Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

 

[Henry Ford]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

 

[timschochet]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

Who are these "so many Americans"??

 

[rockaction]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

 

[Henry Ford]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

Who are these "so many Americans"??

Well, Tim and his Jain friends for starters...

 

[timschochet]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

Everyone is less tolerant. There is no country on Earth like the United States and never has been. It is more for this reason than any other (our historical acceptance of immigrants) that I believe the USA is the greatest country in the history of the world.

 

[Henry Ford]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

 

[timschochet]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

Who are these "so many Americans"??

Well, Tim and his Jain friends for starters...

Not once. In my discussion with you I defended college campus restrictions that already existed. But I'm not calling for more restrictions anywhere.

 

[timschochet]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

Please link to the person in this thread who has called for this public exhibition to be restricted.

 

[rockaction]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

I think that's true. I can't really argue with your point.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

I meant the bolded.

In a country where this is already a lot of tension and bigotry regarding Islam, you don't see how the Hebdo cartoons could be seen as having a strain of Islamophobia to them?

If you're not fishing, then I'm guessing that by "Hebdo thing" you may be referring to the backlash and not the actual massacre or the cartoons.

 

[squistion]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

Not that fascinating, the law was on the books but there hadn't been a prosecution in over 80 years, so this was more symbolic that anything else. Akin to the adultery statutes which are still on the books in about 20 states but rarely, if ever, enforced. From the link:

"The last prosecution under the law was apparently in 1933, and the last conviction in 1912"

 

[rockaction]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

Not that fascinating, the law was on the books but there hadn't been a prosecution in over 80 years, so this was more symbolic that anything else. Akin to the adultery statutes which are still on the books in about 20 states but rarely, if ever, enforced. From the link:

"The last prosecution under the law was apparently in 1933, and the last conviction in 1912"

And yet funny how it met strong opposition from Christian Democrats both in 2009 and now.

Sometimes symbolic acts say something about cultural bellwethers.

eta* It's also unsurprising that the first dismissive chirp in here comes from a leftist apologist on the board.

 

[squistion]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

Not that fascinating, the law was on the books but there hadn't been a prosecution in over 80 years, so this was more symbolic that anything else. Akin to the adultery statutes which are still on the books in about 20 states but rarely, if ever, enforced. From the link:

"The last prosecution under the law was apparently in 1933, and the last conviction in 1912"

And yet funny how it met strong opposition from Christian Democrats both in 2009 and now.

Sometimes symbolic acts say something about cultural bellwethers.

eta* It's also unsurprising that the first dismissive chirp in here comes from a leftist apologist on the board.

Just because it has Democratic in the name, doesn't mean it is a liberal progressive party.

As you are fond of saying, Google is your friend, use it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party_(Norway)

The Christian Democratic Party (Bokmål: Kristelig Folkeparti, Nynorsk: Kristeleg Folkeparti, KrF), is a Christian democratic[10][11] political party in Norway founded in 1933. The Norwegian name literally translates to Christian People's Party. The name may also be translated as "The People's Christian Party".

The party follow their European counterparts in many ways, positioning themselves as a family-friendly party. While founded on the basis of advocating moral-cultural Christian issues, the party has broadened its political profile over time, although Christian values remains its core distinction. It is considered an overall centrist party, combining socially conservative views with more left-leaning economic positions.[6] The party is an observer member of the European People's Party (EPP).

 

[rockaction]

Just because it has Democratic in the name, doesn't mean it is a liberal progressive party.

As you are fond of saying, Google is your friend, use it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party_(Norway)

The Christian Democratic Party (Bokmål: Kristelig Folkeparti, Nynorsk: Kristeleg Folkeparti, KrF), is a Christian democratic[10][11] political party in Norway founded in 1933. The Norwegian name literally translates to Christian People's Party. The name may also be translated as "The People's Christian Party".

The party follow their European counterparts in many ways, positioning themselves as a family-friendly party. While founded on the basis of advocating moral-cultural Christian issues, the party has broadened its political profile over time, although Christian values remains its core distinction. It is considered an overall centrist party, combining socially conservative views with more left-leaning economic positions.[6] The party is an observer member of the European People's Party (EPP).

No, I know that. It's the Christian part of it.

eta* I think the Christian Democrats in Germany were conservative, too.

