Americans, should the First Amendment protect "hate" groups?

Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

They may be hateful dispicable Americans, but they are still Americans. And in this country, that gives you rights.

That's how I feel. I despise those hate groups but they should be allowed to say what they want; as long as they never infringe on the rights of others.
The KKK can say all they want about hating black people. They are entitled to their own opinion. But as soon as they go out and jump a black person and beat the crap out of them or kill them, they cross the line.

People have gotten way too whiny and hypersensitive nowadays. Grow some nads and quit your bitchin' already.
 
Well, Should notorious groups such as the American Nazi party, the Klu Klux Klan, godhatesfags, etc. be protected by the first amendment even though they are the scum of ignorance?

Yes. Hate-groups free speech should be protected. It provides a few benefits:

1) It allows for easy identification of whom they are.
2) It polarizes people for or against them.
3) The moment such a group tries to expand their influence beyond speech they get punished by the law with media attention.
4) All of the above will continually isolate such groups and polarize far more people against them. The isoliation will lead to extremism mentality and punishment will come faster and be harsher.
 
Why do you think this stuff is illegal in so many countries? In Germany and Russia, it is absolutly illegal to wear the swastica, say "Heil Hitler," or march in Nazi rallies.
 
That's how I feel. I despise those hate groups but they should be allowed to say what they want; as long as they never infringe on the rights of others.

I agree. And by the way, aren't people who hate hate groups, hate groups themselves? :D

People have gotten way too whiny and hypersensitive nowadays.

Agreed again. People would complain if you hung them with a new rope, for god's sake!

Baron Max
 
Why do you think this stuff is illegal in so many countries? In Germany and Russia, it is absolutly illegal to wear the swastica, say "Heil Hitler," or march in Nazi rallies.

Hmm, what will they control next? And what's to stop them?

Baron Max
 
I suppose it is best to let them say what they want, so at least they will be humiliated by the police, press, and the scowls of the public. Thanks a lot! You guys gave me a whole new thought on this! :D
 
It is almost gets threatening on how fucked up these people are. This group right here http://www.americaisdoomed.com/ is a fanatical religous group that uses god in their reasoning for hating almost anyone who is different. (what this group is all about has nothing to do with the name).
 
I suppose it is best to let them say what they want, so at least they will be humiliated by the police, press, and the scowls of the public. Thanks a lot! You guys gave me a whole new thought on this! :D

another way to look at it is not in terms of their rights to speech, but us preventing the government from having the power to 1) label a group a hate group and then 2) silence them. In a way the idea is to protect us from the government.
 
I personally believe that freedom of speech (FoS) should have its limits. FoS is currently used as an excuse to do the most obscene and vulgar acts. For example...

Recently the Westborough Baptist Church, yes, the ones that picket at the funerals of veterans, anyways, they started picketing at college campuses holding large billboards of pictures of dead babies... gruesom pictures of blood and gore. I understand that they want to get thier message across, but I also think that goes too far.
 
I personally believe that freedom of speech (FoS) should have its limits.

I do, too. But now comes the difficult part ....how do you limit it without it being a personal like or dislike issue?

And another thing, if YOU are permitted to limit some speeches, will you allow ME that same right? Will you grant that right to everyone? Who gets to decide?

Baron Max
 
Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
You do know Voltaire never actually said that right? It's from a book called "The friends of Voltaire" by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
The actual quote is "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write".;)
I'd say I agree; but then all the people who believe in equal free speech will die fighting for it, while the conservatives who only believe in their own speech will be the only ones left. Which would be most unfortunate.
 
Yes. But the First Amendment does not permit attempted overthrow of the government or violence toward others.
 
I personally believe that freedom of speech (FoS) should have its limits. FoS is currently used as an excuse to do the most obscene and vulgar acts. For example...

Recently the Westborough Baptist Church, yes, the ones that picket at the funerals of veterans, anyways, they started picketing at college campuses holding large billboards of pictures of dead babies... gruesom pictures of blood and gore. I understand that they want to get thier message across, but I also think that goes too far.

It only goes too far in that they violated the rights of funeral goers to enjoy a peaceful ceremony.
 
It only goes too far in that they violated the rights of funeral goers to enjoy a peaceful ceremony.

It goes much further than just that. They've attempted to insinuate riots, they've yelled and cursed at children on the streets, they've trespassed more times than I can count, they've violated privacy rights and they promote hatred.

These guys are no better than Al Queda.

Criminal record
In 1993, Charles F. Hockenbarger, Karl Hockenbarger, Timothy Phelps, Jonathan Phelps, Phelps Sr. and Margie Phelps were brought up on a variety of criminal charges stemming from information gathered following a raid of Westboro. Several charges were later dropped; the trials that followed saw every member of Westboro Baptist Church over the age of fifteen testifying in the defense of their family and fellow congregants; over 100 defense witnesses were called in all. Timothy Phelps, Charles F. Hockenbarger and Karl Hockenbarger were all found not guilty. Jon Phelps was found guilty of witness intimidation and misdemeanor battery, and has defended the actions that led to that arrest and guilty verdict as recently as October 11, 2006 on Midweek Politics, while Margie Phelps was found guilty of filing a false report and Phelps Sr. was found guilty of disorderly conduct as defined by aggravated intimidation of a witness; all three lost their appeals. All six filed lawsuits against the city and took their cases to appeals court, where their lawsuits were dismissed.


Fred Phelps' grandson Benjamin Phelps, convicted of assault and disorderly conduct in 1995. He was the person who informed his grandfather about the existence of the Internet and made the first "GodHatesFags" page. The cited Bible verse, Romans 9:13, has nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather is simply a biblical example of God hating a certain person (in this case, Esau).In 1995, Phelps Sr.'s eldest grandson, Benjamin Phelps, was convicted of assault and disorderly conduct after spitting into the face of a passerby during a picket and then laughing. The security cameras of a nearby business caught the incident on tape.

Also in 2004, Margie Phelps and her son Jacob were arrested for trespassing, disorderly conduct and failure to obey after disregarding a police officer's order that they were not allowed to enter a company's private property with chairs and stand on them with an upside down flag and a picket sign.

In June 2007, Shirley Phelps-Roper was arrested in Nebraska, after demonstrating at the funeral of a soldier, and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The arrest resulted from her allowing her eight-year-old son to step on the American flag during the demonstration, an act which is illegal under Nebraska law. The defense contends that the child's actions were protected speech, and that the state law is unconstitutional. The prosecution, however, claims that the demonstration was not intended as political speech, but as an incitement to violence, and that Phelps-Roper's conduct may also constitute child abuse.
 
Last edited:
I didn't know all that. However, their right to hold those views and say them in public is protected. When you get into spitting on people, then it violates the rights of others.
 
I didn't know all that. However, their right to hold those views and say them in public is protected. When you get into spitting on people, then it violates the rights of others.

I still believe that there should be a defined line between hate speech and free speech.
 
I still believe that there should be a defined line between hate speech and free speech.

No, the first ammendment is a bitch. Ann Coulter can express hatred for Muslims, Rush can express hatred for liberals, everyone can express their hatred for Bush. Hate is part of free expression.
 
No, the first ammendment is a bitch. Ann Coulter can express hatred for Muslims, Rush can express hatred for liberals, everyone can express their hatred for Bush. Hate is part of free expression.

Let me rephrase that... there should be a defined line between hate speech and free speech when it comes to religion.
 
Why? And if you feel so, why don't you write your Congressman to propose a Constitutional Amendment to do so?
 
Back
Top