"25 indicted for anti-Christian "hate speech" posts on website DemocraticUnderground.com"

[Nye Bevan]

is a headline you will never see, thanks to the First Amendment.

Those who are sympathetic to "hate speech" laws should bear in mind that such laws would not only be targeted against speech that they personally object to.

[haikugal]

1. The definitions would be fluid and useful to TPTB.

[hifiguy]

8. And you can guess, I'd bet, who TPTB would use such laws against.

[haikugal]

10. Ummmmmm, that's a tough one....nope, history is replete with the answer, yes it is!

[NutmegYankee]

2. Thank You for stating what I once thought was common knowledge.

I almost don't recognize this place anymore.

[HassleCat]

3. The ACLU knows this

People need to take a lesson from the ACLU. They defend the right of the Nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods. They defend Rush Limbaugh from drug charges. They defend pornographers. They know the First Amendment will not be overturned by the stroke of a pen. It will be slowly eroded, incrementally, by restricting the free speech of whatever group is least popular this week, then moving on to next week's group.

[kcr]

4. Maybe they've heard this argument before and dismiss it

This kind of argument isn't only used against supporting hate speech laws. Similar logic is used to persuade people not to support getting rid of the fillibuster. It's a bogus argument then and now. It's never a good reason to lie down and refuse to take action because you're a coward and that's essentially what your argument boils down to. Don't fight and take action and let the problem fester because you're afraid of the enemy. If they then "use it against you", fight it. Plan for that eventuality, but don't lie down and just let things get worse. I support the First, but I'm not an absolutist for lots of reasons, so I don't dismiss hate speech laws automatically. They do have merit.

[nichomachus]

5. You need to research the First Amendment

It down not protect you from being held accountable for your speech.

If I were to claim that someone was a child molester -- and they weren't -- the First Amendment would not shield me from being sued for libel.

But do go on.

[Nye Bevan]

6. I fully understand that the First Amendment does not preclude lawsuits for libel (nt)

[nichomachus]

9. But still you posted this

All the First Amendment does is say that the government cannot a priori prohibit you from speaking.

You can be held accountable after for what you say.

Hell, we've used drones to murder people solely for things that they wrote.

[NutmegYankee]

15. It means the government cannot punish you for your speech.

If you say something and can then be jailed or worse for saying it, you were not free to say it.

A person can always say whatever they like, anywhere in the world. A North Korean can easily physically say "Fuck Kim Jong-un". He'll just take a bullet to the head for it. And THAT's the difference between free speech and not free speech! No one shot me for saying Fuck George W Bush when he was in office.

[Statistical]

27. You do understand that is not ok right.

Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

"Hell, we've used drones to murder people solely for things that they wrote."

Which is why people have said such actions are unconstitutional but terra and brown people somehow make it ok.

Freedom isn't just about someone physically preventing you from saying something. By your logic if the government tells the press write anything bad about the government and we will execute you well there is still freedom of the press. If you believe you can be killed by your government for saying something and you still have freedom well even Orwell wasn't that Orwellian.

[NutmegYankee]

13. Techncially libel is a civil tort - police don't come to your home and arrest you.

Free speech is a limitation on Government power only.

[meow2u3]

45. Free speech should also extend to the workplace

In other words, you shouldn't be fired for having political views at odds with the boss.

[branford]

55. There are some laws that protect against discrimination based on political party or belief,

and of course, contract law can protect an individual employee.

However, the Bill of Rights only concerns state action, and I can think of a myriad of problems with universal protections for political views of employees when they conflict with their employers, as well as some constitutional, largely 1A, concerns with respect to the rights of the employer.

Are you prepared to protect an employee of Planned Parenthood that's a pro-life Republican?

[meow2u3]

56. What pro-life repuke would want to work at PP?

Except a RW spy, maybe? Maybe there ought to be exceptions to the workplace freedom idea, one of them being deliberate sabotage of their mission.

[branford]

61. You're already thinking of exceptions to potentially uncomfortable situations,

which is exactly my point.

I'm an attorney and part of my practice includes labor and employment law, and I can assure you that such universal protections as you suggest would be both untenable and likely violations of the employer's own 1A rights.

However, as I indicated, some jurisdiction do indeed provide limited protections to employees for political activity, such as party membership or voting. Further, public employees receive substantial 1A protection in the workplace, well beyond anything in the private sector.

Simply, there is no real movement in legislatures to add additional political protections to at-will in the workforce because both parties understand the dangers and potential constitutional impediments.

