Well, Should notorious groups such as the American Nazi party, the Klu Klux Klan, godhatesfags, etc. be protected by the first amendment even though they are the scum of ignorance?

As long as I get to be the arbiter of who's ignorant and unprotected, I say no. If someone else gets the job though....

Most people, I assume, are not Nazis, racists, or extreme homophobics.

It depends on what we mean by protection. Beyond that, they deserve the same protection anyone else gets.

If you suppress any type of speech, activity or idea, it goes into hiding. It's better to have it out in the open where you can keep track of it.

For example, which is better:A. People who deny the Holocaust have a convention in Berlin. Every time they step out of the hotel they are accosted by family members of Holocaust victims. B. It's illegal to deny the Holocaust in Berlin, so people who deny the Holocaust have a convention in Tehran. Every time they step out of the hotel they are cheered by people who want the whole world to deny the Holocaust.Justice Brandeis said, "The best disinfectant is sunshine." The way I say it, "It's best to keep your cockroaches on top of the linoleum."

It depends on what we mean by protection. Beyond that, they deserve the same protection anyone else gets.

The first amendment in America is: "Freedom of Speech." Should these hate groups be protected by this constitusional right?

If you suppress any type of speech, activity or idea, it goes into hiding. It's better to have it out in the open where you can keep track of it.

For example, which is better:A. People who deny the Holocaust have a convention in Berlin. Every time they step out of the hotel they are accosted by family members of Holocaust victims. B. It's illegal to deny the Holocaust in Berlin, so people who deny the Holocaust have a convention in Tehran. Every time they step out of the hotel they are cheered by people who want the whole world to deny the Holocaust.Justice Brandeis said, "The best disinfectant is sunshine." The way I say it, "It's best to keep your cockroaches on top of the linoleum."

Many of them are hiding and are not known. If you destroy their messages of hate, you destroy their propaganda that is messaging other people.

It is best to crush and pulverize those cockroaches where they stand!

The first amendment in America is: "Freedom of Speech." Should these hate groups be protected by this constitusional right?

Well, yes. My hesitation derives from the habit of certain hate groups to twist the meaning of free speech. Additionally, when you mentioned GodHatesFags, I thought instantly of the recent decision about protesting funerals.

The thing about that is that I'm unsure where funerals stand in regard to the law. To the one, it might depend on whether the cemetery is public or private, but I'm nost sure. To the other, I'm not sure there's a jury in the country that would convict the mourners at the funeral of a murder victim or casualty of war if they descended on the protesters and beat them to death.

Nor do I propose that solution. But right now, it's hard to imagine a jury that would convict.

Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Many of them are hiding and are not known. If you destroy their messages of hate, you destroy their propaganda that is messaging other people. It is best to crush and pulverize those cockroaches where they stand!When you start suppressing speech, it's difficult to decide where to stop. How exactly do we define "hate speech" anyway? Many cults of the Abrahamic religions preach intolerance of other religions, or people who have no religion, or even rival cults of their own religion. This intolerance, as we see every day in the headlines, often borders on hatred and just as often patently qualifies as hatred.

Do we get to outlaw these religions too?

Well, Should notorious groups such as the American Nazi party, the Klu Klux Klan, godhatesfags, etc. be protected by the first amendment even though they are the scum of ignorance?

Nope. In fact, might as well round them up and shoot them.

Yes.

When you start suppressing speech, it's difficult to decide where to stop. How exactly do we define "hate speech" anyway? Many cults of the Abrahamic religions preach intolerance of other religions, or people who have no religion, or even rival cults of their own religion. This intolerance, as we see every day in the headlines, often borders on hatred and just as often patently qualifies as hatred.

Do we get to outlaw these religions too?

Banning hate groups will not lead to banning religion. It does not work that way, you seemed to have reached what is called a "Grey beard" Fallibilty. What happens doesn't always trigger a domino effect.

Of course. They have freedom of speech like anyone else.

all i am going to say is hate is not a right

Many of them are hiding and are not known. If you destroy their messages of hate, you destroy their propaganda that is messaging other people.

