech is not protected under the 1st, yes?). If he's just trying to make people stop saying bad things about Islam, it's not.

Fighting words, inciting violence, and fomenting armed rebellion/overthrow are not protected. Most everything else is. Profanity/vulgarity toe the razor's edge.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

billvon

>The Westboro Baptists can scream "God Hates Fags!" at funerals, the Illinois Nazi
>Party can have a parade in a mostly Jewish suburb of Chicago (I hate Illinois
>Nazis), the KKK can stand on the steps of the State Capitol in Madison WI and
>denounce the mixing of black and white people.

Agreed to all of those examples.

However, to compare it to the OP's case, if the Westboro Baptists published a picture of a Baptist aiming a shotgun at a gay serviceman and entitled it "dealing with the gay problem in the military" - would that be protected? Threats to someone's life are not protected speech, although one could argue that would not be an explicit threat.

Well, considering that there are people calling for "drone strikes" on the NRA leadership in newspaper columns, anti-abortion groups that are calling for the killing of doctors that perform abortions (not stopped until they started publishing names and addresses - which made it an explicit threat), and other things of a similar nature, I'd say a picture such as you describe would be protected (but I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, so I could be wrong).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mistercwood 287]

Thanks for the corrections, interesting.

Kennedy

Fighting words, inciting violence, and fomenting armed rebellion/overthrow are not protected. Most everything else is. Profanity/vulgarity toe the razor's edge.

This was the sort of thing that I was actually thinking of when I mentioned hate speech - advocacy/incitement to violence against a specific group, in this case Muslims. I.e. A rally of people chanting "Moozies go home" = (pathetic) but ok. Rally of people with head guy on a megaphone shouting "Let's go down to (local mosque) and kick those ragheads asses!" = not ok.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

if the Westboro Baptists published a picture of a Baptist aiming a shotgun at a gay serviceman and entitled it "dealing with the gay problem in the military" - would that be protected? Threats to someone's life are not protected speech, although one could argue that would not be an explicit threat.

It has to be a real threat against a real person, AND designed/intended to actually be perceived by the person who is the subject of the threat, in order for it to not be protected.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Fighting words, inciting violence, and fomenting armed rebellion/overthrow are not protected.

Grey area. Very fact-specific, on a case-by-case basis; and two different well-intended judges could easily disagree with each other on how a particular case should be classified.

Quote

Profanity/vulgarity toe the razor's edge.

A good example of how legalities change with the times corresponding to how social standards change with the times. For example, back in the early 1960s, standup comics like Lenny Bruce used to get arrested for violating obscenity laws for using certain curse words or explicit sexual references. But nowadays, the (mostly federal) courts consider bans of "mere words" on grounds of obscenity to be unconstitutional.

[Kennedy 0]

Nine lawyers in a room couldn't agree to drown a rabid rat in a bathtub. There is enough case law and enough poorly written laws to argue any point imaginable.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 2]

Amusing. Doesn't advance the discussion any, but still amusing.

[billvon 3,119]

>It has to be a real threat against a real person, AND designed/intended to actually
>be perceived by the person who is the subject of the threat, in order for it to not
>be protected.

Makes sense, thanks.