[branford]

47. The 1A protects against government action.

If you made such an allegation, you would not be arrested, detained, penalized or even sued civilly by the government.

Heck, if is was clear you were only offering you opinion that someone was a child molester, rather than offering it as a statement of fact, you wouldn't even be liable for defamation in civil court.

[hifiguy]

7. Damn straight. nt

[Throd]

11. For many on DU, the 1st amendment is situational.

[hifiguy]

12. Oh, brother, there is some BIG truth

in your statement.

[WillowTree]

14. That could not possibly have been stated any better. Thank you!

[zeemike]

30. And the same it true for the whole bill of rights.

How the hell they got them to accept that is beyound me...we should have never tolerated it.
But now that we have the sky is the limit.

[Snobblevitch]

16. Unless I'm not understanding your point,

if the hate speech included specific threats, then yes, if somebody posted such threats on DU, there could be indictments.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. It doesn't matter if we agree with what another country does or not

The sky isn't falling and it isn't going to happen here.

No one is getting raped, murdered, beheaded, hung, burned to death in Italy over this law. It's not happening. Stop acting like it's the worst thing in the world for AMERICANS that they can't go to Italy and start screaming about Die Jews! Die blacks! Die Gays! <-- Is it THAT important to Americans that they be able to go there and make a damn fool out of themselves?

Before we start attacking laws put into place in foreign countries that had positive intent (peace on earth good will toward man and not being homophobes, transphobes, bigots, etc. etc. and all that jazz) can we clean our own faces first?

Besides - I'm a few months away from my dual citizenship there, have paid taxes for three years there - and as a black American?

Some day I MIGHT need to escape from this piece of shit racist country and the last thing I want is a bunch of well meaning Americans pushing/forcing me out of Italy too. *hmph*

^^^^^ See the sky isn't falling - now is it?^^^^^

That's how silly we are to get worried over this. It's not going to happen anymore than America is going to round up all the black folks and throw us into the ocean.

It's NOT going to happen.

I just love this idea that other countries laws are supposed to be voted on by the American people. To me - that's something that only Conservatives who wish to impose America on everyone else would ever want.

If you don't like it - don't go there. That's more antipasti and Cantina wine for me!

[Nye Bevan]

19. Italian senator calls black politician an 'orangutan'

Calling a black person an "orangutan" in Italy is not racist, the country's senators have decided.

The decision came after Italy's former integration minister, Cecile Kyenge, who was born in Congo, was likened to one of the apes in 2013 by a fellow politician, reports La Reubblica newspaper.

Roberto Calderoli sparked outrage when he said: "When I see Kyenge, I can't help but think of an orangutan."

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/italian-senator-calls-black-politician-orangutan-article-1.2106778

I guess well-meaning laws don't always have the desired affect.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. Are you SURE you want to use Calderoli as an example?

You know he's with the Northern League right? He's also NUCKING FUTS! Crazy! Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11058867/Italian-politician-claims-he-has-been-cursed-after-orang-utan-remark.html

At a ceremony last year attended by Miss Kyenge's father, Clement Kikoko Kyenge, in his home village, a prayer was said in which God was asked to free Mr Calderoli from evil thoughts. A photo of Mr Calderoli was then placed before an altar dedicated to the ancestors of the village, and the same request made.

But this month Mr Calderoli said a series of misfortunes he has incurred since then – including six hospital operations, the death of his mother, two broken fingers and two broken veterbrae – proved he had actually been cursed by Mr Kyenge.

To cap his year of bad luck, Mr Calderoli this month tweeted a photo of himself holding a six foot long snake he said he had found and killed at his home in Italy.

Mr Calderoli also told Oggi magazine that friends from Naples had given him a lucky charm in the shape of a red chilli pepper – believed to ward off evil spirits – only for it to mysteriously snap in half a day later. A mystic, he added, "saw a tremendous force active around me."

Mr Kyenge denied any curse had been placed on Mr Calderoli.

Find someone NOT in the Northern League and get back to me Nye. This is no zinger.

Everyone NOT in the Northern League knows those 25 are proactive Northern League types. Neo Nazis, Skinheads - etc. etc. Think Golden Dawn only in Italy.

You sure you want to put him up as an example? He believes in curses. Evil eyes. Superstition.

Non-effing-sense!

[Nye Bevan]

29. So in a country with hate speech laws, neo-nazis get elected to parliament,

and they refer to blacks as "orangutans". Makes me question what these laws are accomplishing.

