Is blasphemy hate speech?

[darkstar3]

It's a simple question that I think is fitting to ask in light of all the Jones threads. Is blasphemy hate speech?

[NV Whino]

1. Hell, no.

[bigwillq]

2. No (nt)

[The Straight Story]

3. Is burning a flag a good excuse for me to kill people?

No.

Not sure why some are trying to excuse the actions of others - except that they think they are savages and cannot be expected to act in a civil manner.

Probably the same people who had ancestors that considered the Aztecs and Indians savages (you can't expect them to act in a civil manner, they don't have the ability).

[bluestateguy]

4. Perhaps it is, but hate speech is legal

And I don't really want to trust politicians to "decide" what is and is not hate speech.

That would leave a lot of us on the Left on the wrong side of the law.

[handmade34]

35. ....

"Freedom of speech is not about good speech versus bad speech; it's about who holds the power to decide which is which."
quote from St. Petersburg Times

[reggaehead]

38. I wonder if they still hold that view

I have my doubts.

[A HERETIC I AM]

5. Who am I hating if I commit the ONLY unforgivable sin?

If I deny the "holy spirit" - that is to say, if I state that the concept of the existence of the holy spirit is claptrap, who am I hating?


No concept invented by man is above ridicule. No book is above it, no concept, no idea. Nothing.

If that ridicule takes the form of flames, so be it.

[Rowdyboy]

6. Burning a bible is okay....burning a quran is offensive....burning a torah is questionable....

I suppose it depends on your perspective. Why would any thoughtful, rational person go out of their way to deliberately be offensive to a religious minority, especially in an impoverished country with a largely uneducated population?

[ET Awful]

57. I'd say burning a Torah is HIGHLY offensive considering how many were burned

by a group of people responsible for the deaths of millions of people for whom that tome is sacred.

I mean, I'm not Jewish, so I may be way off base, but my guess is that most Jewish people would find that highly offensive.

[jberryhill]

86. How are old and worn ones decommissioned?

Do you know?

[ET Awful]

87. How are old flags decommissioned? Do you know?

There's a HUGE difference between doing something in a reverent and solemn manner and doing it in a manner designed to degrade and disrespect.

Is it your contention that there's no difference between a rabbi disposing properly of an aged and worn out Torah and a Nazi thug burning a Torah?

[jberryhill]

90. No, but what I am saying is that the communicative "speech" is elsewhere

I love how people fly off the handle with "are you saying ..." around these parts.

[ET Awful]

111. I love how people imply that doing xxxx isn't offensive because it's done by so and so

under other circumstances.

You knew damn well that your commentary on "decomissioning" a Torah was completely irrelevant and was a complete departure from what I referred to.

Yet, you get offended when you're called on it.

Cute.

[jberryhill]

113. You seem to determined to misunderstand the point

"Burning something" does not convey a message.

The context in which something is burned conveys a message, and it is generally a message that can be communicated effectively without burning anything at all.

From First Amendment discussions around here, an alien would get the impression that Americans primarily communicate using smoke signals.

However, the communicative component of conveying an idea by burning something has nothing to do with the act of burning something, but with ancillary communicative activities.

[ET Awful]

114. None of which disproves my statement that burning a Torah would be offensive.

I'm truly sorry if you can't quite wrap your brain around that simple concept.

[Township75]

68. 0.7-1.7 billion people are a minority?

If so, then I think everyone is, because there isn't a majority religion.

[Lucian]

119. I say burn them all.

[wtmusic]

7. For "hate speech" to make legal sense you have to first define "hate".

For that reason, "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are fatally defective legal constructs.

[HuckleB]

8. If it was, then anything an atheist says would be "hate speech," no?

:shrug:

[and-justice-for-all]

9. Not at all...what is this, the dark ages??..nt

[Codeine]

10. There is no such thing as "hate speech."

The very concept is anathema to a free people.

[jberryhill]

18. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29(2)

"(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

Of course, in the US, we have extended "speech" to acts which are other than purely expressive - ie speakIng and writing - to acts which are symbolic. That is the current interpretation, but it is debatable whether non-purely-expressive acts are subject to limitations which do not apply to purely expressive acts.

There are a range of things we do not permit under, for example, the comparable free exercise clause, e.g. human sacrifice of a willing participant.

We also would not permit something like self-immolation. If Terry Jones wanted to light himself on fire as a symbolic statement of whatever, he would not be permitted to do so, and would be institutionalized.

But we are dealing here with something outside the range of what is purely expressive.

I would like to make a statement about sexuality by performing a sexual act on the steps of the public library. Protected speech? Why or why not?

[darkstar3]

22. How is what Jones did "outside the range of what is purely expressive"?

[jberryhill]

26. Start with my last question and walk backwards

It is not "purely expressive" in that "burning an object" is neither spoken (or sung) word, nor is it printed word.

Our understanding of "what is speech" is fairly broad. My hypothetical is not entirely fictitious. For example, "nude dancing" as protected expression has been used, with varying results, to get around adult entertainment laws.

But I want to know your answer. If I want to emphasize a point about sexuality, may I masturbate on the steps of the public library or not?

Actions which are not purely expressive derive their meaning from context. Take "burning a flag". In point of fact, the proper method of disposal of old flags is to burn them. Boy scout troops will perform this as a service. It can also be a means of protest. But the meaning, or lack thereof, is not conveyed by the act of burning a flag, any more than a message is conveyed by a house fire in which a Quran was located therein.

