Hate groups, while not as visibly prominent as they used to be, still exist, and are a nuisance to most of society. These groups have even gone as far as murder (the KKK would be a prime example) to spread their message of hate.
These groups have been legally able to secure permits through legal means to march, claiming their rights are protected under the First Amendment's right to assemble. However, their message is one of hate, no matter what words they choose to use in public. Hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment right to Free Speech.
So here's the question: Should all hate groups be illegal, and their members able to be arrested whenever they appear at public gatherings, because their message is not protected and offensive? Or should groups like these still have a legal right to march, even though they spread hate?
For those who are interested, here is a list of known hate groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Allegedly_racist_groups
2006-12-12 18:05:50 · 9 answers · asked by amg503 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Helly yeah, but we would get bogged down in the definition of hate and in the argument that hate messages are not covered by free speech. Our amendment was never intended to protect messages of hate and intolerance. It was intended to allow people to freely speak out against or for our government policies and practices.
2006-12-12 18:10:27 · answer #1 · answered by Hank Hill 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First let me state that I do not condone or agree with any "hate group".
Secondly, even though hate speech is not protected under the first amendment, these organizations are marching in parades to increase their recruitment. Unless these groups infringe on a person's civil rights and liberties during these marches, I can't see how this would be the reason to ban them. The Shriners and Kawanas march in the parades... these are all simple groups founded around a simple idea...
I grew up in a college town that allowed the KKK to march in the parades... one year they no longer marched... this came after a large amount of complaints came in from the student body and their parents... do I think they are wrong for keeping the KKK from marching... no...
2006-12-12 18:18:09 · answer #2 · answered by teche16 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am sorry, but they are protected under the first amendment. Not sure why you think it isn't
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I posted it so you can read it for yourself.
2006-12-12 18:09:37 · answer #3 · answered by RiverFrog 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Do you see about where it says "...abridging the freedom of speech?" Can't get any clearer, or should we redefine speech?
speech
NOUN: 1a. The faculty or act of speaking. b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. 2. Something spoken; an utterance. 3. Vocal communication; conversation. 4a. A talk or public address: “The best impromptu speeches are the ones written well in advance” (Ruth Gordon). b. A printed copy of such an address. 5. One's habitual manner or style of speaking. 6. The language or dialect of a nation or region: American speech. 7. The sounding of a musical instrument. 8. The study of oral communication, speech sounds, and vocal physiology. 9. Archaic Rumor.
OR
speech
NOUN: 1. To be determined by whoever is in power at the time.
By the way, known is not synonymous with allegedly.
2006-12-12 18:09:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Even though hate speech is offensive remember this, when you allow the government to define what is illegal as being defined hate speech then the government will eventually inhibit all speech that They don't like. Or look at it another way, allow the person or persons to speak as they wish, then you will know who they are for if their speech is quelled then you wont know who they are. I prefer to know who they are.
2006-12-12 18:21:29 · answer #5 · answered by fisherman214 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Although I agree with you completely, going by your listed definitions, christianity would also have to be banned in order for this law to be consistent. It's considered a nuisance by many, they've gone so far as to murder (counting in the millions) to spread their message of hate .... (homosexuality, abortion, people not of their religion, etc) Yet they legally are allowed to continue, and tax free at that.
Yes, all groups that promote hatred, discrimination and intolerance to others should be banned. This includes christianity.
2006-12-12 18:09:29 · answer #6 · answered by Jaded 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
no
but they should not be given protection should a given hate group march in pubic in a hostile territory, what ever happens to them, be it beating or even being shot at is the price of their speech and that's fine, they have the right to speak, and we as citizens have the right to retaliate as we see fit, sans the government intervention of protection
2006-12-12 18:16:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they should be considered illegal, becasue they are the initiative of "hate: race, religion, social status, etc." According to philosophy and international law: UNDHR, ICCPR and other HR Instruments, all grouping related to hate are illegal.
2006-12-12 18:13:10 · answer #8 · answered by Lay Vicheka 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, we should arrest all members of hate groups. Arrest them, then burn them, then shoot them, then hang them. That'll teach 'em. The dang Haters.
2006-12-12 18:41:22 · answer #9 · answered by redhotsillypepper 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