[JustAnotherGen]

34. Yep

See you wait. . . My husband has a cousin in the Senate to in the equivalent of our house. His uncle helped write the original law in 1993 as a member of the Senate. It was Italy admitting their complicity in the Holocaust. You don't have to like it - and you don't have to go there. You and me as Americans have enough to be ashamed of - why take that on?

"They" - the Italian people didn't do anything. An individual who is a member of the Northern League did. So you can't get the big fish? You go after the ass wipes that voted the N.L. Into office because - Gays! Jews! Muslims! Gypsies! Blacks! Immigrants.

Because - you wait. No one here was posting about the election in June - but the NL just found out what happens to Northerners with bigotry seeping out their pores who are emboldened by a few wins.


Why don't you test the law. Get on a plane to Rome. Take the train to Cosenza. Go into the city center and start screaming ""kill the Africans!"

See what happens.

Their culture, their laws - see how far an ugly 'exceptional' American gets who thinks he knows their history better than they do.

[branford]

48. Well, it's nothing like all the open and proud neo-Nazis we elect to Congress

and statewide positions in the USA with all our ridiculous protections for bad speech. Oh, wait...

[LeftishBrit]

32. When I see/hear of Calderoli, I can't help but think of a brainless thug.

[JustAnotherGen]

35. Exactly

He sucks.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. You will find on DU that the folks who push for 'hate speech laws' are in fact religious

what they want is actually 'anti blasphemy laws' that restrict criticism of religion while religion is free to attack with as much hate speech as it wants.

[Arugula Latte]

25. Right.

On the Internet, critics of religion who point out that it lacks evidence to back up any of its claims are often called "haters" and "bigots."

On the other hand, religious people who post things like "Non-believers are damned and will burn in Hell for an eternity" are just practicing their "faith" and spreading their deeply held beliefs.

Now, the latter sentiment is rarely expressed on DU, but slightly more subtle anti-atheist/anti-atheism sentiments are often written. That's fine with me, as long as the rest of us not restricted from criticizing cockamamie chosen religious beliefs.

Why so many people think that religion deserves a protective bubble to spare the delicate feelings of its adherents while not affording that luxury to members of any other belief groups (anti-vaxxers, Republicans, fans of Nickelback, what have you) is beyond me.

What's good for the goose and all of that...

[zeemike]

33. I don't get it.

If you don't believe in hell how can someone condemning you to it be anything but funny?

As for me I don't believe anyone should have a protective bubble...sticks and stones hurts your bones but words do not harm you.
No one need come to my emotional rescue.

[Orrex]

36. It reflects their sentiment and their hatred

Even though I don't believe in hell outside of a Pauly Shore marathon, I recognize the statement as the most vile insult in their arsenal.

If I call you a "sloon," but you recognize that to be shorthand for some actual insult, you could be forgiven for taking it as an insult even if "sloon" is meaningless.

[zeemike]

57. And your calling them ignorant. stupid, dimwits reflects your hatred of them

Right?
It most defiantly is not done out of love. And if you were just indifferent what they said or believed would not matter to you.

If we acted out of love there would be no conflict because we would show compassion not contempt.

[Orrex]

68. Wrong. I don't hate them.

I find their views primitive and contrary to enlightened thinking, and I certainly don't presume to tell them where they'll spend eternity.

Further, I don't justify bigotry by appealing to the dictates of some imagined god-figure.

And if you were just indifferent what they said or believed would not matter to you.

Forgive me, but that argument seems nonsensical to me. Their condemnation of me is a direct extension of the mythology that underlies their political agenda, by which they seek to enshrine their mythology in law. This would have a negative impact upon me in real time in the real world, therefore it's not a matter of stubbornly claiming indifference.

One sure way for evil to triumph, in fact...

[zeemike]

71. And they say they don't hate you.

So you can't go by what is said.
But it is clear from what you say that you do hate them.

And that was not an argument but an observation...you clearly don't love them, and are not in deferent so all that is left is hate.

And you seem blind to the fact that you calling them bigots and idiots is the same kind of condemnation that you say you hate. Did you ever wonder what would happen if someone slapped your face and instead of slapping back you turned the other cheek?...Seriously it is not just a bible quote, it is the basis of non violent protest...and it works.
But when you hit back it justifies their violence.