 

[squistion]

Just because it has Democratic in the name, doesn't mean it is a liberal progressive party.

As you are fond of saying, Google is your friend, use it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party_(Norway)

The Christian Democratic Party (Bokmål: Kristelig Folkeparti, Nynorsk: Kristeleg Folkeparti, KrF), is a Christian democratic[10][11] political party in Norway founded in 1933. The Norwegian name literally translates to Christian People's Party. The name may also be translated as "The People's Christian Party".

The party follow their European counterparts in many ways, positioning themselves as a family-friendly party. While founded on the basis of advocating moral-cultural Christian issues, the party has broadened its political profile over time, although Christian values remains its core distinction. It is considered an overall centrist party, combining socially conservative views with more left-leaning economic positions.[6] The party is an observer member of the European People's Party (EPP).

No, I know that. It's the Christian part of it.

eta* I think the Christian Democrats in Germany were conservative, too.

Yeah right, which is why you made this comment:

eta* It's also unsurprising that the first dismissive chirp in here comes from a leftist apologist on the board.

It was dismissive because the law had no teeth and no one had been convicted of blasphemy in over 100 years. Repealing it looks good, but changes nothing but removing a law that was on the books but not being enforced. And a "leftist apologist" is hardly going to defend a conservative Christian party.

 

[Henry Ford]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

Please link to the person in this thread who has called for this public exhibition to be restricted.

I don't believe I said this one. I said a public exhibition. Like on a college campus. Do you think that should be restricted?

 

[rockaction]

Yeah right, which is why you made this comment:

eta* It's also unsurprising that the first dismissive chirp in here comes from a leftist apologist on the board.

It was dismissive because the law had no teeth and no one had been convicted of blasphemy in over 100 years. Repealing it looks good, but changes nothing but removing a law that was on the books but not being enforced. And a "leftist apologist" is hardly going to defend a Conservative Christian Party.

Yeah, no.

I'll take a lie detector on that.

eta* Odd how when you corrected me on Bronski Beat, I admitted my error, but wouldn't in this case. Doesn't sound consistent. You're reading too much into my point. Just take it line by line and don't make inferences where they're not warranted.

 

[squistion]

Yeah right, which is why you made this comment:

eta* It's also unsurprising that the first dismissive chirp in here comes from a leftist apologist on the board.

It was dismissive because the law had no teeth and no one had been convicted of blasphemy in over 100 years. Repealing it looks good, but changes nothing but removing a law that was on the books but not being enforced. And a "leftist apologist" is hardly going to defend a conservative Christian party.

Yeah, no.

I'll take a lie detector on that.

eta* Odd how when you corrected me on Bronski Beat, I admitted my error, but wouldn't in this case. Doesn't sound consistent. You're reading too much into my point. Just take it line by line and don't make inferences where they're not warranted.

You talked about the Christian Democrats who opposed this and then followed up by saying I was somehow a "leftist apologist" for those opposing the repeal. It pretty easy to connect the dots. Don't toss out accusations that a progressive liberal would defend a Christian conservative party - you can deny it, but it is pretty obvious because the party had "Democratic" in the name you thought they were liberal/progressive.

 

[grateful zed]

link(s) to offending cartoons?

 

[rockaction]

You talked about the Christian Democrats who opposed this and then followed up by saying I was somehow a "leftist apologist" for those opposing the repeal. It pretty easy to connect the dots. Don't toss out accusations that a progressive liberal would defend a Christian conservative party - you can deny it, but it is pretty obvious because the party had "Democratic" in the name you thought they were liberal/progressive.

No, and the more you go on, the more you're simply calling me a liar. The first statement was a fact, followed by a space break. The second was an observation, followed by another space break. The third was a hastily added eta and a board observation.

I'll take this comfortably to my grave, and I'm ending the debate. Sorry, man. There is no logical progression nor inference to be made that you're making that is accurate. And now you're accusing me of bad faith, which I don't dig.

Peace,

RA

 

[msommer]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

Not that fascinating, the law was on the books but there hadn't been a prosecution in over 80 years, so this was more symbolic that anything else. Akin to the adultery statutes which are still on the books in about 20 states but rarely, if ever, enforced. From the link:

"The last prosecution under the law was apparently in 1933, and the last conviction in 1912"

And yet funny how it met strong opposition from Christian Democrats both in 2009 and now.