It is best to crush and pulverize those cockroaches where they stand!

1) I don't think you do destroy the propaganda. You drive it underground. It makes it cool in a certain way. It gives them a way to claim victimhood.
2) You open the door for those in power who feel their power is threatened by speech to consider groups you are now not thinking of as hate groups as hate groups and to crush them. Whether it is communists or people complaining about Guantanamo, or feminists or whatever group suddenly becomes the new cockroachs.

Freedom of speech is an act of faith. What it says is that it is best if we trust most people to not fall to be swayed because a lot of other voices will make the voices of hate look silly or what they are.

When you crush cockroaches you are actually playing daddy to everyone.

all i am going to say is hate is not a right

It should be. we should all be allowed to feel what we feel. the law should come in and restrict actions. And hate literature can be published in nice, friendly tones. It can say that the Jews or the blacks would be happier with their own. There is no easy litmus test for what is hate literature. Should angry pamphlets against Bush and the war in Iraq lead to prosecutions? Should angry anti-abortion protesters be hauled off to jail? I tried to find examples from each side of the liberal conserative divide, but if I haven't found you, try to imagine something you believe in strongly and how easily the governement could decide that you seem hateful.

Banning hate groups will not lead to banning religion. It does not work that way, you seemed to have reached what is called a "Grey beard" Fallibilty. What happens doesn't always trigger a domino effect.

Give us a shot at the wording of the law and my guess is we will be able to show you how district attorneys will be able to use this against groups you do not intend to have harassed. Unlike Fraggle Rocker I am less concerned about Religious groups who tend to be holy cows (ha, ha), but more political groups: anti war demonstrators, anti globalization activists or anyone who 1) comes off angry and 2) is irritating to those in power. They could be conservative groups also.

(I do not think FR's concerns are off however.)

Yes, because the dangers of limiting who has rights and who hasn't are greater than the danger of being exposed to a message of hate, racisism, homophobia, etc.

Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

They may be hateful dispicable Americans, but they are still Americans. And in this country, that gives you rights.

They may be hateful dispicable Americans, but they are still Americans. And in this country, that gives you rights.

This idea of rights actually does not fit my concern here - I am not saying it is wrong.

I don't really give a shit about their rights.
I don't want the government or anyone else to have the right to control speech.

Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

They may be hateful dispicable Americans, but they are still Americans. And in this country, that gives you rights.

That's how I feel. I despise those hate groups but they should be allowed to say what they want; as long as they never infringe on the rights of others.
The KKK can say all they want about hating black people. They are entitled to their own opinion. But as soon as they go out and jump a black person and beat the crap out of them or kill them, they cross the line.

People have gotten way too whiny and hypersensitive nowadays. Grow some nads and quit your bitchin' already.

Well, Should notorious groups such as the American Nazi party, the Klu Klux Klan, godhatesfags, etc. be protected by the first amendment even though they are the scum of ignorance?

Yes. Hate-groups free speech should be protected. It provides a few benefits:

1) It allows for easy identification of whom they are.
2) It polarizes people for or against them.
3) The moment such a group tries to expand their influence beyond speech they get punished by the law with media attention.
4) All of the above will continually isolate such groups and polarize far more people against them. The isoliation will lead to extremism mentality and punishment will come faster and be harsher.

Why do you think this stuff is illegal in so many countries? In Germany and Russia, it is absolutly illegal to wear the swastica, say "Heil Hitler," or march in Nazi rallies.

That's how I feel. I despise those hate groups but they should be allowed to say what they want; as long as they never infringe on the rights of others.

I agree. And by the way, aren't people who hate hate groups, hate groups themselves? :D

People have gotten way too whiny and hypersensitive nowadays.

Agreed again. People would complain if you hung them with a new rope, for god's sake!

Baron Max

Why do you think this stuff is illegal in so many countries? In Germany and Russia, it is absolutly illegal to wear the swastica, say "Heil Hitler," or march in Nazi rallies.

Hmm, what will they control next? And what's to stop them?

