|
Post by robeiae on Apr 25, 2017 8:09:35 GMT -5
So, I'm assuming most have seen Howard Dean's tweet (re: Ann Coulter speaking--or not--at Berkeley). Here it is, for those who may have missed it: He's been catching a lot of flak for this, as many (most?) seem to think he's out in left field, that "hate speech" is, in fact, protected by the First, that it is essentially free speech. Of course, many have have also pointed out that "hate speech" still requires an explicit definition, that those who use the term do not all necessarily understand it in the same way. Regardless, Dean refused to relent and, in fact, cited case law in reference to something Coulter once said: Here's a law prof's (Glenn Reynolds at USA Today) take on it all, which it amounts to "Dean is wrong everywhere": www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/24/free-speech-first-amendment-hate-howard-dean-glenn-reynolds-column/100815564/Here's a HotAir piece that gives fuller context to the above Coulter quote: hotair.com/archives/2017/04/24/howard-dean-no-really-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-hate-speech/Here's Politifact on Dean's statement: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/21/howard-dean/howard-deans-wrong-tweet-constitution-doesnt-prote/I'm having a hard time finding someone who is defending Dean on any of this. Regardless, maybe someone thinks he's right? Beyond that, I guess it it's valid to ask: Should Dean be right? Should there be a limit on free speech when such speech becomes "hate speech"? And of course, when does that actually happen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 8:41:33 GMT -5
Speaking as a a lawyer, and as someone who finds Ann Coulter completely loathsome, I don't think Dean is right.
Coulter is hateful and I hate her, but I still would not define the stuff I've heard her say as "hate speech." If anyone here disagrees, please cite some (supported, in-context) examples and I'll be glad to reassess.
I also, as I've said many, many times, think under the First Amendment speech should be fought with speech, short of the well-known exception for speech that is an immediate incitement to violence. Otherwise, First Amendment, I'll fight to the death to defend it, etc., despite loathing every word.
(Why, why, why did conservatives move away from sounding like George Will and Evan McMullin, preferring instead the abrasive in-your-face ugliness of Coulter et al?)
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 25, 2017 8:56:48 GMT -5
He's echoing a lot of the bullshit that far-left college kids are spouting right now. Perhaps he's pandering to this smaller group of younger voters. He already talked earlier this year about trying to throw his name in the ring at the last minute to be the new (and once again) head of the DNC. Perhaps this is another desperate, "Hey, look kids! I'm woke too!" grasp at the straws of relevancy.
*Shrug*
As most of us know, speech that incites violence isn't generally protected as "free speech" (and rightly so) and what's interesting to me - in a disturbing, "the world is going to shit" kind of way - is that I've watched interviews of college kids who not only define hate speech as pretty much anything that offends them, but they further define it as either violent by itself, or promoting violence.
And that's the (bullshit) justification they use for trying to censor so-called "hate speech." Think of how utterly stupid that is: they equate "speech" with "violence." And they do it with a straight face, totally oblivious to how absurd that is.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 25, 2017 9:02:14 GMT -5
I assume anything labelled as "hate speech" would also qualify as "bullying."
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 25, 2017 10:52:23 GMT -5
I dunno who said this, but it's brilliant.
"Speech is not violence. Speech is what we use to avoid violence."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 25, 2017 11:00:21 GMT -5
It's clever. It sounds good. But I wouldn't call it brilliant, since it's not true. Kinda in the same way that "war can never achieve a lasting piece" (or similar things) sounds good but just isn't true.
"And Carthage must be destroyed" isn't hate speech or even an incitement to violence, but it sure as hell didn't help avoid violence or a near-genocide.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 25, 2017 12:11:13 GMT -5
I'm having a hard time finding someone who is defending Dean on any of this. Regardless, maybe someone thinks he's right? Sure Dean is right. Ann Coulter is a racist and she's a hateful racist. But of course, nobody here cares about that. They're more worried about inflamed assholes like Coulter, Charles Murray, and Milo Yiannopoulos being denied their God-given right to spew their vulgar hatred for others not like them while picking up a fat fee to do so. Need some examples of Hate speech from the scummy likes of the blonde pipe-cleaner? Comin' right up.