Put another way, is there a message conveyed by burning an object which cannot be conveyed by words alone?

Accordingly, I intend to give a speech to the effect that people should be more accepting of sexual expression and of masturbation. To emphasize the point, I will masturbate during my speech. Is that okay? Why or why not?

[darkstar3]

27. Is an act not a form of expression?

If you think expression is only to be found in words, then I'm sure there's a mime school somewhere pissed at you.

As for your question about sexuality, it is an apples to oranges comparison. You may not perform a sex act in public because it is considered BY LAW as public lewdness, sometimes classified as public indecency. There is no law regarding the burning of objects that you legally own.

Furthermore, your attempted point is too vague. Let's assume for the moment that there were no laws governing public lewdness. What point about sexuality could you effectively make by masturbating on the steps of a public library? We know what point was served by burning a holy book, and what point was served by burning a flag. These are symbolic acts, as expressive as if the demonstrator had mimed himself in a box.

[jberryhill]

40. Lewdness is a type of expression

You are correct that lewdness is an entire category of expressive action that is illegal.

Even if performed by your mime troupe.

I'm surprised you didn't catch that yourself.

If you upset me, and I express my pique by turning away from you and dropping my trousers - ie "mooning" you - I am certainly intending to send you a message more than I am to perform a lewd act. Nonetheless my local sex offender register includes a man who was convicted for having mooned someone. Now, was he really doing something "sexual" or simply intending to convey a message.

Perhaps another angle would clarify the point. Things which are expressive can be the subject of copyright, which only extends to expressive speech. One can copyright a book, song, poem, play, picture, speech, choreographic work, etc. However neither dropping your pants nor burning them would be expressive speech subject to copyright, for example.

Personally, I am glad that our notion of "speech" extends to symbolic actions which are not expressive apart from context. But is IS an area in which we make exceptions, and you have provided a good example. I can surely display my genitals legally to an entire medical school class who may, with my consent, be doing a clinical experience gig at my doctor's office, but I am forbidden from doing so if I am intending to convey a message deemed "lewd".

So it is not as if we don't draw lines in the area of expressive "non speech actions" as speech. We certainly do draw lines.

[darkstar3]

42. You think that burning a book only has expressive value in a certain context?

Interesting. I see it differently. We're digressing, I think, somewhat from the point of the OP, but it is an interesting notion you bring up. You see, I think that the intentional burning of anything that is not normally burned is an expressive statement that requires no context to give it an expressive nature. Do you agree, or disagree?

[jberryhill]

45. I could be burning household refuse, including books and magazines

IMHO the bare act of "burning a book" does not convey a message absent more context.

As I pointed out above, Boy Scouts will burn flags for you. Disposal of flags by burning is the recommended "proper" method.

So if you tell me "someone burned a flag" I have to ask "why?" in order to have receive the message, if any.

[darkstar3]

47. But now you've changed the definition of what you're burning.

Go back and look at my post. I said that burning something people don't normally burn is an expressive act. You changed the book INTO something people normally burn by classifying it as garbage in order to find a way that burning a book is not expressive. But that just dodges my point. Do you agree, or disagree, that the act of burning something people do not normally burn is expressive in and of itself?

[jberryhill]

49. Because you couldn't ban "holy book burning"

You could generally ban "burning books", but you couldn't draw a distinction based on the type or contents of the book.

In fact, I believe it was a general open burning law (normally applied in the context of household rubbish) which caused a problem for Jones in the first place.

A law against "burning stuff" is fine. A law against "burning particular stuff based on message" is not fine unless you can make a distinction of the type we make between pornography (protected speech) and public lewdness (non protected speech).

You should take a look at some of the nude dancing cases. In one of them, the bar owner started running "art night" and gave out sketch pads and pencils to the weekly "art class" that came to draw the "models" performing onstage.

I'll bet you never asked yourself why porn actors don't get busted for prostitution. Are they being paid to have sex? Oh, of course not. They are being paid to act in a movie. Very different.

It strikes me as odd, again, that when it comes to sex, we do make very fine distinctions about when it is, or is not, speech. I can't see how an educational speech and demonstration of masturbation would be "lewd" to anyone but a prude.

Your statement that we make the distinction "BY LAW" is a circular argument.

[darkstar3]

50. None of that answered my question.

Do you agree, or disagree, that the act of burning something people do not normally burn is expressive in and of itself?

[jberryhill]

53. If someone is out burning, say, tampons...

...which are "not normally burned", then I wouldn't have the foggiest notion what they are trying to say.

Interestingly, the KKK burns crosses. You tell me, if you know - are they expressing reverence or contempt? If you knew nothing about the KKK, you wouldn't know, would you?

It turns out, in case you didn't know, they are expressing reverence. They refer to it as "lighting", as in "illuminating", a cross. I used to think they did it because they opposed Christianity. It was only when I learned more about the KKK - the context - that I understood they were making a reverent illumination of it, instead of a contemptuous burning of it.

Okay, now, try another - I show you an image of the heart of Jesus, and it appears to be inflamed. Pro-Jesus or Anti-Jesus?

[darkstar3]

54. Whether you "get it" or not is irrelevant to the expressive nature of the act.

You have just accepted the premise. You clearly show that the acts you speak of here HAVE meaning, but you don't really know what it may be. Any literature class will tell you that you need not understand the expression for it to exist.

