The Enemies of Free Speech

That is all I needed to hear, because we ARE going to find out how long it takes before people feel it is necessary. Laws can be proposed for an indefinite period, eventually when the current events reach a boiling point that applies to the law, enough people will decide it may just be necessary now. Once the benefits of that law are realized, there will be no need to look back

And I dread the day that happens. It will define the downfall of this country. My guess is that about 31% of people in the US share your desire to control other people's speech as you do and I certainly hope their representatives don't listen to them, but to the majority who know that thought and speech control is the antithesis of the framework of this nation.

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying it shouldn't.

Are these quotes from "Mein Kampf"? THey sound eerily familiar...

To explain briefly; After coming to power Hitler quickly established the "Fuehrerprinzip". It basically stated that the State (i.e. Hitler) had the full right and total authority to control all aspects of life in the Reich. This included edicts on morals and acceptable behavior and speech. Really good idea, no? He often said things to the effect of : "No looking back, inevitable progress, etc."

DYepes, didn't you ever notice that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is abolish the exact precedents set down in the Contitution - almost like a reverse play-book. First goes freedom of speech, then Habeus Corpus, then due process, and so on.

Don't you realize who's viewpoints you are arguing for?

Hey, the people will get what they want, thats all I can say. If you want to keep brigning up examples that do not apply to the EXACT thing I am trying to discuss, I am not going to bother arguing it. Hitler would not have even been able to cometo power if the topic at hand was written in law, because a big part of his campaign was supremecist rhetoric and demonizing another culture.

I really do not understand how applying the rules that would have prevented Hitler from coming to power equal Hitleresque philosphy. Seriously.

Also, the people will vote for what they want its that simple. There aint no law against repeat proposals. Therefore, in the future, as society degenerates even further, which is not hard to see when daily here on ATS people are asking "OMG WHAT HAS OUR SOCIETY COME TO IT IS THE END AHHH!!!" usually in response to some horrendous news article. Eventually it will get muc much worse and people will say "hey you know, the way # is #ed up right now, why the # are we actually trying to say it is ok for it to continue? Lets pass this damn law, see how it goes."

If we see good come of it, we will keep it. If it ends up being worse, we can repeal it. Thats is the beauty of Democracy, you can experiment with laws. If they work you keep them, if they don't hey thats all good because we have the freedom to repeal. If it has positive effects over the years, there will be no need to repeal it and we get to enjoy a more stable and less degenerated community. If people dont enjoy the way it goes, than we can repeal it. Simple as that.


In any case, those who resist changes when they come are the one who will make themselves hurt in the new order. Just try it out, and see how it goes. Stop being afarid, that is the key word here, afraid. The only thing I am hearing is:



I am one who welcomes change and does not fear it at all. Change can be good, but if it is bad than just do what is right and change it back, or to something different.

Only followers are afraid. Take charge and lead fearlessly.

There's a phrase that goes something like this: "Act in haste, repent at leisure."

Any amendment, no matter how carefully worded will have loopholes, that unscrupulous folks can use. They use it now, what makes you so sure that any amendment you can come up with will make the situation any better? Hateful speech is already regulated. How will amending the Constitution change anything? You can not legislate, or amend in this case, a problem away...look up King Canute and the tide as a parable...You simply can not force some one to change a belief pattern, they have to want to change.

It's illegall to threaten harm to any group of people already, how is amending the constitution going to make it any more illegal than it is already? If the threat, or promise, of stiff penalties doesn't do it, do you actually think amending the Constitution is going to work? Well you can always amend it again though right?

What is beign acted in haste? Nothing is being acted on in haste. The problem has existed for decades, the free and publicly access of hateful and supremacist corrupting propoganda as well as the glorifying of violence and crime, which has steadily contributed to the corruption of youth and the victimization of the innocent by the indoctrinated corrupted youth as they live their lives.

I neve rstated anywhere in my opening post, and invite you to search, where it says people will bee arrested and jailed for voicing their opinion to others in a private or even public setting. What I reccomended was simply limiting either partially or totally with stiff penalties the public distribution of said media where it is within easy access to the youth who are much mroe easily corrupted and indoctrinated. Almost all of the violent, hateful, and supremacist biggoted adults began that path during their youth.

