religion law

Old Timer wrote:I think I once read that there was a movement to make it illegal for anyone to say anything bad against the islam religion here in the states. Does anybody know anything about it? Also any bets on obama giving the muslims the keys to the city.

PaulM wrote:Thanks Slick & Dm for answering my question...

DM007 wrote:

PaulM wrote:Thanks Slick & Dm for answering my question...

Sorry I didn't post a source (that was your question...was it not?). Hearing about it is a far cry from hearing about it from a reliable source. I don't consider pundit talking points, MSM outlets repeating what they "heard", or even political discussion between our elected officials "reliable". When a bill is actually up for vote, we can be a bit more specific. For the time being, as far as I'm concerned, it just a Capitol Hill rumor. [optimism] I doubt it'll get legs. I hate to think any American could consider this seriously.....

DM007 wrote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Anyone recognize this? Read it lately? Apparently, some have not. We, as free American citizens, have an inalienable right to free speech, even if others don't like what we say. I must have missed the parts about "speech regarding religion", "ethnic hatred", or even "sexual orientation" or "gender" being the exception.

Words are words. Unless an action is associated to those words, they are only words, also known as "speech". Also, threats are only words, unless there is an intention, ability, means, and motive to act upon them. I think I remember reading about this in one of those other 200 year old ramblings.

What's next? Pet hate speech? Tree hate speech?

Kazza wrote:

DM007 wrote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Anyone recognize this? Read it lately? Apparently, some have not. We, as free American citizens, have an inalienable right to free speech, even if others don't like what we say. I must have missed the parts about "speech regarding religion", "ethnic hatred", or even "sexual orientation" or "gender" being the exception.

Words are words. Unless an action is associated to those words, they are only words, also known as "speech". Also, threats are only words, unless there is an intention, ability, means, and motive to act upon them. I think I remember reading about this in one of those other 200 year old ramblings.

What's next? Pet hate speech? Tree hate speech?

No country allows absolute free speech. In the US you do not have the right to yell 'fire' in a movie cinema, you do not have the right to say obscene things (no, really, you don't. It's called the Miller test), you do not have the right to slander and you do not have the right to reproduce copyrighted information, . Likewise, speech that is intended to incite violence or hatred is not protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations_on_freedom_of_speech


Hate speech is not equivalent with criticism of a religion, a right which should be protected at all costs.

Kazza wrote:
Hate speech is not equivalent with criticism of a religion, a right which should be protected at all costs.

Old Timer wrote:I think I once read that there was a movement to make it illegal for anyone to say anything bad against the islam religion here in the states. Does anybody know anything about it? Also any bets on obama giving the muslims the keys to the city.

DM007 wrote:There is no law against someone yelling "fire" in a theater, if there is a fire, or if a person has a reasonable belief there is a fire. It isn't "hate speech", in any case. Doesn't apply to the discussion.

Liable and slander are different issues, as well. They are only contestable, civilly, if the victim so chooses. No law exists, in regards to L/S.

Inciting a riot is different. Intent must be expressed (as opposed to implied), and there must be a victim who suffered damages. Using the theater/fire example, if a person were to yell fire in a theater (with no fire), and no one tries to leave or panic because of it, no offense exists.

Plagiarism is a civil tort, but only if there is a complaining victim. It isn't a crime. Copyright laws are only guidelines for civil procedure.

We Americans DO have absolute freedom of speech. However, there will always be accountability for actions that bring harm to others. This doesn't apply to the speech itself. For now, anyway.

CarolinaHound wrote:

DM007 wrote:There is no law against someone yelling "fire" in a theater, if there is a fire, or if a person has a reasonable belief there is a fire. It isn't "hate speech", in any case. Doesn't apply to the discussion.

Liable and slander are different issues, as well. They are only contestable, civilly, if the victim so chooses. No law exists, in regards to L/S.

Inciting a riot is different. Intent must be expressed (as opposed to implied), and there must be a victim who suffered damages. Using the theater/fire example, if a person were to yell fire in a theater (with no fire), and no one tries to leave or panic because of it, no offense exists.

Plagiarism is a civil tort, but only if there is a complaining victim. It isn't a crime. Copyright laws are only guidelines for civil procedure.

We Americans DO have absolute freedom of speech. However, there will always be accountability for actions that bring harm to others. This doesn't apply to the speech itself. For now, anyway.

That's right.

Old Timer wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

DM007 wrote:There is no law against someone yelling "fire" in a theater, if there is a fire, or if a person has a reasonable belief there is a fire. It isn't "hate speech", in any case. Doesn't apply to the discussion.

Liable and slander are different issues, as well. They are only contestable, civilly, if the victim so chooses. No law exists, in regards to L/S.

Inciting a riot is different. Intent must be expressed (as opposed to implied), and there must be a victim who suffered damages. Using the theater/fire example, if a person were to yell fire in a theater (with no fire), and no one tries to leave or panic because of it, no offense exists.

Plagiarism is a civil tort, but only if there is a complaining victim. It isn't a crime. Copyright laws are only guidelines for civil procedure.

We Americans DO have absolute freedom of speech. However, there will always be accountability for actions that bring harm to others. This doesn't apply to the speech itself. For now, anyway.

That's right.

Shouldn't that harm to others also include a politicians speech and promises.

CarolinaHound wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

DM007 wrote:There is no law against someone yelling "fire" in a theater, if there is a fire, or if a person has a reasonable belief there is a fire. It isn't "hate speech", in any case. Doesn't apply to the discussion.

Liable and slander are different issues, as well. They are only contestable, civilly, if the victim so chooses. No law exists, in regards to L/S.

Inciting a riot is different. Intent must be expressed (as opposed to implied), and there must be a victim who suffered damages. Using the theater/fire example, if a person were to yell fire in a theater (with no fire), and no one tries to leave or panic because of it, no offense exists.

Plagiarism is a civil tort, but only if there is a complaining victim. It isn't a crime. Copyright laws are only guidelines for civil procedure.

We Americans DO have absolute freedom of speech. However, there will always be accountability for actions that bring harm to others. This doesn't apply to the speech itself. For now, anyway.

That's right.

Shouldn't that harm to others also include a politicians speech and promises.

It should, but unfortunatly making a promise is not an action that they consider causing a harm. Personally I think it should be illegal for any of the to make any promises, or at least make it possible for the people to sue them for breach of an oral contract.

Big Slick wrote:I've heard a little about it but it's not really like you say.

It's called a Hate Sppech Law and it would protect any group from being targeted for hate speech. This would include Muslim, Jews, Homosexuals. As well as Christians, and Heterosexuals, and women. I'll try to find more but that's all I got right now.

Night-Reaper wrote:

Big Slick wrote:I've heard a little about it but it's not really like you say.

It's called a Hate Sppech Law and it would protect any group from being targeted for hate speech. This would include Muslim, Jews, Homosexuals. As well as Christians, and Heterosexuals, and women. I'll try to find more but that's all I got right now.

This definetly goes against the Constitution's Freedom of Speech!