[jberryhill]

56. Or it could just be a crazy person out burning tampons

Without a verbal explanation of some kind, NOBODY is going to know why someone is doing that.

But I'm more interested in your "unprotected speech categories" and how things get on or off that list. It's not like Moses came down with that list on stone tablets, so clearly there's a way that things get added or subtracted from it, yes?

[darkstar3]

44. BTW, lewdness falls under the non-protected category of obscenity,

and since it is specifically listed as a non-protected form of speech, I think it qualifies as expressive no matter whether you can copyright it or not.

[jberryhill]

46. "Lewd" and "obscene" are two different categories

Pornographic material may be "lewd". That is, my friend, the POINT.

Obscene materials are well beyond lewd.

I may in fact distribute videos of my masturbation speech, but I am not allowed to perform that speech in public.

I'm really surprised you would not agree that pornography is protected by the First Amendment, or perhaps I misunderstand you.

So, here's my question for you:

If my video of masturbation is protected by the First Amendment, why do you agree that my public performance of it should not receive the identical protection?

And, to be clear, I will first advertise and announce to the crowd that my speech will include a an educational demonstration of masturbation technique, so that anyone may want to remove minors, and to make it clear that I am not a pervert, but I simply want to educate and demonstrate on the subject of how to perform this healthy activity.

You will let me make and sell a movie, but you won't let me show people for free? Why not?

[darkstar3]

48. Now you're just trying to put words in my mouth.

You're also changing from "acts" to "materials". Which one are we talking about? An act classified as public lewdness is classified as such because it falls under the unprotected speech category of obscenity. A material referred to as lewd is a much broader category. As is a material referred to as obscene.

[jberryhill]

51. Fine, but my intent is simply to educate

Masturbation is a healthy activity, and I want to give an educational demonstration about it.

I promise it won't be lewd. I will even recite the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer while doing it if you want (well, maybe... That could be a challenge).

I am afraid that if I don't demonstrate, then my audience may remain uninformed about how to masturbate - particularly if they are deaf (if they are blind, well, we know how they got that way).

But... Notice where you have ended up. You are now telling me there is a difference between "materials" and "actions".

Yes, I agree with you. You are saying that I can sell a videotape of myself masturbating as "protected speech", but I can't do it in a public performance, and the only reason you are giving me is that one of those "is illegal".

That's called begging the question.

[darkstar3]

52. And I told you WHY one of those was illegal above.

Obscene speech is not protected. Now if you wish to get into a conversation about WHY obscene speech is not protected, stop circle-jerking and ask the question.

[jberryhill]

55. IMHO it's totally arbitrary

Actually, I missed your phrase "the unprotected speech category of obscenity".

Okay, you seem okay with an "unprotected speech category". That is, things which ARE speech, but which we have defined as unprotected for purely social reasons.

What factors determine how something gets on that list of "unprotected speech categories"?

My point is merely that it is easier to outlaw actions on a content neutral basis - ie "no burning of books" - which still allows the expression of any opinion about anything under the sun, than to attempt to define something like "blasphemy". Most religions are mutually blasphemous to each other in the first place.

But a general literacy-promotion law saying "you aren't allowed to burn books" is a less offensive argument for those who are seeking to ban something.

You told me WHY it was illegal by telling me it is illegal. That's just circular. You haven't told me why I can't give my masturbation speech other than saying "that's what the law says".

[darkstar3]

77. I disagree

You see there are five set categories of unprotected speech, and each one of them is unprotected for very good, non-arbitrary reasons.

Obscenity
According to the definitions I can find with my Google-Fu, this one's just about sex. For something to be obscene it must be sexual in nature, offensive AND prurient to the "average citizen", AND lacking in any discernible literary, artistic, political or scientific value. It's a definition that seems rather non-arbitrary to me, and it also seems to me that this test is targeted at keeping our children from being exposed to sex before the parents feel they are ready. Puritanical? Well, that's another debate.

Fighting words
For a long time in human history, we have charged people for the crimes of assault and battery under different names. The problem with those charges is that they didn't take into account the possibility that the attacker was viciously provoked. Before recognizing this problem legally by creating a class of non-protected speech, it was technically legal to goad someone into attacking you with a string of vile insults, and then kill them in self-defense. By turning words meant to incite someone to immediate violence against the speaker into a form of assault, we took away some of the power of bullies. I don't see that as arbitrary.

Fraudulent misrepresentation
This is strictly about contract law, and it's a damn good thing we have this class of unprotected speech. You see, if ALL speech were protected, then I could lie to you until I was blue in the face in order to convince you to sign a contract, and when you found out AFTER signing that I had lied, you'd have no legal recourse, and you'd still be bound by the contract. However, thanks to this non-arbitrarily arrived at class of unprotected speech, if you can prove that I lied to you in order to convince you to sign the contract, then you can take my ass to court.

Advocacy of imminent lawless behavior
Inciting to violence? Inciting to riot? This class of unprotected speech is why those incitements are illegal. Mobs are terrifying things, and we've known this for centuries. We know that the mob mentality can lead good people to commit awful crimes, and we know that mob leaders usually get things started with calls to action. Aside from the various applications that this class of unprotected speech could see in our society today, it was especially useful in quelling or punishing vigilante group leaders. The prevention of lynch mobs is hardly arbitrary.

