2007-04-23 07:41:03 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
An article I read recently disputes that. The premise of the freedom of expression clause was to protect dissent against the government, not hate-filled diatribes from one class to another.
The problem lies in who gets to determine what constitutes hate speech. One could argue that well known figures such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Hillary Clinton could be subject to the same penalties as David Duke and Reverend Phelps for their past slurs if that were the case.
To me it's all or nothing, up to a point where actual violence is incited (which would include Al Sharpton's "protected" speech in the riots in New York). Either you protect all speech, or you just protect anti-government speech. Picking and choosing doesn't work.
2007-04-23 07:52:20 · answer #1 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, but expressing hate in a way that does not constitute a call to commit specific criminal acts, is. Sad but true - defending freedom of expression means defending forms of expression that may be offensive to you. Lots of people hated Sanjaya, for instance, and I would not be in favor of abridging thier right to express that feeling, even if I cared.
2007-04-23 08:05:19 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends. If a black person goes on a racist tirade, then YES, it is freedom of expression. But if a white person says something considered racist, then it is not freedom of expression, and it's illegal. Also the same thing with anti-gay statements. It is NOT freedom of speech/expression to say anything considered "homophobic."
2007-04-23 07:52:08 · answer #3 · answered by SW1 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately yes. It's easy to agree that hate is ugly and people who preach hate should be ostracized from decent society, but the problem is we all hate something or someone so we'll never get rid of it. For example, I hate Eminem. I think he is a despicable human being who preaches disrespect of the law and disrespect of women -- heck, he preaches disrespect of everything except being a gangsta thug. Do I have the right to say what I just said? Sure I do. Did I say some ugly things? Sure I did. Just remember the Constitution says I have a RIGHT to hate Eminem and tell anyone who will listen that I hate him. Does that make me right? No. Does everyone else have to agree with me? No. Can people call me virtually any name in the book because of my opinion? Sure they can. That's how freedom of expression works.
2007-04-23 07:49:33 · answer #4 · answered by sarge927 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I suppose one could say hate is freedom of expression, but the big problem is when we hate, we hurt a lot of people in the process and worst of all we hurt ourselves!
2007-04-23 08:04:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is not illegal to hurt someones feelings so therefore yes it is freedom of expression, thought and speech.
2007-04-23 07:44:19 · answer #6 · answered by baby1 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Constitution allows one to think anything one chooses. The limits apply when one puts those beliefs into practice.
2007-04-23 09:42:20 · answer #7 · answered by Rja 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In a very weird way, I guess it is. Like you can say.. I HATE mean people.. nothing wrong with that.. but if you clarify it.. and say, I hate mean Black people or White people or Jews or Mexicans.. then it becomes sticky..
... and yet.. I guess it is our right to dislike any person.. as long as we do not just dump everyone in one pot and say.. i hate all Blacks or Whites... even that is apparently okay.. just as long as we do not do it to incite others to hate or harm said peoples.
Am I right>? or close to right?
2007-04-23 07:55:12 · answer #8 · answered by Debra H 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes. But what is hate? To some it is disagreeing with their strongly held beliefs.
2007-04-23 07:49:47 · answer #9 · answered by DJ 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I hate people who hate.
2007-04-23 08:03:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