Last Sunday’s tragic shootings at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in Oak Creek turned another spotlight on “hate speech” when the shooter, Wade Michael Page, was connected to the , also known as “hatecore.”
Earlier this summer, a different version of hate speech came to southeast Wisconsin when members of the tiny but vocal in Brookfield and Oak Creek. They carried signs with phrases such as “God Hates Fags” and “Your Pastors are Whores.”
While one seemed at least loosely connected to a grisly mass murder and the other resulted in an uneventful protest, both forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says:
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.
Interpretations of and debate over that simple, powerful statement have continued for more than 200 years. From obscenity to libel to direct threats, government continually redefines what is exactly free speech. Patch blogger Lyle Ruble analyzes the matter in his most recent post, finally deciding that . The Supreme Court recently backed the Westboro Baptist Church’s protests at military funerals.
Do you agree that hate speech deserves First Amendment protection? Vote in our poll and join the discussion in our Comments section.
Sociologically speaking, racism requires the individual to have power over others and to discriminate against another person because of their skin color. Let's say I'm white and you are of a minority. I have more influence over what happens in the government. If I walk into an airport, then I have a less likely chance of being hassled. You on the other hand have very little say in government affairs because you may be native american. you might be racially profiled as a potential terrorist in the airport and pulled aside. In this position you have very little power. If you were to hold no power over me and say something discriminatory to me, then that's discrimination only. If I said something discriminatory to you, then that's racist because of the benefits I have from being part of the group in power. I recommend being careful with the labels you use.
Second, my parents were members of the NAACP.
Given are history of prejudices, the first act of healing is the loss of demeaning language from our vocabularies. Just because we have people who are vociferous in their response to someone criticizing their application of free speech, PC, doesn't mean that PC speech is more correct and less damning to the speaker. It is the right of every individual to say what they want as long as they realize that it may result in negative responses.
I see much in the world that I find reprehensible, and I will not look the other way when someone is being hurt. But hatred in all forms (words and actions) needs to be put aside. Love, peace and tranquility are achieved by words and actions, too. Francis of Assisi said: "Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace . . ." We cannot be apathetic either to allow hatred and evil to take over. That is totally unacceptable. Positive words, and actions can undo evil and hate mongering. Let the haters have their say, as long as they say it with their tongues, and not with fists, clubs or guns. Freedom of speech is a precious freedom, as are all of the freedoms that the human spirit desire. This is a very imperfect nation, this nation was built on the blood and bones of the Native Peoples and on the backs of the African slaves, so we have a long, long way to go to achieve fellowship, equality and tranquility. But love and goodness still exist and can prevail if we all do our part to allow it.
WHO determines what 'hate speech' is?
Someone had to provide an example of real hard-core hate speech, right ;-p
I don't think your contribution is any better, your opinion on the Governor's policy has no place in these comments. "He is not Hitler, but" is the same as asking "do you still beat your wife?".
You can not be selective. Blatant disruption of solemn events is one issue that gets a BIG NO from me, Should respectful public advocacy, or not - Should be the real issue. YES from me!
However, - Blatant disruption of solemn events is one issue that gets a BIG NO from me, Should respectful public advocacy, or not be allowed - Should be the real issue. <> YES from me!