Sometimes symbolic acts say something about cultural bellwethers.

eta* It's also unsurprising that the first dismissive chirp in here comes from a leftist apologist on the board.

Who got exactly 5.5% and 5.6% of the votes in the 2009 and 2013 elections...

In other news Iceland just repealed a law that made it legal for Icelandic people to kill Basque people.

That one was on the books since 1615 and was rooted in one incident where a Basque crew shipwrecked on Iceland, killed some sheep to survive and was slaugtered by the local farmers. The law allowed the farmers to not be prosecuted and had not been used since.

Why should other countries getting rid of outdated laws that have not been used in many years be brought into this debate?

 

[rockaction]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

Not that fascinating, the law was on the books but there hadn't been a prosecution in over 80 years, so this was more symbolic that anything else. Akin to the adultery statutes which are still on the books in about 20 states but rarely, if ever, enforced. From the link:

"The last prosecution under the law was apparently in 1933, and the last conviction in 1912"

And yet funny how it met strong opposition from Christian Democrats both in 2009 and now.

Sometimes symbolic acts say something about cultural bellwethers.

eta* It's also unsurprising that the first dismissive chirp in here comes from a leftist apologist on the board.

Who got exactly 5.5% and 5.6% of the votes in the 2009 and 2013 elections...

In other news Iceland just repealed a law that made it legal for Icelandic people to kill Basque people.

That one was on the books since 1615 and was rooted in one incident where a Basque crew shipwrecked on Iceland, killed some sheep to survive and was slaugtered by the local farmers. The law allowed the farmers to not be prosecuted and had not been used since.

Why should other countries getting rid of outdated laws that have not been used in many years be brought into this debate?

Eugene Volokh, one of the top First Amendment lawyers in the US, saw fit to write a blog post about it, and I felt it was relevant to what we're talking about with respect to trending movements to restrict or allow more speech in various places.

 

[squistion]

You talked about the Christian Democrats who opposed this and then followed up by saying I was somehow a "leftist apologist" for those opposing the repeal. It pretty easy to connect the dots. Don't toss out accusations that a progressive liberal would defend a Christian conservative party - you can deny it, but it is pretty obvious because the party had "Democratic" in the name you thought they were liberal/progressive.

No, and the more you go on, the more you're simply calling me a liar. The first statement was a fact, followed by a space break. The second was an observation, followed by another space break. The third was a hastily added eta and a board observation.

I'll take this comfortably to my grave, and I'm ending the debate. Sorry, man. There is no logical progression nor inference to be made that you're making that is accurate. And now you're accusing me of bad faith, which I don't dig.

Peace,

RA

Fine, dig this. If you want to avoid misunderstandings about your stream of consciousness ramblings in the future, don't take a completely unrelated gratuitous shot at someone who is progressive/liberal while labeling them a "leftist" which is somewhat offensive as it is obviously a blend: left/communist, left/socialist or left/fascist (which are all either inaccurate or insulting).

 

[timschochet]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

Please link to the person in this thread who has called for this public exhibition to be restricted.

I don't believe I said this one. I said a public exhibition. Like on a college campus. Do you think that should be restricted?

Probably. I don't believe hate speech should be allowed in public colleges. Private ones are free to do what they want.

 

[Dr Oadi]

We would rather have 17 pages of they have the right but...no buts and continue to enjoy the comforts of America and ignore what is happening in Syria and Iraq ( after all America caused it? Popular meme anyway ).

Hey Tim. Is it true Hitler said the World ignored what happened in Armenia?

Go on snitch to the mods and have me banned for inappropriate language.

The world can't even say what happened in Armenia over 100 years ago was a genocide. What's happening in Syria and Iraq now is either Americas fault or a JV squad.

It's not happening here so who the #### cares.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

link(s) to offending cartoons?

You're in the right thread.

 

[timschochet]

We would rather have 17 pages of they have the right but...no buts and continue to enjoy the comforts of America and ignore what is happening in Syria and Iraq ( after all America caused it? Popular meme anyway ).

Hey Tim. Is it true Hitler said the World ignored what happened in Armenia?

Go on snitch to the mods and have me banned for inappropriate language.

The world can't even say what happened in Armenia over 100 years ago was a genocide. What's happening in Syria and Iraq now is either Americas fault or a JV squad.

