Hate Speech vs The 1st Amendment

[stromboli]

http://www.mediacompolicy.org/2009/02/a ... amendment/

If you bring up the First Amendment, you're a racist."  In so many words that's the message – or threat – to anyone who would dare question the constitutionality of a proposal that the government launch an inquiry into media content.    

The threat is leveled by the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) in a Jan. 28 petition asking the FCC to conduct an inquiry into hate speech in the media.  The petition was written for NHMC by the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown Law and the Media Access Project.

Ironically, the names of both groups ("Public Representation," "Media Access") would seem to suggest support for freedom of speech.  Here, however, the ultimate intent of these groups is to eradicate certain types of speech (and speakers) in the media, and to chill the speech of anyone who would question that endeavor.  

The petitioners throw down the gauntlet to First Amendment challengers with this line: "The NHMC understands that those who would prefer hate speech to remain under the radar will claim that such an inquiry violates the First Amendment."  

Let me say up front that I find racial slurs and other forms of bigoted, biased, hateful speech to be utterly abhorrent.  Such speech usually emanates either from small-minded, obtuse bigots, or from persons who are smart enough to know better but are consumed with hate, anger, and at bottom, fear.

However, I do challenge the constitutionality of an inquiry that could lead to the banning of speech – not because I'm a bigot (as the petitioners imply), but because I happen to be a staunch supporter of the First Amendment.  

Like it or not, the First Amendment was designed precisely to prevent government censorship, not only of popular speech but of unpopular speech – even so-called "hate speech."  

There are some narrow exceptions, like speech that incites immediate violence.  That seems to be the slim reed on which NHMC tries to build its case.  The petitioners say that there has been an increase in hate speech in the media.  Then they say that there has been an increase in the number of violent hate crimes against Hispanics.  By that juxtaposition they try to imply that there is a causal relationship between hate speech and hate crimes.  

But the petitioners offer no evidence – only vague assertions like "hate speech over the media may be causing concrete harms."  Even a 1993 report by NTIA, which the NHMC petition quotes liberally,  "found that 'the available data linking the problem of hate crimes to telecommunications remains scattered and largely anecdotal,' and that [NTIA] lacked sufficient information to make specific policy recommendations."

So what's going on here?  NHMC and its public-interest collaborators take great pains to point out that they are only asking for an inquiry into what's happening out there, "merely the collection of information and data about hate speech in the media" – not for any overt censorship.  Oh, and of course they're not calling for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, they are quick to note.

But as we know, FCC notices of inquiry have a way of turning into rulemaking proceedings.  And if a rulemaking proceeding aimed at outlawing hate speech had the effect of outlawing conservative talk radio ... who needs a Fairness Doctrine?

This is no time for First Amendment advocates to be cowed into silence by bogus challenges to their political correctness.  Speech isn't always pretty, or pleasing, or even palatable.  That's why we have a First Amendment.
TAGS: Broadcasting, Content Controls, FCC, Fairness Doctrine, First Amendment, Free speech, Institute for Public Representation, Media Access Project, Media Regulation, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Radio, hate speech

We all know that in countries like Russia that speaking out against has been defined as hate speech and is punishable with imprisonment. Speaking out against the state religion (Islam) in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran can get you jailed or even executed.

What about hate speech directed against atheists? Now there is a slippery slope. We are, according to some studies, the most distrusted group in America
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-distrust

In countries where secularism is more dominant, such as Sweden, the same distrust doesn't exist. Therefore It is fair to say such an attitude has religious bias. I do not know of any law that prohibits hateful remarks against atheists here, or in most countries. Yet derisive or negative comments against religion generate responses of hate speech. And recently there have been some attempts by theists to generate hate speech laws in this country.

At what point is criticism hate speech? At what point are comments made (a la Denzel Washington) about atheists hate speech? Comments.

[hillbillyatheist]

The only thing I'm okay with the government banning with regard to speech is lying. I see the harm caused by that such as the many people who would support things like Obamacare but have been misled to believe it has death panels and shit.  

lying has hurt our democracy.

Then you have stuff like the Discovery Channel claiming that mermaids are real. So people who don't know any better tune to what they think is an educational channel and get lied too, many fall for it.

lying should be severely punished. people need to be properly informed for our democracy to work.

but other than that no. if somebody hates somebody or a group, or sincerely expresses an idea that we believe to be wrong, I believe open debate is the answer. As long as both sides are honest about what they believe and don't try to lie and twist facts to support their side.

of course all that is in an ideal world. in the real world, I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't valid speech. We could turn into another Russia.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Think of it another way. Decades ago, Denzel's comments would have gone unnoticed. Most would have probably just nodded their heads as the comment would have just been taken as given.

Not so today, because today we see people taking notice and saying 'that's not right'. Even in America, where atheists are viewed with such disdain for no apparent reason other than misconceptions and indoctrination, the number of atheists as a nationwide demographic is growing.

A part of this, IMHO, is the guarantee of freedom of speech, because no matter what else, people will always be allowed to express their views on a given subject. I think this is the primary reason why the perception of atheists as inherent bad is eroding, and why people are picking up on the nonsense uttered by people like Denzel and calling them out on it.

I would agree that it's akin to hate speech, at least to a degree, becuase it's denigrating on a personal level (rather than the position) people who think differently to you. But I think the best way to resolve it is to confront and hound people who say shit like this, and even if getting through to them is impossible, simply highlighting the issue gets the publicity out there that shows both that atheists arent bad people and we certainly dont take ignorant comments lying down.

as an aside, people saying that kind of nonsense probably does more to advance the notion that atheists are just normal people than any argument we as atheists make could ever do. I also think any legislation going down the hate speech route is to be avoided. The UK enacted legislation to prevent hate speech in the religious and racial hatred act of 2008. The racial element I can sort of understand, but the religious section is fucking retarded becuase it affords protection to theists who are offended by those who seek to criticise their religion, but affords nothing to non-religious people. Double standard legislation enacted by fucking retarded morons.

[Solitary]

This really brings up a problem just like freedom does in other areas. Where do you draw the line with regards to being responsible? It has been shown by neurologist that verbal abuse lights up the same areas of the brain that pain does. As for freedom to speak your mind I think it should be allowed unless actually directed to a person that is present. Solitary.

[Solitary]

I personally don't think corporations are people even if is composed of people because the corporation itself doesn't have feelings or emotions. Solitary

[Colanth]

These people should be very careful of what they ask for.  If we ban hate speech today, we can ban Hispanics from speaking tomorrow.  And atheists can sue for violations of the 14th amendment if those who condemn us aren't also stopped.