Baron Max

I suppose it is best to let them say what they want, so at least they will be humiliated by the police, press, and the scowls of the public. Thanks a lot! You guys gave me a whole new thought on this! :D

It is almost gets threatening on how fucked up these people are. This group right here http://www.americaisdoomed.com/ is a fanatical religous group that uses god in their reasoning for hating almost anyone who is different. (what this group is all about has nothing to do with the name).

I suppose it is best to let them say what they want, so at least they will be humiliated by the police, press, and the scowls of the public. Thanks a lot! You guys gave me a whole new thought on this! :D

another way to look at it is not in terms of their rights to speech, but us preventing the government from having the power to 1) label a group a hate group and then 2) silence them. In a way the idea is to protect us from the government.

I personally believe that freedom of speech (FoS) should have its limits. FoS is currently used as an excuse to do the most obscene and vulgar acts. For example...

Recently the Westborough Baptist Church, yes, the ones that picket at the funerals of veterans, anyways, they started picketing at college campuses holding large billboards of pictures of dead babies... gruesom pictures of blood and gore. I understand that they want to get thier message across, but I also think that goes too far.

I personally believe that freedom of speech (FoS) should have its limits.

I do, too. But now comes the difficult part ....how do you limit it without it being a personal like or dislike issue?

And another thing, if YOU are permitted to limit some speeches, will you allow ME that same right? Will you grant that right to everyone? Who gets to decide?

Baron Max

Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
You do know Voltaire never actually said that right? It's from a book called "The friends of Voltaire" by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
The actual quote is "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write".;)
I'd say I agree; but then all the people who believe in equal free speech will die fighting for it, while the conservatives who only believe in their own speech will be the only ones left. Which would be most unfortunate.

Yes. But the First Amendment does not permit attempted overthrow of the government or violence toward others.

I personally believe that freedom of speech (FoS) should have its limits. FoS is currently used as an excuse to do the most obscene and vulgar acts. For example...

Recently the Westborough Baptist Church, yes, the ones that picket at the funerals of veterans, anyways, they started picketing at college campuses holding large billboards of pictures of dead babies... gruesom pictures of blood and gore. I understand that they want to get thier message across, but I also think that goes too far.

It only goes too far in that they violated the rights of funeral goers to enjoy a peaceful ceremony.

It only goes too far in that they violated the rights of funeral goers to enjoy a peaceful ceremony.

It goes much further than just that. They've attempted to insinuate riots, they've yelled and cursed at children on the streets, they've trespassed more times than I can count, they've violated privacy rights and they promote hatred.

These guys are no better than Al Queda.

Criminal record
In 1993, Charles F. Hockenbarger, Karl Hockenbarger, Timothy Phelps, Jonathan Phelps, Phelps Sr. and Margie Phelps were brought up on a variety of criminal charges stemming from information gathered following a raid of Westboro. Several charges were later dropped; the trials that followed saw every member of Westboro Baptist Church over the age of fifteen testifying in the defense of their family and fellow congregants; over 100 defense witnesses were called in all. Timothy Phelps, Charles F. Hockenbarger and Karl Hockenbarger were all found not guilty. Jon Phelps was found guilty of witness intimidation and misdemeanor battery, and has defended the actions that led to that arrest and guilty verdict as recently as October 11, 2006 on Midweek Politics, while Margie Phelps was found guilty of filing a false report and Phelps Sr. was found guilty of disorderly conduct as defined by aggravated intimidation of a witness; all three lost their appeals. All six filed lawsuits against the city and took their cases to appeals court, where their lawsuits were dismissed.


Fred Phelps' grandson Benjamin Phelps, convicted of assault and disorderly conduct in 1995. He was the person who informed his grandfather about the existence of the Internet and made the first "GodHatesFags" page. The cited Bible verse, Romans 9:13, has nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather is simply a biblical example of God hating a certain person (in this case, Esau).In 1995, Phelps Sr.'s eldest grandson, Benjamin Phelps, was convicted of assault and disorderly conduct after spitting into the face of a passerby during a picket and then laughing. The security cameras of a nearby business caught the incident on tape.

Also in 2004, Margie Phelps and her son Jacob were arrested for trespassing, disorderly conduct and failure to obey after disregarding a police officer's order that they were not allowed to enter a company's private property with chairs and stand on them with an upside down flag and a picket sign.

In June 2007, Shirley Phelps-Roper was arrested in Nebraska, after demonstrating at the funeral of a soldier, and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The arrest resulted from her allowing her eight-year-old son to step on the American flag during the demonstration, an act which is illegal under Nebraska law. The defense contends that the child's actions were protected speech, and that the state law is unconstitutional. The prosecution, however, claims that the demonstration was not intended as political speech, but as an incitement to violence, and that Phelps-Roper's conduct may also constitute child abuse.

I didn't know all that. However, their right to hold those views and say them in public is protected. When you get into spitting on people, then it violates the rights of others.

I didn't know all that. However, their right to hold those views and say them in public is protected. When you get into spitting on people, then it violates the rights of others.

I still believe that there should be a defined line between hate speech and free speech.

I hate you! Opps. No, I guess I must go to prison for saying that?

I still believe that there should be a defined line between hate speech and free speech.

No, the first ammendment is a bitch. Ann Coulter can express hatred for Muslims, Rush can express hatred for liberals, everyone can express their hatred for Bush. Hate is part of free expression.

No, the first ammendment is a bitch. Ann Coulter can express hatred for Muslims, Rush can express hatred for liberals, everyone can express their hatred for Bush. Hate is part of free expression.

Let me rephrase that... there should be a defined line between hate speech and free speech when it comes to religion.

Why? And if you feel so, why don't you write your Congressman to propose a Constitutional Amendment to do so?

Why? And if you feel so, why don't you write your Congressman to propose a Constitutional Amendment to do so?

Why?

Because too many people use religion to justify the most inhuman and cruel acts to other people.

I don't write a letter because I know something like that would never happen, atleast not in America.

Let me rephrase that... there should be a defined line between hate speech and free speech when it comes to religion.

There can be none. Ever read the OT? God hates everything from adultery to shellfish! Religious freedom is especially protected in the US.

Religious freedom is especially protected in the US.

I know. Sad isn't it? :bawl:

I could claim fresh air is the reason I killed you, because after all, without fresh air I would die and wouldn't be able to kill you. People falsely claiming religion as their motivation for killing others is simply the work of charlatans, deceivers and manipulators. Don't blame religion for these acts.

I know. Sad isn't it? :bawl:

No, it's freaking awesome.

I could claim fresh air is the reason I killed you, because after all, without fresh air I would die and wouldn't be able to kill you. People falsely claiming religion as their motivation for killing others is simply the work of charlatans, deceivers and manipulators. Don't blame religion for these acts.


I don't blame religion, I blame the people who interpret religion for thier own personal agenda's.

EDIT: ... for the oppression of others.

Then why limit religious speech? Is it wrong of any religion to be intolerant? Wasn't God intolerant of the Eygptians? Of the Hitites? Of the Bablyonians?

Then why limit religious speech? Is it wrong of any religion to be intolerant? Wasn't God intolerant of the Eygptians? Of the Hitites? Of the Bablyonians?

Its a book not proven as fact.

Goes back to the saying: Do not believe everything you read.

Oh, so we can't even have religion now, because it's not a proven fact? So "In God We Trust" should be removed from our coins?

Oh, so we can't even have religion now, because it's not a proven fact? So "In God We Trust" should be removed from our coins?

Sigh... I think religion should be kept PERSONAL. Anyone can believe anything they want. But they is there own PERSONAL belief and should be kept so. And yes, I believe that we should remove that phrase because America is a nation of freedom, or alteast supposed to be. Not everyone believes in God and not everyone believe in the same interpretaion of God.

Seperation of Church and state

So, would you make it illegal for religious people to knock on your door and express their wish that you join their religion?

So, keep your religion to yourself? Well, I think God has a problem with that. Go tell it on the Mountain! Freedom of religion - not Freedom from religion.

So, would you make it illegal for religious people to knock on your door and express their wish that you join their religion?

They can knock on my door all they want because I can close my door all I want.