That's only a small sampling of the Coultergeist's deviant and depraved career of denigrating anyone who offends her in the nastiest and more vitriolic way possible. Gays, Mexicans, non-White immigrants, Muslims, feminists and Blacks are simply targets of opportunity for this malnourished miscreant and through her speeches and shitty books, this has made her a very wealthy woman. Being a xenophobic racist is well within Ms. Coulter's rights, but so too is the right of others to call her out for being one and hiding behind the 1st Amendment is a handy shield for bigots, particularly ones regarded as "respectable" and in the mainstream. Alas, if only David Duke had gone to Cornell, grown his locks long and rocked mini-skirts. If you're going to be coarse and vulgar, you have to show off your skinny legs. And no, fucking D'nesh D'Souza and Jimmy "Dy-no-mite" Walker does not make Ann Coulter any less of a bigot. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart's famous observation, "You know it when you hear it."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 12:25:41 GMT -5
It's hateful. Utterly hateful. (And yes, worse than I thought -- I don't listen to Coulter more than I can help. The little I do hear of her makes me cringe.)
But as hateful as I find it, making it illegal...no. I also wouldn't make illegal speech that says women are inferior intellectually and belong barefoot in the kitchen giving blowjobs to men after making them sandwiches -- though that is hateful and ugly, too. I think the line the Supreme Court has drawn for the First Amendment is correct: is it directly inciting violence? Yes? Go after the speaker legally. No? Go after him/her with speech.
As for these people picking up speech fees -- well, who is paying them? If those fees are coming out of the pockets of people who don't want to hear them, they have grounds to object. Otherwise, I suggest they stay away from that speech, protest peacefully (e.g., without breaking noses or spraying pepper spray in faces), and/or hire their own speaker who has a more worthwhile speech.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 25, 2017 12:29:13 GMT -5
Sure Dean is right. Ann Coulter is a racist and she's a hateful racist. But of course, nobody here cares about that. They're more worried about inflamed assholes like Coulter, Charles Murray, and Milo Yiannopoulos being denied their God-given right to spew their vulgar hatred for others not like them while picking up a fat fee to do so. Of course. You are the only one here who is anti-racist. One can simultaneously believe that someone is a horrible person and also be worried about horrible people being denied the right to say horrible things because someone has decided that horrible things (defined by themselves) may no longer be said.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 25, 2017 15:37:57 GMT -5
It's hateful. Utterly hateful. (And yes, worse than I thought -- I don't listen to Coulter more than I can help. The little I do hear of her makes me cringe.) Oh, that's nothing. Here's some more cringe-worthy Coultergeist fun facts.If you're known by the company you keep, Coulter keeps company with some characters who would likely hang Jimmy Walker by the neck for defiling her lily-white flesh. I'm fine with that. I don't advocate violence against Milo, Murray or the Coultergeist. But I understand why it happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 15:47:49 GMT -5
Yeah. Coulter is like a cesspool -- she smells so bad I don't want to get any closer to her to see just how awful she really is. When I see her talking I change channels or click away -- thirty seconds of her raises my blood pressure. Apparently, she's even worse than I thought.
Side issue -- why are so many of the really aggravating alt-right women blonde and over-made-up? I take some pride in my appearance and don't have any problem with other women doing so, too, but it really does seem like there's this particular look courted by alt-right spokeswomen (and I must add it is not a look I admire).
I'll agree that I don't blame people for wanting to punch Coulter or Milo. I just don't think they should actually do it. I'm all in favor of mocking and deriding them, however.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 25, 2017 16:50:41 GMT -5
Dean's citing of Chaplinsky is pretty hilarious, IMO.
If anything, everyone today should be able to agree that that was a case where the court was being ridiculous. And it's not much of a precedent anymore, given that the court has protected things more recently that go waaaaay beyond calling a police officer a fascist.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Apr 26, 2017 23:07:27 GMT -5
*shrug*
If Nazis can march down Main street, Ann Coulter ought to be able to give speeches. And I ought to be free to despise what they do and say, and boycott businesses who support them.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 27, 2017 7:31:27 GMT -5
For the record, I hate Illinois Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 27, 2017 11:43:44 GMT -5
For the record, I hate Illinois Nazis. How much for the little girl? How much for the women? Your women. I want to buy your women. The little girl, your daughters... sell them to me. Sell me your children!
|
|