If you want to host an I hate (whatever slur) party in your home with like minded individuals, the moral police are not going to come knocking at your door. What you should not have the right to do is camp out on the street corner with publications and rhetric filled propoganda and hand it out to people attempting to bring them to your cause. I think most of us can agree that just is not acceptable.

IMHO, any attempt to regulate speech by amending the constitution is acting in haste.

You want to stop hatred? The only way you can do that, my freind, is by changing people hearts, and their minds...nothing else will work. Not legislation, social workers posing as judges, and certainly not amending the constitution.

Changing hearts and minds will require hard work, though, something all too many people aren't willing to do. I've seen the work and thought you put into most of your posts and threads, you, quite obviously aren't afraid of a bit of work , that's the only thing that'll work.

Hate speech advocating harm to another is reprehensible, but so too is regulating any speech that may not agree with the "majority" opinion. You can not right a wrong with another wrong.

MANY religions do this VERY thing. Would you silence them?

Should religious folks be legally allowed to hand out pamphlets? Knock on our doors and try to bring us to their cause?

YOU HAVEN'T YET ADDRESSED THIS QUESTION.

Is it only the people you agree with who should have the right to pass out their propaganda?

Churches do not typically spread supremacist rhetoric or glorify and condone violence and racism, that is what we are arguing. Yes some do, and that is what we call fanatical, which most of us agree is unnacceptable, and that IMO would fall within the parameters of this law. But general Jehovas witnesses, or tv evangelists do not fall under this clause, because they are not glorifying and/or promoting violence, or spreading hateful or supremacist rhetoric.

I know you probably got beef with religion or whatever, but I just listed the facts here, I hope you understand them. It has nothing to do with handpicking what I do or do not condone, it is simply listing what is and is not faling udner what I have posted originally.

Maybe the televangilaists are just making money, but they are not doing it by spreading hateful rhetoric and supremacist thinking as far as I can see, they are typicaly doing it for a charity or fundraiser to help others not hurt them. Whether the they are telling the truth or not is up to the IRS to figure out, or a dutiful citizen, whichever comes first.

I hope that clears it up.

PSI would also like to state that the three men in my avatar were VERY religious men, and I believe we can agree they did a whole lot of good for a great many people, so I think it would be unfair to generalize religion as the cause of the worlds problems, or stupid fantasy beliefs for weak minded people, or all of it as hateful ideology that spreads supremacist thinking, which is the argument from many athiests.

I hope we can leave the religion part right there and move on.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by DYepes]

So, DYepes, under your new order, I would not be allowed to stand on the street corner and say, "Gay people are going to hell." Is that correct?



I have no beef with religion. You are assuming. I'm just pointing out that you want to use the law to silence those with whom you disagree, but to let those you choose be allowed to spread their message.

Many people think religions ARE hate organizations. Take the flaming gay guy down the street. He has had hate mail from the church. The people in that congregation hand out fliers saying how wrong his lifestyle is and he shouldn't be allowed to live as he pleases and that he's going to hell.

Will they be silenced under your new order? Will Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell (rest his soul) Dr. Paul Cameron and the Family Research Council be silenced as well for their hateful rhetoric?? Where is the line?

Religious Hate



No, we can't. I support 100% the right of religious people to believe and practice their religion, even though I strongly disagree with them. The only reason I bring the church into this is to show that you want them to maintain their rights, but to take them away from others, simply because you agree with them and disagree with the others.

There are people out there who believe in and support what these "hate-groups" are saying. They agree with them. Who's free speech do we choose? Theirs or yours?

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

It is not just me, it is a good large chunk of the American people, people in much of the world, and a huge part of families in particular.



I already answered that question in my previous post, yes those who are fanatical such as the individuals you listed and any organisation supporting their fanatacism would also fall in violation of this law. It has nothing to do with attacking religion either, it is simply stopping the spread of supremacsit and hateful ways. Nobody is going to go up to the "XYZ" church in a small rural community and start busting down doors and arresting the congregation for sitting back and enjoying a good faith prayer and thanking Jesus for helping them out and giving them the power to go out and help others in need.

If the church begins to print out books or pump out dvd's and cd's about hating gays and condeming then and threatening them, that would indeed fall under the law, since the topic is media that is publicly distributed, or anything on national television viewable by a large part of the public population (hence the individuals listed above.

Now that i asnwered this question a second time, hopefully in a more detailed manner, I hope you can drop this connection that I am planning on creating a gestapo force to break down churches and ban congregations, and burn all the bibles because Ihave a feeling that is where you will be going with it next.

Would Islam be outlawed here in the US?

I'm just trying to find your line. I'm just trying to determine where we cross the line of being one thing and becoming a hate group. Because many see Islam as a fanatical religion. And many followers of Islam preach Death and Hatred.



Well, don't trust that feeling. You are again, assuming my motives even though I have stated them clearly. THis is not one question that can be answered with one post. We're having a discussion and I"m clarifying your position. I'm asking more questions. I'm not asking the same one over and over again. I'm just trying to find out where we will be drawing the line between religious groups and rap singers and the KKK.

Ok BH, I hope that the third time is the charm. Some people consider Islam hateful, and yet the core of its religion is not based on such. Some people consider Christianity hateful, and yet the core of its religion is against it completely. These two religions are probably more closely related than any other two on Earth.

The majority of the followers of these religions on Earth are good people who help others and simply live by in their daily lives. There are those who are fanatics, just as there are fanatics who will murder animals to supposedly "save" animals. Or extremists who attack the environment for the cause of protecting it.

The fact is there is extremism in any group whos core purpose is for a good cause, yet most everyone always agrees extreism is a bad thing. And in the case of Islamic extremism, if it involves the distribution of hateful and/or supremacist rhetoric, and/or the glorification, support, and approval of violence than it will also fall under the parameters of the laws proposed.

However, what does that have anything to do with regular Islamic congregations or moderates? The same I replied in the previous post applies here as well.

It appears to me your assuming the law is to be used on what people feel is hateful, versus what actually is factually hateful.

We are not going to arrest anyone on the fact they wear a swastika on their T-shirt, because that symbol is ancient and depending on how it is positioned and angled, it can mean any other number of things. If that Swastika wearing person is wearing it on a shirt that says "Destroy the Jews, hang the blacks, deport the mexicans, keep America a white country" or something along those lines, it is obviously based on hateful rhetoric that is on public display not for educational and documentary purposes, but to incite fear and psycological attack.

I hope all this has not confused you, in any case, I believe I have covered the bases with your religion obstacle. Please apply my reply to any toehr religion including, but not limited too: budhism, wicca, scientology, taoism, :judaism. hindusim, bahai, etc etc. That is the end of the religous discussion.

I am glad we are working this out, because whether you realize it or not, you are helping me build the draft and many sub-articles for this law proposal

This is why we are discussing, so we can address the concerns, and find a just solution.

I'm trying to discover that, yeah. Like I said, I'm trying to discover exactly where the line is. I'm trying to prove that your line of what is actually and factually hatred is different than the next guys line.

And I'm also saying that the government has no business telling us whether or not we can hate and express that hatred. MUCH LESS USE the Constitution, whose purpose is to LIMIT the powers of the government - to actually give the government power over what we think and how we express it.



What if it just says, "White Pride"?

What if, instead of a Swastika, it's a black fist and it says, "Black Pride"?



What about Satanism?



Thrilled to help!

Well if the message is pride in ones race, as would be the meaning in pride, and not preaching the supremacy and dominance of your race over all others, which is not what pride means, there shall be no qualms with that.

The government is we the people, and we the people are not telling you how to live your life, we the people wish merely to set a higher standard for the morals and guidelines our society desire to function, not disfunction in a comfortable manner.

I dont know much about Satanism and I do not care to research for that matter, but as I said, I believe I have provided more than enough for you to draw your own conclusions on how this applies if you are well-versed in the Satanic faith.

OK. Here's a place where the line is fuzzy. How do we know what the message is? How do we determine the meaning? Because many people see "White Pride" and KNOW it's a hate organization. Under your new order, a person wouldn't be permitted to wear a t-shirt bearing a swastika and the words "White Pride" because it is INTERPRETED to be hate-based, whether it is or not.

But a person WOULD be able to wear a t-shirt saying "Black Pride". Because "that's just being proud of one's race and there's nothing wrong with that." I've heard it many times.



Oh, yes you are! How can you say that?




My morals are NONE of the government's business! "You the people" get out of my life and my morals. Those are for ME to decide. You can't legislate morality!



Nice avoidance... But you had better research it if you're going to move forth in this crusade of yours to tell people how to act. Because like Islam, many people think of Satanism not even as a religion and if they accept it as a religion, they see it as hatred... So, if you're going to open this can of worms, you should know what you're dealing with.

And don't forget. The legislators you hand this over to may very well realize that Christianity is also a religion of hate, and the strict limits and restraints you plan to impose with this crusade may end up biting you in the butt. They may realize that ALL religions are born of hatred.

By restricting where people can say words like "White Pride" or "God Hates Fags", you might end up also restricting words like "Jesus Saves" and "God Bless You", which could actually be seen as a "message of Hate" by atheists. You can't control where this might go.

And you can't expect the government to protect your children's ears from hearing about hatred. That's why it's so important that parents start doing their jobs again and take responsibility for teaching their children instead of counting on the government to do it for them!

I think I have alreayd provided the answers you need for yourself.

White pride with a Swastika simply means whtie pride with a swastika. White Pride and well-being.

I am not taking your morals, you can keep them. If you want to fill yourself with biter hate, supremacism, and violence, by all means do it. Do not hwoever attempt to instill those morals into the general public with widely distributed material that will corrupt misguided, innocent, and/or confused individuals. In todays world it is just easier to be bad because it is practically rewarded and protected.

In the new order, it will be easier to be good, because bad will not be glamourized, rewarded, and/or protected to the extent it is now.

You can believe if you want that all the little old ladies, young families, and other people who go to their congregations every wekk are doing so because they hate you, and they want to dominate the world, but that is simpyl not the case. If you refuse to believe it, then you either go to a church of each kind that you accuse of being ONLY hate, and see the truth for yourself, reporting any extremism you may fidn to the local authorities, or you may just sit back and remain bitter to yourself.

That's what your new order will be doing. Instilling YOUR morals into other people. But that's ok, I suppose because your morals are the good ones.

Dyepes, I'm a 50-year-old woman with a loving family and extremely high morals. I don't hate a soul in this world and I have no interest in instilling my morals into other people. That's your bag.

I do not condone violence and I believe in true equality for all, not just those with whom I agree.

You're just not going to convince me that changing the Constitution or further limiting free speech is a good thing to do. Never.

And after our discussion over that past few pages, it's clear to me who the enemy of free speech really is.

As I said before, as I fight for the right of free speech for these people you wish to silence, I fight for it for myself. And you, too! Not because I agree with them or you, but because they and you are equal to me and have the same rights to speak your mind, even if what you say is insane.

Have fun with your crusade!

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Well BH, they are not my morals, they are our morals, the ones that hep keep our society functioning in order. We are not instilling them we are preserving them. They are the commonly accepted ethical morals that have been setup over the years, centuries, millenia that guide our society and keep order. When you went to school, you were taught what was wrong and what was right, and your parents did the same (I hope).

Hate is wrong, violence is wrong, supremacist rhetoric is wrong. If you believe that it is wrong for anyone to try and corrupt your child, why should you believe it is acceptable for anyone to have the right to corrupt somebody else's child? You can blame the parents but you cannot blame the child. What do you do when you blame the parents, just say "oh well" and move on? Lets wait for the next corruption so we can blame the parents again and move on, but god forbid we take away the rights of people to corrupt the children in the first place?

Free Speech was designed for constructive and progressive thinking, not degressive and destructive thinking. The law was written in a time when racial supremacy and slavery was a commonly held practice in the country, including parts of the government.

The time have changed. So too do the laws. You said it yourself, the constitution is written to allow for change, and alow for change it has done, and will continue to do. It does not become any less of a thing, it just becomes better.

Like hooking your car up. Just because you changed the original motor, modifed the accelerator, or re-built the transmission, does not make ti a different car. It is the same car, and certainly better.

Do not let your fear control you, conquer fear and embrace change.

What happens when you have an infestation of roaches?

Do they go away when you turn out the lights?

Or do they just get worse?

What will happen to hate speech and those who spout it if there was a law saying they could not do it in public, or at all?

Does anyone with any common sense think that will stop them?

Or just make it worse?

Semper