The problem is, who defines hate? Better to only limit free speech for inciting violence or the overthrow of the government.

Banning hate groups will not lead to banning religion. It does not work that way, you seemed to have reached what is called a "Grey beard" Fallibilty. What happens doesn't always trigger a domino effect.I may have a grey beard but I'm still infallible. Many religions are hate groups! There's an Islamic school right across the river in suburban Virginia, funded by King George II's gay hand-holding boyfriends, the Saudi Royal family, that refused to allow the state board of education to review its textbooks. They're full of references to Christians as "evil" and of commands to hate them. They finally tore the pages out before the board was able to get their hands on a copy to display on TV news.

Many Americans hate gays because homophobia is a common instinct among heterosexual men. But many American Christians use their bible as an excuse to preach hatred of gays.all i am going to say is hate is not a rightHmmm. I remember Homer Simpson asking, "What kind of a country is this, when I can only hate a man if he's white?"Yes. Hate-groups free speech should be protected. It provides a few benefits: 3) The moment such a group tries to expand their influence beyond speech they get punished by the law with media attention.In the U.S. we have some very strong laws against "conspiracy." They were originally enacted and enforced to prosecute Mafia mobsters for planning crimes that they were too clever to be caught performing. Since then they have been used for other purposes. In a fictional story on a TV show, a Muslim man was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, after he sent his unfaithful American wife to visit his family in Iran, where they murdered her as punishment for infidelity and got away with it. This could easily happen in real life, especially these days when America's tolerance for Islam and especially Sharia is at an all-time low.Why do you think this stuff is illegal in so many countries? In Germany and Russia, it is absolutly illegal to wear the swastika, say "Heil Hitler," or march in Nazi rallies.And therefore the Holocaust deniers went off to have a festival in Tehran, where they never encountered protesters. I think it would have been much better to hold it in Berlin or Prague, where they would have been constantly picketed by the children of Holocaust victims.

Nazi rallys have been held in America, and thousands of people turn out to throw tomatoes at them and shout obsenities. It's good for these assholes to know that hatred flows in both directions.I personally believe that freedom of speech (FoS) should have its limits. FoS is currently used as an excuse to do the most obscene and vulgar acts. For example... Recently the Westborough Baptist Church, yes, the ones that picket at the funerals of veterans, anyways, they started picketing at college campuses holding large billboards of pictures of dead babies... gruesom pictures of blood and gore. I understand that they want to get thier message across, but I also think that goes too far.It's pathetic that the government can censor radio shows, when all you gotta do if you don't like it is turn the bloody thing off, but they allow religious people to do practically anything they want. As I say, many of the fringe cults of Christianity and Islam are little more than hate groups who get satisfaction out of making the people they hate miserable.It goes much further than just that. They've attempted to insinuate riots, they've yelled and cursed at children on the streets, they've trespassed more times than I can count, they've violated privacy rights and they promote hatred. These guys are no better than Al Queda.Well hey there I believe in a good spot of hyperbole as much as the next American, but these guys are not even close to Al Qaeda in badness. Sorry.Then why limit religious speech? Is it wrong of any religion to be intolerant? Wasn't God intolerant of the Egyptians? Of the Hittites? Of the Bablyonians?Yes, by today's generally accepted standards, it is indeed wrong of any religion to preach intolerance. If they believe their god commands them to do this then their god is an asshole and so are they.

As I say, many of the cults of Abraham are not-so-well-disguised hate groups.

So what? In a free country, you are free to hate as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. No one has a right not to be hated.

These guys are no better than Al Queda.

Actually, they're a little bit lower. At least Al Qaeda has the stones to acknowledge the fight they're in. Phelps and friends seem to skulk around making excuses for themselves.

One note, though: the charge about the American flag is crap. It's an example of what's wrong with arbitrary free-speech limitations. I agree, in principle, that the woman is abusing her kid, but we're the United States of America. The flag will do just fine, no matter who stomps on it.

So what? In a free country, you are free to hate as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. No one has a right not to be hated.

There is no such thing as a free country in this entire world. Many people are still denied the most basic rights as a human being. Seriously. Gay people still can't marry the person they love, we get taxed to death, we are always hearing rules and laws telling us what we can and cannot do, etc etc etc...