It's not happening here so who the #### cares.

You seem to be upset with me for some reason that I don't quite understand based on your post. Actually I'm not even sure what the point of your post is.

To answer your question, I have no idea what Hitler thought about Armenia.

 

[Drunken Poster]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

Please link to the person in this thread who has called for this public exhibition to be restricted.

I don't believe I said this one. I said a public exhibition. Like on a college campus. Do you think that should be restricted?

Probably. I don't believe hate speech should be allowed in public colleges. Private ones are free to do what they want.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.”

 

[timschochet]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

Please link to the person in this thread who has called for this public exhibition to be restricted.

I don't believe I said this one. I said a public exhibition. Like on a college campus. Do you think that should be restricted?

Probably. I don't believe hate speech should be allowed in public colleges. Private ones are free to do what they want.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.”

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of public schools to restrict free speech under certain conditions, including what is regarded as "hate speech". So your use of this article has no relation to my point, which was about public universities. But thanks for trying!

 

[Drunken Poster]

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of public schools to restrict free speech under certain conditions, including what is regarded as "hate speech". So your use of this article has no relation to my point, which was about public universities. But thanks for trying!

Link to these SC decisions regarding "hate speech" please

eta "this article" is about the constitutionality of "hate speech" and mentions how universities fit in several times. You didn't read it did you?

 

[timschochet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.[1]

 

[Drunken Poster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.[1]

Drug use at a high school = hate speech at a university? This is pretty poor, even for you.

 

[timschochet]

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of public schools to restrict free speech under certain conditions, including what is regarded as "hate speech". So your use of this article has no relation to my point, which was about public universities. But thanks for trying!

Link to these SC decisions regarding "hate speech" please

eta "this article" is about the constitutionality of "hate speech" and mentions how universities fit in several times. You didn't read it did you?

Yes. I honestly don't know if I disagree with it or not. I'm not a lawyer and though I've discussed the 1st Amendment at length in other threads, I'm not an expert by any means and I honestly don't know how it applies to public universities.

I DO know that ever since the Chaplinsky decision (1942), which referred to "fighting words", the Supreme Court has upheld certain restrictions on free speech. The Morse decision which I linked was only the latest. So obviously certain restrictions are permissible. Whether or not they include hate speech is something that appears to be fiercely debated.

But Drunken Poster, while I don't really want to get into a legal argument with you, common sense tells me that it's problematic for racists or bigots to be allowed to publicly express their views on college campuses. The response will inevitably be fights and conflicts, which was the whole reason for the Chaplinsky decision. Of course, the question then becomes what is hate speech and what isn't. I regard this competition as a form of hate speech against Islam, but I acknowledge that others don't. It's certainly not as clear cut as a Nazi flag (for Henry Ford's sake, I'm talking about a Swastika in black in a white background circle surrounded by red- something nobody can confuse with a religious symbol.)

 

[timschochet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.[1]

Drug use at a high school = hate speech at a university? This is pretty poor, even for you.

lol, I like the "even for you" part.

It's simply an example of how the SC allows for the restriction of free speech in public schools. The basis for restrictions of hate speech is based on this decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

 

[timschochet]

This is from Chaplinsky, which was a unanimous decision:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Based on some reading I've done,

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/hate-speech-campus-speech-codes

modern courts seem to give University chancellors a broad ability to define what might "incite an immediate breach of the peace", and it is this principle which allows for the legal restriction of hate speech on college campuses. Elsewhere, such as in a private home or private meeting, people are much more free to express their bigotry. (As they are in the public square, provided that they obtain proper permits to do so.)

 

[Drunken Poster]

Come on, no one is talking about high school, as evidenced by the use of the words college and university . From your link, the Thomas concurrence sites in loco parentis as to why it was ok to restrict this particular speech about drug use. Excluding Doogie Howser, university students are adults and aren't covered by your link.

 

[Drunken Poster]

Volokh directly confronts the "fighting words" argument that you cite. From the article you didn't read:

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)

Is he wrong?

 

[timschochet]

Volokh directly confronts the "fighting words" argument that you cite. From the article you didn't read:

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)

Is he wrong?

First off why do you keep insulting me by claiming that I didn't read the article? I did. I don't understand why you need to put that in, or the "even for you" comment.

