Free speech vs. Hate speech

[asterroc]

In a conversation on keithlard's blog, I said the following and I am curious what y'all think.

But where do you draw the line? Should one be drawn at all?

* Should people in Germany be allowed to deny that the Holocaust ever took place, that up to 11 million people, primarily Jews but also all other "imperfect" peoples, were killed in furnaces and experimented upon?

* If a radical Islamist preacher urges his congregation to bomb an embassy, but himself goes home and sips some decaf tea, should the Islamist preacher take no blame?

* Is hanging a noose on the doorknob of a black professor's office a form of protected expression, or a hate crime that should be treated the same as a death threat?

I don't know. I can't decide. I would rather people punched me in the face than called me names, I really wish I could stop these hate-mongers; if we stopped the inciters and teachers, then we wouldn't have them riling up followers and educating new generations of bigotry. But I don't want to condone censorship either.

(I was torn between using this "peace on Earth" icon, and the "The Power is Yours!" icon.)

Comments

[gemini6ice.livejournal.com]

In addition to the right of free speech, we have the right of free reception--we have the right NOT to hear something we do not want to hear. If a book is offensive to us, we have the right not to read it. So with any example of free speech, comes the question, "Is this exercise in free speech violating someone else's rights? A peaceful demonstration can be ignored; an unpeaceful one cannot. Thus the notion of "disturbing the peace."

If attendees of a funeral are unable to get to the funeral without being bombarded by hateful messages they do not want to hear or see, then their rights are being violated. If attendees of a funeral cannot sit and mourn without being forced to overhear shouts of "god hates the world," their rights are being violated.

Each of your examples is "wrong" for a different reason.

• Holo-deniers: they may be offensive to some, but if their message is avoidable,

[gemini6ice.livejournal.com]

• Holo-deniers: they may be offensive to some, but if their message is avoidable, they are not violating anyone's rights. We can choose not to read their pamphlets, not to go to their websites, and not buy their books.
  
  
• Preacher: One can be in "conspiracy to commit murder" if e convinces another person to kill a third individual, even if e doesn't touch a weapon emself. I think the same logic applies here. The preacher is attempting to cause terrorism. A legal case could argue whether the preacher was speaking metaphorically or instructionally, however.
  
  
• Noose: A noose is clearly known as a death threat symbol. A legal case on this situation would have to prove that the person who hung the noose was not aware of its meaning. It's the same as stepping into his office and saying, "I am going to kill you. Really." Is there enough evidence to prove that the threat was based on the victim's race? If not, then I'm not so sure it could be considered a "hate crime." If the noose had a little Mr T action figure taped to it or somehting, then yes.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

For the third, the noose, are you arguing that regardless of the potential racial aspects, the noose is still a death threat and therefore not protected speech?

[gemini6ice.livejournal.com]

a noose directed AT someone, yes. You could hang it on someone's door, tape it to someone's windshield, or even mail someone a noose. All would be forms of a death threat, imho. It's a form of non-verbal communication.

A noose in GENERAL, no. Like, I could walk around town wearing a noose. That's not a death threat against anybody. I could tape a noose to the side of a subway entrance. That's not directed to anyone.