[Arugula Latte]

41. I was just giving an example of how it is somehow always entirely acceptable

for religious people to criticize non-believers' views, but when the tables are turned, they usually squawk and throw out terms like "hater" and "bigot." Why does it only work one way with them? If I say "the Bible is mythology" I get called a "bigot," but church signs, bill boards, door knockers, and other messages/messengers who condemn the practice of non-believing are always somehow perfectly fine and dandy to most religious people. You never hear "that is bigoted against atheists" in response to something like "believe in Jesus Christ or burn in hell for all eternity."

Yes, I think the notion of hell is laughable too.

And you and I agree that there should be no bubbles for any chosen belief systems.

[zeemike]

53. Well the way I see it is that both sides want to be the victim.

And both sides hurl the insults...and get their feelings hurt and cry like babies about it on the internet.

And both sides claim to know the truth, when the facts are that neither side knows jack shit about the nature of our existence, and any honest scientist or religious expert will tell you that...if he could.

[Arugula Latte]

60. I don't get my feelings hurt. I just note the double standard.

As for this: "And both sides claim to know the truth, when the facts are that neither side knows jack shit about the nature of our existence, and any honest scientist or religious expert will tell you that...if he could" -- well, that's where the two sides part ways radically.

Science constantly tests knowledge and theories, and builds on what has been proven. It is perfectly fine with being proven wrong and then revising itself. Religion just states what is and isn't, attributes things to supernatural/magical forces, backs this up by zero evidence, and stubbornly sticks to its guns -- even though these stories were made up by primitive cultures hundreds and hundreds of years ago. These were cultures that had little access to an understanding of the planet, let alone the solar system or the universe. Science, on the other hand, has recently shown that a vacuum can yield flashes of light. It has also shown that it is likely that inorganic matter could have been chemically changed into organic matter in underwater volcanic tubes long, long ago.Those are two examples of how, every day, we get closer to an understanding of how this universe and the life in it came to be -- and no magical or supernatural explanation is necessary -- so far. If it becomes necessary, well, then, heck, crack open the 2,000-year-old Bible to explain the origins of a 14 billion-year-old universe. Riiiight.

In other words, saying "both sides don't know anything" is HUGELY misleading. One side knows nothing, and insists on stubbornly sticking to knowing nothing. The other is learning.

[zeemike]

63. I have had this argument for decades now.

And no science is not even close to understanding the universe and how life came to be...not even close.

You are under the same delusion that they are, just different methods. They state things as fact because the bible or the spirit tells them...you state things as fact that are no less theory than theirs are. But you are convinced your theory is correct and theirs is zero...always zero.

I could go on for hours showing you just how little science knows...and how it relies on miracles like the big bang to prop up it's theory of the univers...but to what end?
Neither side is willing to admit that they don't know and for similar reasons.

[Arugula Latte]

74. You are very wrong to fall for the "both sides know nothing" lie.

As I said, science keeps refining and gaining knowledge. Do we know everything? Of course not! But we know a hell of a lot more than the goatherders in the Judea of 2,000 years ago. We have learned a lot, and we have the model to keep learning more. Religion? Not so much.

[NuclearDem]

21. It's also not a headline you read in countries with hate speech laws.

Because that's not how hate speech laws are applied. Blasphemy laws are not the same thing as hate speech laws. In fact, courts in France tend to throw out "anti-religion" complaints under the law fairly frequently; it's why Charlie Hebdo still exists.

"Go fuck yourself, Falwell" is not the same as "Muslime go home."

[Nye Bevan]

23. "Cartoonist faces Greek jail for blasphemy"

He meant it as a piece of religious satire, a playful look at the life of Jesus. But Gerhard Haderer's depiction of Christ as a binge-drinking friend of Jimi Hendrix and naked surfer high on cannabis has caused a furore that could potentially land the cartoonist in jail.

Haderer did not even know that his book, The Life of Jesus, had been published in Greece until he received a summons to appear in court in Athens in January charged with blasphemy.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/23/austria.arts

[NuclearDem]

46. Blasphemy laws are not hate speech laws.

A blasphemy law puts you on trial for "ha ha you dance around a cube all day ha ha."

A hate speech law puts you on trial for "fuck off and die raghead."

[a2liberal]

26. check out India

And that's not the only one... "religious sensitivity" laws are common

[LittleBlue]

22. Agreed

There are people in this country who would yearn for tyranny if only their tyrant was on the throne.

[hifiguy]

43. And they're not all Freepers and Republicans either. nt

[LittleBlue]

64. Unfortunately

Going through the Bush years, you'd think some would have learned.