Second, I already wrote that I don't know if he's right or not. Obviously people disagree on this issue. But I'm not personally uncomfortable with hate speech being prohibited on college campuses. Whether or not that violates the 1st Amendment is for the courts to decide. But I notice that almost every university has restrictions against this and nobody's successfully challenged it, so I have to believe that, at least at this point, the courts are OK with it.

 

[boots11234]

And yet another thread Tim has taken over... Go back to your rat hole Tim.

 

[timschochet]

And yet another thread Tim has taken over... Go back to your rat hole Tim.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion!

 

[Drunken Poster]

Volokh directly confronts the "fighting words" argument that you cite. From the article you didn't read:

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)

Is he wrong?

First off why do you keep insulting me by claiming that I didn't read the article? I did. I don't understand why you need to put that in, or the "even for you" comment.

Second, I already wrote that I don't know if he's right or not. Obviously people disagree on this issue. But I'm not personally uncomfortable with hate speech being prohibited on college campuses. Whether or not that violates the 1st Amendment is for the courts to decide. But I notice that almost every university has restrictions against this and nobody's successfully challenged it, so I have to believe that, at least at this point, the courts are OK with it.

First off, my generous nature combined with your responses lead me to believe that you didn't read it, as opposed to other possibilities. But you're right, my tone was poor.

Second, you continue to ignore the entire point, which is that "hate speech" is not a legal term. Volokh contends that you need to narrowly define it to ban it. You certainly have not done so and I don't expect that you will.

 

[Drunken Poster]

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of public schools to restrict free speech under certain conditions, including what is regarded as "hate speech". So your use of this article has no relation to my point, which was about public universities. But thanks for trying!

BTW, bull#### like this is funny given your subsequent indignant act

 

[timschochet]

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of public schools to restrict free speech under certain conditions, including what is regarded as "hate speech". So your use of this article has no relation to my point, which was about public universities. But thanks for trying!

BTW, bull#### like this is funny given your subsequent indignant act

Yeah you're right. I was trying to be funny not rude, but that was out of line.

 

[squidrope]

And yet another thread Tim has taken over... Go back to your rat hole Tim.

:greatposting:

 

[Skyryder222]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

There were what, 3, 4 individuals involved in the Hebdo? There were 'retribution' attacks all over France against Muslims and their property following the incident.

Good

 

[General Tso]

Not good. The enemy is radical Islam, not Islam in general.

 

[Henry Ford]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

Please link to the person in this thread who has called for this public exhibition to be restricted.

I don't believe I said this one. I said a public exhibition. Like on a college campus. Do you think that should be restricted?

Probably. I don't believe hate speech should be allowed in public colleges. Private ones are free to do what they want.

Should I link to this post to support my statement?

 

[timschochet]

Norway repeals blasphemy law in response to Charlie Hebdo.

I hope for a trend like this in the rest of Europe and Canada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/08/norway-repeals-blasphemy-law-in-response-to-charlie-hebdo-murders/

Fascinating that other countries are repealing speech restrictions in response, while so many Americans are asking for more restrictions.

I think Europe has been hit with many more random acts of violence and sees their unassimilated immigrants (largely Muslim) as more of a threat to their way of life and laws than we do (we tend to assimilate our immigrants better than Europe, according to many observers.) I also think that their immigration population is larger and more powerful as a voting bloc. Europe also, at its heart, is historically a bit less tolerant of other cultures than we are.

All of these are good arguments for either side to use, though. More afraid? Let's restrict speech. That's the tack some are taking here - holding a public exhibition of cartoons should be restricted because innocent people might get hurt.

Please link to the person in this thread who has called for this public exhibition to be restricted.

I don't believe I said this one. I said a public exhibition. Like on a college campus. Do you think that should be restricted?

Probably. I don't believe hate speech should be allowed in public colleges. Private ones are free to do what they want.

Should I link to this post to support my statement?

No because as I pointed out earlier, these sort of restrictions have been going on for a long time, and they're not general restrictions, which I would oppose. Besides, the implication of your statement is that in reaction to these terrorists attacks people in this country are seeking more restrictions on free speech. I haven't done that; My views about college campuses and restricting hate speech are not related to these incidents.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 54, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.[1]

You're going to have a slightly easier time defending your position if you fit it into the U.S. v. Grace discussion than trying to mash it into Morse.