Cambodia Expats Online: Forum | News | Information | Blog

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

Tim Linkinwater wrote:So how are people prosecuted for saying those unconscionable words?

Sorry, I don't understand.

What people, prosecuted by who for saying what?

The constitution does protect it. Which is somewhat garbage in my opinion, but also somewhat reasonable... simply because defining something as hate speech would then be an easy way to silence a group.

LTO wrote:

Tim Linkinwater wrote:So how are people prosecuted for saying those unconscionable words?

Sorry, I don't understand.

What people, prosecuted by who for saying what?

Hate speech - it's sort of new to me since all the laws were made while I have been away. In the UK - and I think all of the EU, you can be prosecuted for using words considered pejorative to or about gays, black people, white people, Jews etc.

I had thought it was even tighter in the US.

From what I understand, the US' rules in relation to freedom of speech/incitement of hatred operate as follows:

Acceptable: "The Muppets are evil! Death to the Muppets!"

Unacceptable: "Let's go and kill all of the Muppets on/at <some sort of reference point allowing people to actually act on the suggestion>".

Satiated Parrot wrote:From what I understand, the US' rules in relation to freedom of speech/incitement of hatred operate as follows:

Acceptable: "The Muppets are evil! Death to the Muppets!"

Unacceptable: "Let's go and kill all of the Muppets on/at <some sort of reference point allowing people to actually act on the suggestion>".

A reasonable position. Puts me in mind of Kermit's son (????) Singing Half Way up the Stairs



Edit, got the silly YouTube embedding wrong.

What's green and smells like bacon? Kermit's fingers.

A smoker craves a cig in the pack, Kermit craves a ...

Satiated Parrot wrote:From what I understand, the US' rules in relation to freedom of speech/incitement of hatred operate as follows:

Acceptable: "The Muppets are evil! Death to the Muppets!"

Unacceptable: "Let's go and kill all of the Muppets on/at <some sort of reference point allowing people to actually act on the suggestion>".

Not sure you can get away with he "Death to Muppets" there

Good topic though

You can say what hateful things you like - free speech and all - but if you use hate speech in the commission of a crime (e.g. Incitement, assault, etc), suggestive that the crime may have been motivated by hate, it can add hate crime to the charges.

LTO wrote:You can say what hateful things you like - free speech and all - but if you use hate speech in the commission of a crime (e.g. Incitement, assault, etc), suggestive that the crime may have been motivated by hate, it can add hate crime to the charges.

So you could, if you were stupid enough, get away with this (below) legally? The N word or any other discriminatory words are not illegal unless uttered during the commission of a crime?

Rex Kramer: