I understand that we all have the right to express our viewpoints, but when said viewpoints infringe on the rights of other groups of people (all non-whites, and white homosexuals for example) to live a peaceful life, without fear of persecution, then the right to freedom of speech is superseded by the rights of those groups that are being targeted.
Is this not the case? I'm just wondering how on earth the KKK is getting "protest" or "gathering" permits to spout their filth. Seriously, this is the same group that is known to have instigated and conducted lynchings, among other things.
When is enough enough?
2006-09-03 11:27:42 · 12 answers · asked by powhound 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Only if you incite people to imminent unlawful action or immediate violence. Just promoting hatred is still protected speech. Sadly.
2006-09-03 11:29:38 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There have been prosecutions where a leader actually tried to incite the lynchings etc. But usually, they are just a bunch of cowards spewing hate, which is protected. They have lawyers who tell them where the line is and suggest it not be crossed.
Basically your speech can be limited for VERY few reasons, mainly inciting panic (yelling fire in a crowded theatre).
The people who they are directing it at have the ability and the common sense to ignore them, so they are not harmed.
There have also been cases where the KKK has been sued for slander, but very few of those succeeded. The best we can do is protect their right to be stupid and not pay any attention and shout out the truth even louder.
2006-09-03 11:36:24 · answer #2 · answered by grim reaper 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
"Under clear and present danger is the 1st amendment non-arguable" I forgot who said this, but it was a klansman, i know that. basically, hatred can be said anyway shape or form. A white guy can say "I hate n1gg@rs" in a street full of african americans just as a black guy can say "I hate honkeys" in a room full of white people. As long as no weapon is present or no riot is initiated, they can do as they want. The quote above basically means that even a Klansman holding a flag of an african being hung from a tree is still protected by law, as long as he does not create a riot by physical means. Which means fighting or shooting, stabbing, etc...
2006-09-03 11:46:24 · answer #3 · answered by Priest of Anubis 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech. As long as the KKK is not seen hurting people they have the right to say what they want. Words are not supposed to hurt people even though they do. Also, if you take away the rights of the KKK than other groups will have their rights taken away as well. You could say that anti-abortion have know right to gather because they make pro-abortion advocates mad and vice-versa for example.
2006-09-03 11:35:28 · answer #4 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I also thought if you promote the violent overthrow of the coutry or incite people to do harm to others, that was a big mark against you as well
2006-09-03 11:51:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of New Zealand because of the fact of their very undesirable results of attempt cricket. those days England has defeated New Zealand very badly additionally their overall performance unlike good now. So, i think of New Zealand is the main below rated attempt cricket team contained in the international or i think of South Africa is the main useful attempt cricket team contained in the international.
2016-09-30 07:42:38 · answer #6 · answered by vishvanath 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cool Avatar! It mat be upsetting to know that hate groups can voice their negativity,but in a way it is helpful.Because it lets us know sometimes who they are,where the highest concentrations of them exist,etc..This way we dont push them to the back of our minds and forget they exist.we can keep an eye on them in case they try to do things other than talk.
2006-09-03 11:40:25 · answer #7 · answered by dnice 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are allowed to spew their hatred as long as it's not violent or harmful. They are an illegal organization essentially, but as long as they don't bother anybody then they can go waste their time as long as they want.
2006-09-03 11:30:15 · answer #8 · answered by mack C 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no we still have the right to speak about hate
2006-09-04 00:17:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"I was under the impression that ........."
"I understand that ............"
Where did you get these impressions and understandings? Besides your own wishful thinking?
2006-09-03 11:42:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