Can't see the vid. Doesn't work for me. But if he is just saying hateful things using racially pejorative words, yes he can "get away with it" as such speech is protected by the guarantee of free speech. If he is committing a crime such as inciting people to violence, then it is potentially a hate crime.

Also there are factors of setting... for example you can't use it in your workplace.

http://sandrarose.com/2013/09/federal-j ... workplace/

OrangeDragon wrote:Also there are factors of setting... for example you can't use it in your workplace.

http://sandrarose.com/2013/09/federal-j ... workplace/

Yes, just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean they have to tolerate it at work. Then again, you can't even tell a girl at work she is pretty without the risk of running afoul of the law.

Tim Linkinwater wrote:Better start this here to save the admin peeps time.

I didn't know this. Assume the Daily Torygraph has it right but they don't name the case which sets the precedent (safety catches back on, boys, not the communist Muslim president -the precedent):

"the US does not have laws specifically banning incitement to hatred. In one lawsuit against the WBC the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects free speech, “tolerates even hateful public speech”

So how are people prosecuted for saying those unconscionable words?

Rest of article here, but not necessarily relevant: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rance.html

It is one of the trickiest issues there is and it is very convoluted. It also is not limited to the USA -- so goes beyond the first amendment, unless the discussion is about USA law only.

In Europe for example people have been jailed for questioning details about the holocaust. I am not suggesting that denying the holocaust is a particularly intelligent argument, but I cannot think of a single precedent in western civilization other than old blasphemy laws where a historical event has been banned from critical discussion or interpretation.

Ironically some of the higher profile prosecutions concerning these laws took place around the time that the "West" was lecturing Muslims about needing to suck it up in the name of free speech over the Danish Cartoon Controversy.

With such double standards it is no wonder so much of the world thinks the west is full of shit when it comes to free speech.

That is why I do not like Hate Speech Laws much (as they currently stand). They favor those with the most political "Juice" and fails to protect those most vulnerable. One could say that several European Countries over-regulate (with bias) and the USA under regulates (with bias).

Constructive criticism is a good thing. Demonizing groups is another thing altogether.

Good article on that topic here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... jews_.html

General Mackevili wrote:I got charged and convicted of "cursing in public" for calling a cop a "damn Yankee"

See, even the Khmer Keystone Kops consider it a grave insult to be called an American.

Tim Linkinwater wrote:Better start this here to save the admin peeps time.

Actually this is a great topic -- no point burying it here -- should be moved to "Not Cambodia" IMHO

i'll do you one better... general chatter.


so long as it stays peaceful that is.

OrangeDragon wrote:i'll do you one better... general chatter.


so long as it stays peaceful that is.

Good decision. Hopefully some quality discussion on this topic.

The US Supreme Court has upheld many "Free Speech" Cases, recently Snyder V. Phelps, 562 US (2011)(this for a really weird church.) In Court a judge turned off the recorder, called me to the side of the Bench and screamed at me for calling a "gay" law firm "homosexual" in a 40 page brief, (this in front of 5 attorneys and around 20 people setting in the court. So much for free speech. Its done selectively as is the same with "Freedom of Assembly." (BTW/ The 40 page brief is part of the record and even the judge couldn't redact any of it.)