Hate speech is dangerous

[ProSense]

One doesn't have to jump to conclusions to condemm hate speech.

The rhetoric of hate is being fanned by the people like Beck, Limbaugh and Palin.

Here is Palin's contribution.

A real incident that happened in 2005: Justice Recalls Treats Laced With Poison

Months later, Ann Coulter: "We Need Somebody To Put Rat Poisoning In Justice Stevens' Creme Brulee"...

High profile types fanning hate is not new. It's being played out more and more in more dangerous ways.

Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress

Report: Toxic powder sent to Rep. Grijalva's Tucson, Ariz., office
The RW in this country is out of control. It needs to be addressed.

[kelly1mm]

1. Do you have any proposals to address hate speech that do not

trample on 1st Ammendment rights? Very hard to do both but maybe it is time to have that conversation.

[ProSense]

3. Yes,

death threats are criminal offenses and they have no place being condoned, hinted at or advocated by public officials and the media.

[kelly1mm]

4. Direct death threats are criminal offences. Most of what many deem

offensive fall into an indirect threat such as the gunsights on the map that Palin put out. Is that a death threat? Maybe. Is it direct? Nope. It could be that they are "targeting" those political races? Possible. ("targeting" certain political races as winnable is a common political term used by both sides). It really is not a easy balance to strike.

[ProSense]

5. Not interested in most

"Most of what many deem offensive fall into an indirect threat such as the gunsights on the map that Palin put out."

Why is she scrubbing her site? (edited to Palin specifically)

Post advocating violence are not allowed on this site and are deleted.

[kelly1mm]

6. The 1st ammendment does not apply to DU or polititians/public

figures private (ie non-govenmental) web sites. The court of public opinion is not the government and that is why the sites are being scrubed. The 1st ammendment applies to government actions only, such as making certain speech illegal.

My question was about what types of laws you would suggest. Direct death threats are already against the law. If you think indirect threats should be illegal, can you explain your position more and how the "gray area" types of speech should be decided keeping in mind the 1st Ammendment?

[ProSense]

7. "My question was about what types of laws you would suggest."

First, in the context of the OP, I stated specifically in my previous comment that death threats have no place being condoned, hinted at or advocated by public officials and the media.

This is the focus of the OP.

"Direct death threats are already against the law. "

Is this any of this acceptable?

[kelly1mm]

9. I checked your link. My view is this - those are not acceptable, however,

they are not illegal. They are not direct threats. The second one about the shooting event durring the campaign is arguably not an implied threat even.

We can condem in the harshest way speech we do not agree with. We can protest (counter-speech), boycott, lobby our friends and neighbors against the speech. The government, due to the 1st Ammendment, cannot make such speech illegal under current interpretations of the Constitution.

[ProSense]

11. You keep focusing on what's illegal

As I said: In the context of the OP, I stated specifically in my previous comment that death threats have no place being condoned, hinted at or advocated by public officials and the media.


"My view is this - those are not acceptable"

That is the point.

"We can condem in the harshest way speech we do not agree with. We can protest (counter-speech), boycott, lobby our friends and neighbors against the speech. The government, due to the 1st Ammendment, cannot make such speech illegal under current interpretations of the Constitution."

The OP does not suggest making any speech illegal.

[kelly1mm]

14. OK - Thanks - I misread the OP. nt

[ProSense]

8. Also, in terms of where to start:

I'd revise and re-instate the Fairness Doctrine.

[Kingofalldems]

10. You cannot be serious

[kelly1mm]

12. You may wish to review the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg

v. Ohio if you are not familiar with it already to get some information on the current state of the law.

[ProSense]

13. You are obviously interested in protecting free speech,

but since no one is attacking free speech, why are you pushing the notion that it's being attacked?

[kelly1mm]

15. You are right. I misread the OP. Thanks! nt

[ProSense]

2. "A federal judge from Arizona was among the 11 others shot in the incident..."

Via CNN: Arizona congresswoman among 12 shot at Tucson grocery

(CNN) -- U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded Saturday in a shooting at a Tucson, Arizona, grocery store in which at least 11 other people were injured, officials said.

<...>

[prolesunited]

16. Yes, it is. Just look at Rwanda

While hate speech can often be dismissed as bigoted ranting or merely painful words, it could also serve as an important warning sign for a much more severe consequence: genocide. Hate speech, especially when coupled with high civilian participation, can be a precursor to genocidal acts.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2010/11/11/hate-speech-leads-genocide