Where should the US constitution draw the line between free speech and hatred? (see details)?
We see groups like Fred Phelps and the KKK which are constitutionally protected to speak. And most people agree that their extremist agenda is offensive. Both claim Christianity, and most of us realize that their brand of Christianity is not acceptable, nor do we consider it "Christianity"
But what about less offensive groups...should we change the laws to restrict groups like Fred Phelps and in the process, restrict the less offensive religious groups?
Where should we draw the line? Because once a precedent is set to banish certain "hate" groups, other groups can be considered "hate" groups, simply because one person didn't like what they had to say, even if it wasn't hateful.
I guess the ultimate question is, how do we differentiate between protection of speech and protection from speech?
Is there a legal way to stop groups like Fred Phelps or the KKK without setting a precedent to restrict other, less harmful groups?
Answers:
The constitution shouldn't.
I think a fictional movie president said it best when he said that to be an American, you have to want it, and called it advanced citizenship. You have to stand by while someone shouts at the top of their lungs horrible things that you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. That's America. They have the right to say it, and you and I have the right, like we are doing right here, to speak out against the hatred.
It's very difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate between "protection of speech and protection from speech," as you put it. That's why it's not done, because banning someone for hateful speech begins a slippery slope, and the next thing you know, the KKK are the ones prohibiting YOU from speaking your mind. Think about it. The First Amendment was written for the single, solitary purpose of protecting unpopular speech -- no matter who says it, or who opposes it, or why.
Nope, it's better to let them spout their moronic rhetoric. As a very wise woman once said, "Being offended is a condition of leaving one's home."
I'd rather be offended and free than unoffended and unable to express my views.
As offensive as I find them, I would think long and hard before I supported any change in our freedoms. The question you have to ask yourself is who will be gone after next?
The question is who would decide where the law was drawn. The KKK is a good example of what is hate. Would you trust Bush administration to say what is hate speech? If they decided where it was you might not be able to say anything bad about the him and MSNBC may be shut down. Do you trust the Congress? They would shut down FOX and most talk radio. They only way to do it, is not to do it. Freedom of Speech is just that, freedom. As long as you do not yell fire in a crowd theater, make a bomb threat, or say bad things to minors it should not be banned.
it all comes down to choice! they let people like KKK and blah blah speak so that you can see how stupid they sound trying to explain y its okay to hate! If you listen to what they have to say well that just says alot about you!!
speech is freedom i would rather listen to them sound stupid than have the right taken away form me! ( this does not include violence )
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: