To what extent should "hate-speech" be regulated?

Question

On Feb 9, 1950 Senator Joseph McCarthy gave a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia. He held up a piece of paper & exclaimed, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party, & who, nevertheless, are still working & shaping the policy of the State Department."

That moment sparked a "witch-hunt" in which hundreds were imprisoned, & some twelve thousand lost their jobs. 50% of the American public were found to support McCarthy in a Jan 1954 Gallup poll. Legislation was introduced to ban "Communist-speech" Consequently, U.S. political debate & freedom of speech in the 1950s suffered severe limitations.

It was the Liberals who challanged McCarthyism, the resulting legislation, & the attack on freedom of speech. That's why I am shocked to see McCarthyism is now being owned by the Left as "hate-speech". I think history is a good lesson in how speech regulation can be manipulated & made into a dangerous weapon.

To crengle60: Please explain how hate has changed? Hate and control over words is the same now as it was 2000 years ago. I fail to see a difference.

To Sky: I'm not talking about who's speaking hate-speech, I'm talking about who is for governing it. You apparently. Thanks for the reinforcement of my point!

To: trevor22in- Am I a fascist? Are you stupid? I AM OBVIOUSLY OPPOSED TO SPEECH REGULATION YOU TWIT

trevor22in; Dude, I seriously don't think you can read. I am using McCarthyism an example of how bad it was when when he attempted to regulate speech. Then I further stated that that is happening again to day with hate-speech legislation which I DISAGREE WITH. Let me put it this way;

1960's - Right attempts to silence Left by regulating speech on. BAD

2000's - Left attempts to silence Right by regulating speech. BAD

Is that more simple??

Answer 1

hate speech should not be regulated. the point of freedom of speech was to protect speech no matter how unpopular. it was created because as our founding fathers saw it, unpopular speech is not always wrong, and it can change the world. also no one should be censored. we have forgotten the lessons of the past and are therefore doomed to repeat that past. i do not agree with what the KKK or Neonazis, or the black panthers or NAMBLA, or god only knows how many other organizations have to say. i think that all of the people i named are ignorant and stupid but i wholeheartedly believe in their right to say what they believe and to believe it. cuz well that is America.

Answer 2

There should be no regulation of speech. What you are talking about is putting limits on the first amendment. And since we live in America, odds are you won't see this happen.

The fascists are big into controlling how people talk and what they say. Are you a fascist?

response: Then why talk about regulating speech? What about regulating Fred Phelps? Should we do that? If we do it to one thing, it opens a pandoras box to many other scary scenarios. What if we scensored George Bush for hate-speeches involving muslims?

Answer 3

It is impossible to legislate thought and speech. The only thing that can change "hate speech" is education. By education, I mean the speaker and the listener.

People who believe everything they hear lack the education to parse the information and find out facts for themselves.

People who use "hate speech" are likewise lacking in education and are fearful of that which they do not understand.

Answer 4

There is no excuse for the persecution of left-wingers, even if I assail them sometimes for their obsessive political correctness, when they could be lobbying to end the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, planting trees or doing something for the homeless. I get tired of being talked down to like I am incapable of judging for myself and want them and the teacher's unions to stop running the campuses. However, I am not in favour of persecution. The effects of McCarthyism were unjustifiable. This is more about finding a balance than persecution and law.

Now, I understand the perspectives of organizations such as the N.A.A.C.P., the Anti-Defamation League, the Canadian Muslim Association and others. They do not want hate literature and anti-Islamic, racist and hateful commentary on the Net. It has to qualify as hate literature under certain standards of law. Fine, if you want to deny the Armenian Massacres or call blacks horrible names, or accuse Muslims of all being like Osama bin-Laden, don't be surprised if you're being sued and charged. Those comments formulate hate crimes under law.

Aside from that, I am tired of sexual harassment legislation to protect Ms. Goody Two-Shoes who can't set limits and say no, bans on opinions, obsessive political correctness, academic censorship in favour of the left, right-wing political maneuvering and all that other nonsense that goes on these days.

Answer 5

I don't think speech should be regulated at all - except under the "your right to swing your fist stops just short of my nose" approach. Calling fire in a crowded theater is wrong, but I really could care less what some idiotic bigot says about some particular race or culture.

Answer 6

It shouldn't be regulated at all. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Pornographers have first amendment rights, flag burners have first amendment rights and wacko activists have first amendment rights. We may not like what they have to say, but once we start chipping away at their rights, who will be next in line?

Answer 7

You know, the right shouldn't be talking about "regulating" such speech--when they themselves have been branding everyone who isn't with them a "traitor", a "terrorist sympathizer", "anti-American", "unpatriotic", and a "Muzzie lover"--these last six years. (Among other things.)

The left has its problems, but it wouldn't have gotten this far had Bush not said, "If you're not with us, you're against us"--soon after 9-11 happened.

And down the tubes this country went.

Haven't you noticed lately how Cheney is attacking the Democrats in Congress and telling America how they are "validating Al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq" ?

If that isn't hate speech, I don't know what is.

Answer 8

Barry Goldwater and the KKK were predominate then with Southern Hate speech politics. It didn't work for them then and it wont work now either. I wouldn't ponder over this too much.

Answer 9

I feel like liberals now try to stop free speech, Bans on words like illegal aliens?(town in Texas) they also won't hesitate to label a person a racist if a person disagrees with a policy that promotes one race over another.

Answer 10

I agree with your post 100%

I am neither Dem, Repub, or Libral.....I'm Independent.

According to Donald Rumsfield, the failure to support illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars defines one as a terrorist. Let me be clear about where I stand: I know who the real terrorists are, and can name each one of them... Bush among the rest.

Everywhere you go in America you see the slogan, “Support our troops.” You see it on bumper stickers, flags and banners, yellow ribbons . But what does it mean to support our troops? Is it to send them into harm’s way; to invade and occupy sovereign nations in illegal wars for empire? Is it to ask them to commit heinous crimes, to insult, and to humiliate people who have done us no harm? Is it to steal the natural wealth & resources that belongs to other nations and turn it over to American corporations?

If that is what it means, then I cannot support our troops. I cannot wish them well if their purpose is to conquer other people, and plunder the wealth of other countries that have done us no harm. That would require me to endorse crimes against humanity conducted under the guise of national security and patriotism. I cannot do that...I will not. It is simply wrong.

Neither should we confuse supporting our troops with supporting the President, or wrongful and immoral policies of corrupt government. The president and his ilk do not support our troops or he would not use them as pawns; he would take care of them when they come home broken and torn with psychic scars. He does not care about them...they are only a means to an end.

The best way to support our troops is to take a principled stand; to hold the moral high ground to bring them home alive and whole. A government must not be allowed to require any of its citizens to engage in immoral or criminal behavior on its behalf. When a government behaves like a crime syndicate it does not mean that the people should follow its example.

They must provide a better alternative, and refuse their allegiance to it.

If speaking truth to power makes one a terrorist sign me up! If exposing the lies and corruption makes me a terrorist... I will proudly wear the crown and bear the cost. It’s time for the American People to make their stand and let our government know we are tired of the filth and corruption.

Over 30 Towns in the State of Vermont have filed impeachment resolutions against Bush and it’s spreading like wild fire!

The George Bush impeachment movement has arrived, just in time for the March 17 rally at the Pentagon. Here’s the best part! You don’t have to travel all the way to D.C. to perform your Patriotic Duty to America. There will be hundreds of impeachment protest happening across the Nation. Los Angeles is having a massive protest Saturday, March 17th 2007 at Noon.

These are just a few of the locations....
To find a location nearest you..Google. ‘United for Peace : Events’

I support our troops 100% and it’s time to bring them home!!!

As Americans it is time to make our stand to protect the Constitution and Fundamentals of what this Great Country was founded on. We can Bring George Bush to justice just like Scooter Libby.

Thank you...together we can make a difference... happy protesting!