Defamation
This may be the most important one of them all. It says you can't knowingly spread lies about someone else. It's difficult to act upon in a legal setting due to that bit about "knowingly", but defamation law theoretically means that you can't lie about me to everyone in town and get away with it. It's important because individual reputations are practically currency in small-town USA. Nobody wants to talk to the guy who was accused of giving the kids liquor. Nobody wants to do business with the plumber whose wife disappeared under mysterious circumstances. And if my neighbor goes around telling everyone that I secretly worship Satan at a backyard bonfire on Saturday nights when he knows it isn't true, then I can sue him for defamation of character in the hope of reclaiming some of what I lost.

And those are the only five ways in which speech, in written, spoken, or action form, can be curtailed by the government. Five categories which are clearly defined, and embody the idea that one person's constitutional rights cannot be allowed to trample upon another's. It's not about purely social reasons, as you said above, but about equal protection under the law. I suppose it could be explained by the old adage "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

So now we have an interesting situation. It is quite clear from the definitions of the five categories of unprotected speech that Jones' actions were protected. Therefore, those who wish to create a sixth category of unprotected speech must show, as the other five categories do, how curtailing actions like Jones' would directly protect the rights of others.

[jberryhill]

82. You don't get the point

Again, you seem to have this idea that there are only five things on some immutable list, and you give social rationales for them.

You don't seem to get that the first amendment does not have these exceptions in it. These are things which have been carved out. The list is neither fixed, immutable, or actually even complete.

Law doesn't come from anything other than social consensus, and that consensus can and does change. The world doesn't come to an end if obscenity is taken off the magic list. The world also does not come to an end if one says "lighting stuff on fire is not speech".

A nude interpretive dance is expressive and not obscene. You have no problem banning it in public merely because it falls into a slot in the "list of five categories of speech which can be banned". That is not really an answer, because one can construct a rationale behind any other proposed category on your list. The only factor that matters in whether it gets onto your list is social consensus.

[darkstar3]

101. I disagree with your assessment.

A nude interpretive dance wouldn't fall into the category of obscenity. It doesn't meet the Miller test. You don't seem to get that these 5 restrictions were carved out after years of legal fighting and maneuvering in order to ensure that ANY restriction placed on the first amendment was both reasonable and necessary in order to ensure that one person's first amendment rights don't trample another person's constitutional rights. Social consensus wasn't nearly enough to get this list, and it won't be enough to change it.

[jberryhill]

105. Try nude dancing on your street, and see what happens

I do certainly get that the current status of the law was reached on a lot of precedent. They do teach that stuff in law school you know.

The law is, however, a moving target. If you think that we've reached the end of the road on any legal issue, that is an illusion.

One could say, "we got here by a long legal process" in 1930, or in 1950, or in 1970, but in each instance what constitutes "here" would be a different answer. I'm perfectly well aware of what the law IS, and have defended clients professionally in first amendment cases. But if you think this stuff is rigidly fixed, you're kidding yourself. Law changes. Where "here" is, will be someplace else in 2030 too.

It's a fluid thing, and if you don't think that law is a product of social consensus, then I'd be curious to know why we don't just appoint federal judges by having them take a qualifying exam. What one gets out of Supreme Court decisions is indeed loosely coupled to longstanding political consensus as reflected in the election of them what do the appointing.

Now, the opener to the thread was "is it hate speech", which is not even a concept that exists under US law. My apparent misperception was that it was an invitation to discuss alternative interpretations, because typically when someone is going on about "hate speech" it is a sign that the person doesn't know much about US law at all.

You might want to look at what are called "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech. Each of those factors - including "manner" - can be regulated at various levels of scrutiny.

And you still haven't looked at the "nude dancing as expression" cases, have you.

By the way - Do you know what, specifically, the material in Miller was, and whether it was found to be obscene under the test?

[Bandit]

79. How about yelling fire in a crowed theatre?

Is that considered "expressive"?

[darkstar3]

80. Actually, in the colloquial way that phrase is used, it's considered inciting to riot.

It's also a bad example of speech limitations. The quote is from Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. regarding the idea that "free speech" wouldn't cover such an action, but his decision was overturned by the USSC in Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Falsely shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater would not technically fall under any category of unprotected speech that was shown above, since the closest definition from above requires "advocacy."

[jberryhill]

91. You are really hung up on those five categories

As if it was some sort of talisman.

What's bizarre is that you include "defamation" as an example of "government" curtailing speech, when it is purely a civil action.

You might just as well include copyright violation, if you are going to include defamation. Copyright violation certainly involves speech, but isn't on your list of the "only five".

[darkstar3]

103. Defamation can be either criminal or civil, depending on the status of the claimed defamed.

And I'm hung up on those five categories because they come from hundreds of years of jurisprudence on the matter of first amendment rights, and they guide the courts on decisions about whether someone claiming first amendment protection for their actions really has it.

[jberryhill]

107. "Hundreds of years"

During most of which, a variety of different approaches have come and gone.

While I'm fascinated by your idea of "criminal defamation", I'll let that one go.

You might appreciate the book "The End of Obscenity" which examines the fundamental futility of the Miller test.

Suffice it to say that if you and I were having this conversation in 1972, then you would be saying "but our current law is based on xxx years of decisions". Then, in 1973, along comes Miller.

Multi-factor tests are a feature of a lot of laws. You'd be hard pressed to find one which lasts more than a couple of decades, tops.

