Freedom of Speech (did I miss something?)

[kandrathe]

Freedom of speech stops when you use it to threaten and to support violence against certain groups. The US always had a problem understanding what freedom of speech exactly implies.

Basics.

If you aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater, then you sure as hell cannot and should not be allowed to promote violence and oppression against other persons based on skin color/race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. I have no idea why this is so difficult for so many people to understand, especially Americans. To me, it makes absolute sense. The freedom to oppress, harass, and discriminate is not freedom AT ALL and has nothing to do with the very concept. Hate speech is not free speech, and in fact, is a form of violence because it is weaponized.

Actual Basics.

Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States said "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The "falsely" is what’s doing the work, both in Justice Holmes’s hypothetical, and in how such a false shout would be treated by First Amendment law today. You can shout "Fire" in a movie theater if there is indeed a fire, but if... say more people were trampled to death in the panic than were saved by exiting the fire, you may be civilly liable for causing the panic.

But, still, it is odd you side with OWH on a decision he later walked back..."Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war."

The assertion you make, "you sure as hell cannot and should not be allowed to promote violence and oppression against other persons based on skin color/race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc." is in fact protected political speech (except the violence against a named person).

But, yes, as horrible as freedom is, you can advocate for the extermination of all ______. There are hateful ideas, and hateful opinions, but they don't become criminal until you commit a crime, or incite others to commit a crime. I *DO* think these violent groups could be prosecuted under RICO if there was premeditated planning to commit violence. That would be a conspiracy to commit a crime.

It was just reaffirmed last June, in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
Justice Samuel Alito writes in this unanimous decision: [The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Possibly there may be some provisions for §1983 protection under the KKK act for terrorizing protected classes; http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...x+Klan+Act

"Section 1 of the act covered enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment and was later codified, in part, at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Section 2 of the act, codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3), provided civil and criminal penalties intended to deal with conspiratorial violence of the kind practiced by the Klan. Both sections of the act were intended to give federal protection to Fourteenth Amendment rights that were regularly being violated by private individuals as opposed to the state.

It's never been an easy decision to determine who gets to exercise free speech in the US, like this ACLU pamphlet from 1934 discussing US Nazi's speech rights. But, somehow we've survived even allowing the most hateful donkeys to make asses of themselves.