At what point should this racist hokery pokery be legislated against?

[Soph0571]

Looking at the horror of the racism that is clear and present at the heart of political power in the USA right now one cannot help but ask – at what point should this racist hokery pokery, this stoking of hate, this stalking of young women of colour, the deliberate encouragement of the worst parts of some white America to hate – be legislated against?

Here in the UK we have hate speech laws that try to ensure that any expressions of hatred towards someone based on their sexuality, race, colour, ethnic origin or religion, to name but a few, are against the law. If the police determine that a communication is abusive, threatening or insulting and the person’s intention with the communication is to alarm, harass or distress someone then the person doing the insulting is in a whole heap of trouble. They can be criminally prosecuted under several different statutes, although the most pertinent is:

In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

For the most egregious of offences people can go to jail for up to 7 years. In my humble opinion Trumps recent actions fall into both the above categories.

These laws were implemented to protect the minority from the majority. On the whole they work well. In the States, instead you have the First Amendment, giving any hate filled bastard (Trump) the freedom to say whatever the hell he wants irrespective of the outcome of his words?

How far should ‘free speech’ be allowed to go? It may allow an individual the right to be a verbose self righteous pontificating racist arse, but should people not also have the right to be protected from the potential outcomes of said racist pontificating?

“Racism is man’s gravest threat to man – the maximum of hatred for a minimum of reason.” –Abraham Joshua Heschel

[in2herbs]

1. Is "free speech" free speech if the intent it to make a $$$ profit from the comment? Has the USSC

ever ruled on free speech rights based on the interstate commerce clause of those who spout hate and racism at rallies in different states? If not, is this an avenue to pierce Citizen's United when we get a majority on the court?

[SCantiGOP]

2. First Amendment and Free Speech

Read what Justices Black and Douglas say on the subject: the criteria for free speech is not how we tolerate mainstream opinions, but how society tolerates the most fringe and hateful speech.
At one time advocating for inter-racial marriage was considered so offensive by some Southerners that they tried to legislate against it, but the First Amendment made that impossible.
Other than speech to defraud or to directly induce others to violence, you will find a strong contingent of Bill of Rights defenders here that will not be willing to fight this problem by trying to silence our opponents, no matter how wrong and offensive they may be.

[ProudLib72]

8. But his speech does induce others to violence

Cesar Sayoc was the most obvious instance of that, but there have been many others. I mean, he literally said he would pay the legal fees of anyone who acted violently against protestors at his rallies. This was all years ago. Since then he has ramped up the rhetoric.

[SCantiGOP]

11. You're right, but

I’m still not willing to chip away at this essential liberty.
If someone tried to kill the President, and said it was because of what they had read here at DU, how would we feel about government censorship of our “violence-inducing” speech?

[ProudLib72]

12. Ah, but there is a matter of influence of the speaker

If HRC or Obama tweeted that someone ought to get rid of tRump, I would be against that. If someone here mentioned it, big deal. He or she is venting. The leader of the free world versus an anonymous poster on DU.

Look, I will agree that trying to stop him would open up a can of worms and threaten our freedom of speech, but man oh man, he is pushing it.

[SCantiGOP]

15. I don't think we really have an argument

Appreciate your comments, and your civility, which is something we can certainly agree is lacking on the other side.

[MarvinGardens]

3. "Congress shall make no law..." is kind of tough to get around.

And that applies to the state legislatures as well through the 14th Amendment. And to be clear, I don't support changing it at all.

So over here, we deal with racist assholes with social ostracism. And the very worst ones, who want to march down the city streets carrying fascist symbols, are going to face some street justice, sometimes. I know that's disorderly and all. But the First Amendment also makes it nearly impossible to for Trump to shut down his critics. So on balance, I'm good with it.

[Lochloosa]

4. I'll keep my right to free speech thank you very much.

[Dr. Strange]

5. Watching the UK deal with "hate speech" is precisely why I'm opposed to this kind of legislation.

The way they handled the Chelsea Russell case is a monument to stupidity. They accused a 19-year-old woman of a hate crime because she posted rap lyrics. I won't weigh in on whether the lyrics are "grossly offensive...to the general community", but if they are, why hasn't any other website been asked to remove the lyrics? Or why hasn't the Youtube video of the song been censored? (The lyrics can be found here.)

Censorship is a power that I don't want the government to have--doubly so when Trump is in charge.

[abqtommy]

6. And why hasn't Twitter

closed Rump's account long ago? He's clearly violating their terms of service and decency...

[Thyla]

7. Tough crowd.

[Soph0571]

10. Was always going to be..

..but good debate to solve problems means exploring ideas that might be a wee bit beyond. Heh, I knew that the vast majority would shoot it down, however it has the potential to create an interesting debate!

[MarvinGardens]

17. Are you proposing to repeal or modify the First Amendment? (nt)

[Soph0571]

18. Not at all...

I do think however that there is balance in all things... and if speech is being used to incite racial hatred and has an impact in creating harm... is that free speech or is it something else?

[MarvinGardens]

20. If you're talking about Trump, he's got special status.

Per Mueller, he can't be prosecuted criminally until he leaves office, so he would be undeterred by any such threat of prosecution (and he acts as if he's going to be in office forever). Congress members speaking on the floor also have absolute freedom of speech. It's an Article 1 protection, separate from the 1st Amendment. As for others, they can and have been prosecuted for making threats. It happens to RW nutters all the time.

[Thyla]

19. Well, I agree

And I do think it is something that really needs to be discussed in the USA although I really can't see it happening. Personally I think it is potentially the core of so much of the growing hostility we are seeing today, couple with online interactions which I think just magnifies things.
It may be easier to accept when you already come from a background with such laws but really I have yet to see a convincing argument against it.

[kelly1mm]

9. In the USA? Never. Nt

[Joe941]

13. Congress should outlaw hate speech...

Which would include social media, hate radio, and political harassment speech. I think its time.

[Caliman73]

14. I think racist, sexist, homophobic, and all other speech aimed at oppressing vulnerable groups...

to be vile and disgusting. It does not have any place in a functioning society.

The problem with legislating against "hate speech" is that the dominant normative group will ALWAYS find a way to use legislation against movements aimed at changing the power structure.

You hear about counterintelligence operations against White Nationalist extremist and terrorist groups from time to time, but what you hear about way more is how the government goes after leftists groups. Why? Because while right wing groups are extremist and use bad tactics, they still serve the power paradigm. They serve to maintain the status quo, or push it along to its natural conclusion, which is a solely White, wealthy power structure.

Left wing groups seek to upturn the power structure and flatten out society as well as change or more likely do away with capitalism which is threat to everyone.

In that same vane, laws aimed at protecting vulnerable groups will almost certainly be used to go after groups that challenge the power structure.

[X_Digger]

16. No. Not just no, but HELL no.

I'll keep my first amendment, thanks.