You should take the dissents in Miller out for a spin, especially the opener by Justice Douglas:

"Today we leave open the way for California to send a man to prison for distributing brochures that advertise books and a movie under freshly written standards defining obscenity which until today's decision were never the part of any law."

Now, how could that be? How could a Supreme Court justice - even as the Miller decision was handed down, not recognize that Miller embodied "hundreds of years" of careful progress?

Was Justice Douglas just really dumb by saying that? He didn't think Miller was the result of hundreds, or even tens, of years of anything. He recognized that it was fresh out of the box as of 1973, and they were going to put some guy into a locked cage for speech.

This stuff happens in law. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't have a footnote that says "unless the stuff is really, really smutty".

What happened was that pornographers kept pushing the envelope and then, boom, a decision comes along that says, "Okay, we get the point. This can really go too far" and that is precisely the type of reflection of social consensus that I mean.

[darkstar3]

115. My problem with your characterization, here and above, is that you treat things too fluidly.

You act as though "social consensus" can change law on a whim. Changing established law, especially constitutional law, requires a combination of social consensus and a LONG process of deliberation and evaluation.

You also seem completely oblivious to the simple point I made twice about the fact that the limitations we DO have on the first amendment have been placed there specifically to protect the first and other amendment rights of citizens which have speech directed at them. It is that very fact that allows such restrictions to fit within the framework of the first amendment. To whit:

Take the text of the first amendment, and cut away that which does not deal with speech, and you have:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

But the laws, as we have been discussing them relating to "unprotected speech", do not abridge the freedom of speech OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE. They prevent the speech of one individual from infringing on the free speech (and other rights) of others.

[msanthrope]

116. I LOVE that book!!! That, and "Girls Lean Back Everywhere." n/t

[melm00se]

59. I have always had problems with this Section of the UDHR

especially this part:

...requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society

these "requirements" are so incredibly vague that they can be twisted around to be used as justification to limit free speech.

compare that to:

Congress shall make no law respecting...

One leaves plenty of wiggle room whereas the other is definitive.

To be sure that Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, but it should be as close as humanly possible.

within the American framework, free speech covers a lot of territory. The limits that are placed are pretty legitimate (libel/slander, obscenity and clear and present danger speech to name the "big 3").

Compare that to other democracies and you will see that the American interpretation is far more liberal than, say, European countries.

- Holocaust deniers are tossed in jail in European countries (they should be ridiculed not incarcerated)
- In Germany publishing a swastika is a grave offense (never mind that the swastika pre-dates the 3rd Reich by several thousands of years) as is "disparaging the Federal President"
- in the UK, prior restraint is (relatively) commonplace whereas in the USA that is almost anathema. The BBC has a long long list of banned music.

[jberryhill]

64. However

We DO that in the US with repect to pornography and many other things than listed here.

Make a purely rhetorical statement about assassinating a federal official or taking a bomb on a plane, and find out where our limits are.

You also left out the qualifier of "consistent with" the aims of the UN.

Those other countries you mentioned do manage to function democratically.

One can readily conceive of a group engaging in speech designed and directed toward intimidation of other groups from participating in democratic processes. That is in fact what organized hate groups seek to do. Such a group was successful in Europe, and they have a fresher direct experience with that dynamic. I am not arguing for such restrictions here, but I do respect their position on that qualifier as legitimate.

Here in this thread, I have been told I cannot give a public educational speech and demonstration of masturbation, regardless of my motives because it is deemed outside of restrictions relating to "morality and public order" which, yes, would be applied to such a presentation in the United States.

So, we do it too, but we are so accepting of those situations where we do not protect speech that we reflexively say "well you can't masturbate in public in order to make a point because.... Well because you can't."

[melm00se]

71. pornography

(actually obscenity) has a clearly defined test (the Miller Test), violence against elected officials/bomb on a plane meets the clear and present danger requirement spelled out in Schenck.

My point is is that comparatively the American and European definitions of "free speech" are extremely different.

there are many more things that are considered "in bounds" in the USA than there are in the EU.

I have been told I cannot give a public educational speech and demonstration of masturbation, regardless of my motives because it is deemed outside of restrictions relating to "morality and public order" which, yes, would be applied to such a presentation in the United States.

actually....you could give such a demonstration/speech. Depending upon a few factors (and performing it on the stairs of the town hall would probably work against you) your defense against the obscenity charge would be that your display does not fail all 3 prongs (no pun intended) of the Miller test.

You might fail:

The "Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" test
and
the "Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law" test

but depending upon your credentials and purpose of the display/speech you would not fail:

The "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" test.

and a good lawyer would whip out (again no pun intended) this defense in a heartbeat and as soon as your case hit a competent judge (or the federal system) any conviction would be overturned.

[jberryhill]

84. Sigh.. One could also construct a multi factor test for other things

Again, you seem stuck on what the law IS, and not the process of how it gets that way.

With a compelling rationale, and a set of factors to be met, one can ban anything.

[WatsonT]

73. What if he'd burned a flag, acceptable or not?

[jberryhill]

85. Burning a flag, a Koran, his trousers, etc. are all perfectly legal in the US

I don't know what you mean by "acceptable". I don't have to find anything "acceptable".

There are legal systems which have reached a conclusion that the reason for protecting speech is to ensure the proper function of a democratic system. They have drawn as "out of bounds" speech which, in their experience, is designed to threaten, intimidate, and deter others from also participating in a democratic system.