Governments exist in order to control thier people.

As long as government exists, freedom does not.

Governments exist in order to control thier people

That's a grim view of the social contract, and contradictory to the principles of the founding of the United States of America. That things might look as you describe them, though, is understandable. The people have not done much to protect or enforce their stake in the contract.

That's a grim view of the social contract, and contradictory to the principles of the founding of the United States of America. That things might look as you describe them, though, is understandable. The people have not done much to protect or enforce their stake in the contract.

What an odd thing to say from someone who uses his powers of infractions, and the threat of banishment, to control this very discussion forum.

Tiassa, you and I both know that with any group of humans, there must be some degree of control. Idealistic myths of freedom are just exactly that ....idealistic myths. Nothimg more, nothing less.

Baron Max

What an odd thing to say from someone who uses his powers of infractions, and the threat of banishment, to control this very discussion forum.

Tiassa, you and I both know that with any group of humans, there must be some degree of control. Idealistic myths of freedom are just exactly that ....idealistic myths. Nothimg more, nothing less.

Baron Max

...I ....agree :confused:

What an odd thing to say from someone who uses his powers of infractions, and the threat of banishment, to control this very discussion forum.

What an odd, disproportionate, and irrelevant comparison.

Tiassa, you and I both know that with any group of humans, there must be some degree of control. Idealistic myths of freedom are just exactly that ....idealistic myths. Nothimg more, nothing less.

What an odd thing to say for someone who is so dedicated to the corruption of humanity that he's not even willing to try.

Put some effort in, Max.

What an odd thing to say for someone who is so dedicated to the corruption of humanity that he's not even willing to try.

No, no, Tiassa, I'm not "dedicated to the corruption of humanity", I'm a student of all the corruption of humanity. Big difference.

Where you and others see only the good in humans, I see all the bad. Where you and the others refuse to admit human traits towards "badness", I try to point them out to y'all.

Baron Max

Where you and others see only the good in humans, I see all the bad. Where you and the others refuse to admit human traits towards "badness", I try to point them out to y'all.

And where you imagine what other people think and believe and understand, there are, in fact, real people who think, believe, and understand. Stop treating human beings as if they are figments of your imagination.

Symptomatically, though, I would say your analyses are a bit shallow inasmuch as they look at immediate considerations and tend to ignore certain evolutionary realities. Were we really so horrible, we would not have made it as far as we have. Perhaps you're cynical enough to believe that all progress is a coincidence of a great con job, but there are plenty of people who believed in that progress and its goodness, and we have not yet disappeared from the species.

In fact, we're gaining strength.

On a related note, would you agree that life is, to a certain degree, messy? I ask because many cynics seem to think that, while life is messy, progress ought to be clean and neatly-organized. At least, that's what comes from the (mixed?) signals they send.

Well, Should notorious groups such as the American Nazi party, the Klu Klux Klan, godhatesfags, etc. be protected by the first amendment even though they are the scum of ignorance?
Free speech means nothing if it does not protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection!
Well, yes. My hesitation derives from the habit of certain hate groups to twist the meaning of free speech. Additionally, when you mentioned GodHatesFags, I thought instantly of the recent decision about protesting funerals.

The thing about that is that I'm unsure where funerals stand in regard to the law. To the one, it might depend on whether the cemetery is public or private, but I'm nost sure. To the other, I'm not sure there's a jury in the country that would convict the mourners at the funeral of a murder victim or casualty of war if they descended on the protesters and beat them to death.

A rare instance in which we agree. I applauded the decision against the Westborro Church because it's not right to harry a family when they're mourning the death of a loved one. Go protest at the park!

The thing about that is that I'm unsure where funerals stand in regard to the law. To the one, it might depend on whether the cemetery is public or private, but I'm nost sure.It's reasonable for certain rituals to be treated as private moments, even if they occur in a public place.

I can appreciate the British concept of common law. Some conventions have been around for so long that they are treated as laws. Unfortunately that won't work in America for two reasons. One is that the country is too young and we don't have conventions that have been around since the days of King Arthur. The other is that we're not as homogeneous a people and we don't all have the same set of conventions.

We all, even us atheists, make peace with church bells. They're just part of American life even if they're artifacts of Christianity... like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Nobody complains because church bells disturb their peace.

But so many Muslim immigrants have moved into the cheap decaying real estate of Detroit, that they've set up electronic prayer calls that blast from loudspeakers eleventy-six times a day or however many times those folks feel the need to pray. The Americans are not comfortable with that and I don't blame them. Come to our country, get down with our common law. Leave yours back home.

Don't rag on people at funerals. It's not civilized. It's not British and it's not American either.

When you start suppressing speech, it's difficult to decide where to stop. How exactly do we define "hate speech" anyway? Many cults of the Abrahamic religions preach intolerance of other religions, or people who have no religion, or even rival cults of their own religion. This intolerance, as we see every day in the headlines, often borders on hatred and just as often patently qualifies as hatred.

Do we get to outlaw these religions too?


It get even crazier when you realize the many atheists spew vile hatred of anyone who does have a religion.

It's a damn slippery slope is what it is. Yes they should not be penalized by the government for what they say as long as they are not advocating the violent over throw of the government. On the other side private individuals, businesses, corporations and so on would be within their rights to not deal with these people.

Imagine how few racists there would be left if nobody would have any dealing with them, at all.

It get even crazier when you realize the many atheists spew vile hatred of anyone who does have a religion.

And from there it gets downright ridiculous when we stop to consider what some religionists consider atheistic hatred.

Imagine how few racists there would be left if nobody would have any dealing with them, at all.

Wouldn't it be nice? But we cannot. Unlike the people who want to be pharmacists and then refuse doctor-authorized healthcare because said pharmacist doesn't like the patient's morals, I'm of the opinion that we cannot refuse people's business solely on the basis of belief.

At the store up the street from my place they sell those apocalyptic novels (Left Behind). Imagine if I was a cashier and refused to sell you that book because it offended my beliefs. Seriously, if a pharmacist can refuse medical needs for conscience reasons, what about the rest of us? Can you imagine if, in the wake of a particularly difficult episode involving a church in your town, nobody would sell you food because you were a known Christian?

Part of me says it would be great if nobody did business with the Westboro folks. But I'm an American, and we Americans are supposed to have at least some dignity. Additionally, I am a human being, and as such owe the consideration of decency even to the most wretched excuses for humanity in my community.

One only wonders at the size of the demonstration when Old Man Phelps finally kicks the bucket. Fred Phelps will burn in Hell. At least, so says the Bible.

Recently the Westborough Baptist Church, yes, the ones that picket at the funerals of veterans, anyways, they started picketing at college campuses holding large billboards of pictures of dead babies... gruesom pictures of blood and gore. I understand that they want to get thier message across, but I also think that goes too far.


I think in a country like America where people live candy floss lives behind white picket fences you can't just tap people on the shoulder to get their attention... you have to hit them with a sledgehammer.

Westboro Baptist Church are against the Iraq war.

That's not hate speech.

Freedom of speech is not freedom if it isn't available to everyone including hate groups. It is easy to defend the rights of people who say things we like and agree with. It is much harder to defend the rights of people to say things we find abhorrant and hateful. However, that is exactly the speech that needs defending if Freedom of Speech is to mean anything.

Westboro Baptist Church are against the Iraq war. That's not hate speech.

Well, the speech might be expressions of freedom, but where they express their views is open to question. For example, if you paid to see a movie, would you approve of a small group of loud, boisterous people who stood up, ranted about some issue and interrupted the movie so you couldn't enjoy it?

Baron Max

For example, if you paid to see a movie, would you approve of a small group of loud, boisterous people who stood up, ranted about some issue and interrupted the movie so you couldn't enjoy it?

Baron Max


No, I'd probably be furious.

Point taken.

Well, Should notorious groups such as the American Nazi party, the Klu Klux Klan, godhatesfags, etc. be protected by the first amendment even though they are the scum of ignorance?

Yes.