[mwooldri]

24. Nor will you see "Skinner jailed for 3 years for disseminating fake news".

We are not in Egypt.

However I do have mixed feelings about hate speech laws. Part of me says that society needs something that regulates hate speech but part of me says that hate speech needs sunshine so it can be exposed for what it is - hate.

Certain undesirable actions must have consequences.

[world wide wally]

28. According to the esteemed SC in this land, it is perfectly fine to lie.

HTe isn't that far removed.
Which brings me to a thought: If we are such a "Christian nation", as they like to claim, why then is it OK to lie about politics? I thought there was something in the Bible about "shalt not lying".

[Nye Bevan]

31. Imagine someone going to prison for saying "we didn't find WMD's in Iraq".

Because technically we did; they were old and useless, dating back to the first Gulf War, but we did find them. So technically a lie to say that we didn't find them. See the problem with attempting to criminalize political lies?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. You're asking too much.

You're asking people to set aside political expedience for enduring principle. It's the same as the Melania Trump nonsense. What's a little slut shaming if it makes the conservatives feel a temporary twinge (will they even feel a twinge?) even though Progressives won the culture war? So what if we come off looking like prudes and hypocrites to our own stated goals we need to (maybe) cost Trump 0.01% in the polls.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. Only racists who engage in hate speech would object to The People's Glorious Hate Speech Law.

[Fla_Democrat]

38. Just 25?

[Rex]

39. I did see it on DU, it was an article about another country posted in GD.

[Major Nikon]

42. Results...

On Mon Aug 31, 2015, 05:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

"25 indicted for anti-Christian "hate speech" posts on website DemocraticUnderground.com"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027127241

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Look at MEEE" subject lines annoy the hell out of me.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Aug 31, 2015, 05:25 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I really dislike "Look at MEEE" alerts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: And yet you clicked on it anyway and now you want jurors to hide what annoys you personally oblivious to the annoyance of others.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Nye Bevan]

44. Thanks for posting this (nt)

[JustAnotherGen]

51. Another thanks for posting this

I'd rather have the discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Wow, we're alerting posts because they annoy us, now?

I better do some finger stretches.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

65. Would you like a guarantee of NEVER seeing such a moronic alert again? I would.

This could be easily accomplished by placing the alerter's name alongside his or her alert.

[Nye Bevan]

54. The "Heckler's Veto".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

[branford]

62. Very nice!

I also seem to remember that during the recent police disputes with Mayor de Blasio in NYC after the murder of the two police officers, some posters believed that senior government officials can also terminate or discipline unionized government employees engaging in off-duty collective political speech under the little known First Amendment exception known as "disrespect."

[branford]

70. Without rehashing weeks of contentious discussions,

being terminated from government employment based on speech would surely by considered censorship and the police are civilian employees and comparisons with the military are incorrect as a legal matter.

The police had employment protections for their speech against de Blasio arising from state and city law as well as their contract with the City. Even without the relevant statutes and contract, their off-duty political speech, absent anything unusual such as actual threats against the mayor or explicit refusals to perform their contractual obligation, no matter how politically inconvenient or aggravating for the mayor, was constitutionally protected. If this was not the case, could you even imagine the mass firings that Giuliani could have accomplished against disgruntled teachers and other city workers?

[branford]

73. I certainly wasn't suggesting you would condone censorship or anything else untoward.

Rather, it was to emphasize how many people support free speech, except for the speech they disagree with.

The police and de Blasio conflict was certainly more complicated than your original examples. I personally thought it was notable as an example of many liberals siding against the speech of public, unionized employees in favor of the political fortunes of an executive, particularly in a city like NYC where until recently anything less than total support for city employees like the teachers against the evil Giuliani or Bloomberg would be akin to blasphemy in progressive circles. Liberal ideology, free speech and support for labor certainly took a sharp detour on DU when the public employees were the police and the mayor a noted progressive.

[hunter]

58. Fuck. No matter how hard I try.

What's wrong with this place?

[NYC Liberal]

66. Another reason I support the ACLU with respect to Citizens United.

I don't like the idea of the government being able to ban books or films, or other media,

Censorship is great when it's the other side's views being censored. Or as the Shrub infamously said, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -- just so long as I'm the dictator."

[Nye Bevan]

69. Me too, probably my least popular opinion here on DU.

I think that laws permitting books to be banned should never be constitutional, even if the books say mean things about candidates who are running for election.