The Declaration of Independence could have said, "Fuck you, King George" but instead presented a reasoned argument. Oddly, for the purposes of having political discussions on this forum, there is a set of "rules" based on the experience that while passionate debate is one thing, merely sociopathic disruptive behavior is quite another thing.

But, in general, public speech can be held hostage by phenomena such as the "town hall screamers" last year. Result: fewer open interactions between the public and their representatives in a forum setting. Who won? Democracy? Freedom of speech?

[WatsonT]

97. You claimed that:

Burning a Koran was "outside the range of what is purely expressive."

Unless I misread you.

I would argue that burning a flag, koran, bible, whatever, while vile and not to be encouraged, is most definitely an expression of some kind of political view.

I also don't think that the only reason free speech ought to exist is to promote democracy. I believe people should have the right to speak their mind regardless. That it is also beneficial to democracy is just a bonus.

[jberryhill]

99. Yes, you misread me

At one time in the history of human communication, it was possible to discuss different perspectives for the purpose of discussion, but that is no longer the case, and certainly not the case at DU.

What I have said is that IF Koran burning is somehow a "problem", then the relevant discussion is not about "hate speech laws", "blasphemy laws" or anything else that goes after actions which are "purely expressive".

Yes, you are correct, someone who contemptuously burns something is expressing an opinion. That is trivially true, but has nothing to do with what I said.

When the discussion is about "could the law be changed in some way" then simply reciting the reasons for the status quo is somewhat silly. It's like an exercise that is kind of fun with kids... asking them "if we all decided to call cats 'dogs', and to call dogs 'cats', would that work out okay?" Children have a really hard time with that idea, and will insist that even if everybody decided to swap the names of cats and dogs, which are purely arbitrary labels, somehow the cats would still "really be cats, even if we called them dogs".

I don't know if it is a lack of depth of thought or some kind of foxhole mentality, but the willingness to pick up an idea, try it out, test it from various angles, and so on, is really something that makes people feel a need to pigeonhole other people.

Now, back to the point. You and I are communicating on an internet message forum. Obviously, this medium of communication requires that we only communicate by text, as posted here. Can you explain to me how the lack of ability, in this medium, for me to confront you with a burning thing limits my ability to express myself to you, as for example in this post?

What is it that is conveyed by burning a thing that cannot be communicated by saying, "This thing fucking sucks and I hate it!" other than the speaker's apparent inability to articulate a point of view?

This kind of distinction between "expression" and "non-expression" is made all of the time in, for example, copyright law. You might make a brilliantly sculpted and decorated belt buckle. The "expressive" part is the ornamentation - protected under copyright. The "non-expressive" part is the belt buckle, which is merely a utilitarian functional object. In the context of "burning something to express an idea", I am hard pressed to imagine an idea which cannot be separately expressed apart from "burning something". The expressive meaning actually lies elsewhere than in the burning of the thing, which divorced from any other context, doesn't actually communicate anything.

I can toss a book in the fire because I am disposing of a book, or because I am opposed to the ideas in it. The "message" is framed by context other than the act of burning. And that is what I mean by "purely expressive". The other example is "mooning" someone. It's a great way to express contempt, and a fairly common one. It will, if done in public, get you arrested, even if your sole intent was to express contempt. My naked bum, exposed in the act of mooning you, is much less of a public safety hazard than a burning object, but my friend elsewhere in the thread is convinced that there is some sort of non-arbitrary rationale under which it makes it illegal for me to express myself that way instead of, for example, burning a copy of your diary (and potentially creating a fire hazard). Failing to recognize that it is simply arbitrary line-drawing is, IMHO, more dangerous to the notion of free speech, because it also fails to recognize that we really aren't consistent in our approach.

Again, the context here, I mistakenly thought, was whether there was some alternate set of approaches toward the protection of freedom to express opinions. Quite apparently democratic societies have arrived at different positions, supported by reasoned discussion of those positions, on the subject. As Americans, we are convinced that the only correct approach is that taken by the United States, and that's really not very surprising. We are that way about everything.

Elsewhere in this thread, we have someone repeatedly asserting that there are only five possible categories of speech that can be prohibited, without realizing that those are the main five which, under US law, we have arrived at. He doesn't seem to realize that his list is actually under-inclusive, even in the US, nor that the list was developed as a result of legal developments in this particular democracy. Others have arrived at different lists. These lists, also developed in democratic countries, are merely a reflection of the fact that Europeans and Canadians are apparently really really stupid, and not really as smart as Americans, or something. There is utterly nothing we can learn from the experience and legal systems of anyone else, so it is pointless to even attempt to understand the reasoning of anything other than the current status quo under US law. All that matters, in an internet discussion, is "I think X, and if anyone doesn't, they are wrong."

[WatsonT]

100. If I misread you then I apologize

and retract my statement.

[jberryhill]

104. Just cranky here, no prob /nt

[Goblinmonger]

93. Your last example is a Time, Place, Manner problem

You could do that protest if you could assure that minors would not be able to view it. Jones is not a Time, Place, Manner problem (with, perhaps, the exception of local fire codes).

[jberryhill]

108. I know, but you are skipping ahead

I like being schooled one step at a time. I had just gotten to time, place and manner.

If I wanted to destroy a Koran with a small nuclear device which I built in my basement, I wouldn't be able to do that either and, gosh, I just can't understand why we tolerate that kind of restriction on speech.

"Manner" leaves a fair amount of wiggle room.

[msongs]

11. there is no such thing as blasphemy, that is a construct to murder non believers of whatever cult nt

[Iggo]

69. +1

[Kurmudgeon]

12. Blasphemy is disrespect, is disrespect hateful?

I don't think it's that much of a stretch to realize everyone will defend their values, no matter how different they are from your own. The thing is, at least if you are a US citizen, you are a member of a multi-cultural nation with all the different beliefs and sects or lack of the same that you can possibly think of. Until we can learn to agree to disagree, disrespect is going to be a problem.
Believe how you wish, express yourself how you wish, just allow others to do the same and don't use that as an excuse for disrespect.
Also realize that sometimes there is just no debate, certain ideas and beliefs will always be in opposition. Better to ignore those if it gets in the way of the things you do agree on. Like Democrats over Republicans, for example! ;)

[Goblinmonger]

94. Blasphemy is not disrespect.

I commit blasphemy by not believing in god. I can respect your right to believe in god but would still be blasphemous when I utter that I don't believe in said god.

[jberryhill]

13. We so not have a legal definition of "hate speech" in the US

So, you can either define it however you would like.

Alternatively, you can ask whether it falls within any particular definition of hate speech.

Your question, as posed, does not have an answer.

[darkstar3]

16. I'll admit that's part of the problem,

but here on DU we have people calling for prosecution, or at the very least mass denouncement. We have Senator Reid stating that Congress will be looking into this, as if they have any business doing so. And we have a whole mess of people who believe that IF what Jones did is not legally actionable that it should be.

So I guess, if you'd like me to rephrase, I could say it this way: "Is blasphemy protected speech?"

[jberryhill]

19. A better question is "what symbolic actions qualify as speech" under the first amendment

Although it remains something of a legal non-starter, the better question, and safer relative to protection of speaking and writing, is "Is burning a book 'speech'"?

I am not advocating any answer to that question.

[darkstar3]

21. Then why waste your time here?

I'm quite sure you knew what I meant in the OP in light of current feeling toward Jones. If you have no opinion to advocate, why waste time?

[jberryhill]

24. I will manage my own time, thank you

My understanding was that you believed there was a fixed definition of "hate speech" and I believed a more fruitful inquiry for you would be "since when is burning something 'speech'"?

[darkstar3]

28. Which actually shows some of what your opinion on this topic is.

The question "since when is burning something 'speech'"? clearly shows that you don't agree with prior decisions (like Texas v. Johnson) finding that burning an American flag is free speech.

[jberryhill]

33. Lol

No, it shows that I can understand both sides of an argument.

Unlike many at DU, who are more interested in shadow boxing boogeyman than exploring a subject.

Jones was perfectly within his rights. Those who would wish to change that would have to find a better argument in the area of symbolic action as speech.

IMHO "hate speech" is barking up the wrong tree entirely if one would want to curtail this sort of activity.

[johnaries]

14. It depends - is the said "blasphemy" intended or likely to incite

violence?

I can denounce any relgion as much as I want. But if I say or do something that is intended or likely to incite violence, that is most definitely hate speech.

[darkstar3]

15. I'm afraid it cannot depend.

You see, if one form of blasphemy must be banned because it incites violence, what's to stop other religious groups from using the same rationale to ban things they believe are blasphemous?

"We do not negotiate with terror..."

[Warren DeMontague]

31. So "I'm Gay" or "please fill my birth control prescription" can be considered hate speech?

Because in many places, those statements could be very likely to incite religious based violence.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zoeisright]

20. No.

Blasphemy against what? An invisible sky god? And before you Christians jump all over this, let's face it - your guy or guys is invisible.

[Adsos Letter]

23. No. And anti-blasphemy laws could theoretically be used to quash

criticism of any particular religious belief. DU's R/T (forum/group?) could be put out of business in a heartbeat; as well as much other religious discussion on DU.

[darkstar3]

30. Exactly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Clearly it is not

[Warren DeMontague]

29. "Hate" speech is not an objective category. ALL speech is protected by the 1st amendment

whether some people consider it "hate speech" or not.

[darkstar3]

32. No it isn't

ALL speech is NOT protected by the 1st amendment, hence the legal classification of "protected speech". See here: http://www.ncac.org/art-law/glossary.cfm#55

I used the term hate speech because it seemed to jive best with the sentiment I see here regarding Jones, but if you want to get legally technical, the question could be rephrased as "Is blasphemy protected speech, or not?"

[Warren DeMontague]

34. The 5 categories of unprotected speech:

obscenity, fighting words, fraudulent misrepresentation, advocacy of imminent lawless behavior, and defamation.

Obscenity- totally meaningless, leaving aside Potter Stewart's crystal clear legal doctrine of "I know it when I see it". All we've got left for "obscenity" is the ever-goopier "community standards", and as anyone who has spent any time on the Yahoo Comment Boards knows, the community doesn't have any standards. Period. The folks who still hold on to some slim reed of hope that they're going to cleanse the world of all the pictures of people fucking like to think this is the last bulwark of decency, but, really, again, meaningless. And not relevant to the Blasphemy issue, although any thorough critical application of 'obscenity' to literature would have to include the Bible, what with all the incest, slavery, and baby head smashing and whatnot.

Fighting words- this is really the only one that I could even conceive of applying to this case.

Fraudulent misrepresentation- again, if this is going to be evenly applied to everything, the texts of all the major religions are going to be among the first to go.

Advocacy of imminent lawless behavior- pissing someone off enough so that they do something bad does not qualify IMHO.

Defamation- also not relevant.


Clearly, though, "hate speech" is not illegal, nor could it ever be with the 1st amendment still intact.

[darkstar3]

36. So, to summarize, you believe that blasphemy is protect speech, correct?

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Absolutely. It seems to me it's protected by several parts of the 1st amendment

not just one.

One person's blasphemy is another person's religious belief.

[darkstar3]

39. We are in total agreement.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. yes

imagine that. ;)

[darkstar3]

43. There's a first time for everything.

[hobbit709]

58. the crime of insulting an imaginary sky wizard.

[pipi_k]

61. My thought exactly, only much better worded!

Yeah. Blasphemy against "God"

Hurts his feelings. Crushes his ego.

He is powerless against the naughty words spoken about him by a crowd of puny little two legged critters.


:+

[Nevernose]

62. That's offensive. He's not imaginary, just invisible.

Now if I murder a dozen strangers, it's your fault for offending me, because of your hate speech.

Also, the proper title is Invisible Sky Wizard Who Monitors All of Your Thoughts and Actions. If you'd like to know more, my religious organization would be happy to send someone to your house at an incovenient time to show you a book, totally un-unique and one of hundreds of millions of identical copies, based on the poorly translated collected folktales of a group of isolated seminomadic desert dwellers who lived on the opposite side of the world 3,000 years ago. It's amazing that the teachings of the Great Invisible Sky Wizard are still relevant, but they are. When you realize that despite the thought monitoring and the constant judgments and the fact that He has already decided whether or not to burn you for all eternity, He still loves you, it will change your life. Also, if you give me money, I will burn the special book of a DIFFERENT invisible sky wizard, and you will become rich.

[hobbit709]

63. "Man rarely, if ever, has dreamed up a god superior to himself

Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child" R.A.H.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. Yes it is, in many ways.

Hate speech is not a meaningful category, but blasphemy is more "hateful" to more people than most other forms of what is considered "hate speech", so it arguably is "hate speech" in some ways.

The conclusion we should draw from this is that any attempt to legislate against "hate speech" must be fought tooth and nail.

[StarlightGold]

65. Uhh...no.

Next question!

[fascisthunter]

66. If you were a Fundie, I suppose so

fundie=nutcase

[hifiguy]

67. No, it is not. n/t

[Iggo]

70. Give me the legal definitions of 'blasphemy' and 'hate speech.' (n/t)

[WatsonT]

75. blasphemy: something the individual in question doesn't want to hear

hate speech: ditto.

[WatsonT]

72. Jesus tapdancing Christ, no.

If it ever is I'm creating the church of common sense and deeming all stupid statements to be blasphemy. (also talking loudly on your cellphone in a theater or library).

[WatsonT]

74. Better yet: make blasphemy officially illegal

but punishable only via direct action by the deity offended.

[GoneOffShore]

76. No - Simple answer. Though some would make it so.

And what is "blasphemy" in any case?

Telling the truth about fairy tales.

[Arugula Latte]

78. No. Blasphemy is awesome.

:evilgrin:

[Donnachaidh]

81. so who defines what is blasphemy?

:shrug:

[Capitalocracy]

83. No, but burning books is.

The issue here bypasses blasphemy completely. Blasphemy is a byproduct of a deliberate act of hate.

And no, I'm not calling for arrests here. But Jones knew what he was doing.

[ReggieVeggie]

88. Being an atheist, many would consider me to be a de facto blasphemer

I wear that label with pride

[Courtesy Flush]

89. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. nt

[msanthrope]

117. Beat me to it. n/t

[JoePhilly]

92. That's how the far right sees it. Either you believe as they do, or ...

you've attacked them personally.

[Dorian Gray]

95. No

I am religious, but I think that those who are not should have the right to speak as they wish. I would hate to be persecuted because I said out loud that I don't believe in a myriad of other gods and goddesses (or even that I don't think that they are real), so why shouldn't I uphold the same standards for those who don't believe as I do.

Though if someone is rude about it, I'll give as good as I get.

(Still working on turning the other cheek.)

[Taitertots]

96. Only if as an Atheist I get to determine what is blasphemy against Atheism

Saying there is a god, or in any way questioning the lack of god is going to be blasphemy against atheism.

[Le Taz Hot]

98. Nope. n/t

[slackmaster]

102. Fuck the Pope

No, it's not hate speech.

[leeroysphitz]

106. It is a little bit...

[Romulox]

109. Courts lack "institutional competence" to determine what is, or what is not, "blasphemy"

So in that sense, the question is non-sensical.

[Forkboy]

110. Steve Hughes on being offended pretty much sums it up for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg

[ET Awful]

112. No, but burning pretty much any book is moronic and self-serving and serves no purpose

other than to incite ire in others.

Burning books seems to me to be more a suppression of free speech than an exercise of free speech.

[Lucian]

118. Jesus fucking Christ. Goddamn.

Fuck no.

Why ask such a stupid question?

[darkstar3]

120. +1

I asked the question because the suggestion had already been made several times elsewhere. I would have posted a poll, but I recently lost my star and am not in a position to donate again. It does seem, though, that a good number of DUers understand that blasphemy is protected, no matter who it pisses off. That's nice to see.