Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Rammstein, Jan 25, 2007.
So, what say you?
Do you believe that the word nigger is protected speech?
Won't survive a 1st A challenge. Just a waste of taxpayer money to defend.
Why just that one word? What about honky, kike, cracker or any other number of derogatory terms?
What makes that one word so much more offensive than any other?
Will it be justly applied to the "gangster rappers" and street punks who use it with more than a casual regularity?
Another attempt of government trying to legislate morality.
Any 80's teens out there remember Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime"?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
shure , why not .first you tell me i cant talk ,then you take my guns away, what am i to do i cant say nuten.
As I understand the 1st Amendment (we don't learn it in Con Law at emory) obscene speech actually recieves a lower level of protection (I would cite a supreme court case where they upheld the FCC's ability to censor the 7-deadly words, but I don't know the name).
But is the N-word an obscenity or a vulgarity. Prehaps.
But what worries me with stuff like this is the whole "Hate Speech" movement. There is a concerted effort by some liberals to ban racist speech because it is hate speech. It's a very horrible way to construe the 1st Amendment because it means someone is having to judge what is hate speech and what isn't and if (im)properly construed could be used to muzzle the likes of Rush, Hannity, and others.
I reccomend the columns of Mike Adams, he talks a lot about this, especially in how it is applied at college campuses.
IMO, it's either all ok or none of its ok. A right restricted is no right at all. I should have right to say what I will, no one has the right to be from form offense. However, people do have the responsibility to exercise discretion in what they say and who they say it to.
That's funny, they skip at least the next two amendments as well. And to get to the next two amendments after those, you really need to take Prof. Cloud's Criminal Procedure course.
When I was an undergraduate at Georgia State, a professor introduced an article called, "Here Come the Crackers," about white students attending historically black colleges. I asked the teacher whether she would have presented the article so gleefully or enthusiastically (or at all) had the word being discussed here been substituted in place of "Crackers" and the races been reversed in the article. My question was not well received, but I still think I must have been a joy to have as a student.
Just so I am not misunderstood, I do not think that this term, Crackers, or any other racial term should be made illegal. That does not necessarily mean that James Madison would have thought such constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. I frankly do not know the answer to the constitutional question (the Constitution, I mean, not whatever the current Supreme Court happens to think about the issue). I think the Founders probably viewed the protection most strongly when it came to policital speech, such as criticism of the King.
My view that racist pejoratives should not be illegal regardles of the Constitutional question should not be seen as condoning such speech. I disagree strongly with many things that I do not also think should result in imprisonment.
Our rights, as individuals, should only be curtailed when they run afoul of the basic rights of others.
No one has the right to NOT be offended by another person.
Therefore, insulting, racist speech should not be curtailed.
It's that simple to me.
The Bill of Rights might as well be written on toilet paper.
It would make sense considering the way they are getting $#!^ on lately!
What about when it is incitement to riot?
Incitement to riot can be a touchy thing. Notwithstanding, there are already laws against that, regardless of whether you use the N word to do it. This little local ordinance is not about that. Besides, 'Give me liberty or give me death' could be incitement to riot under the King's interpreation. As could, 'Onward Christian Soldier' in the wrong context. As could 'Black Power' ... you get my drift.
To echo what MP said, in my learning about the First Amendment and its applicability to speech is that it was originally intended to mean that political speech would not be restricted.
But even a Federalist congress passed legislation that restricted freedom of speech/expression etc. The Sedition Act is a prime example.
Is obscene speech protected under the First Amendment? I believe so, but that is not to say that the current SCOTUS would agree with that.
I think trying to legislate what can/will cause a riot is too subjective. What may cause a riot in Compton, Ca will probably not (read: will not) cause a riot in Statesboro, Ga.
I think it is entirely too unjustifiable to fine/imprison people for the words they speak; with the explicit exception for something like yelling fire in a crowded theater. I believe that reasonable men can draw the distinction between yelling fire and yelling nigger.
1st Amendment - Nothing
2nd Amendment - Shanor let me teach the class
3rd Amendment - Uhhh, no
4th Amendment - Nothing
Rammstein, what about shouting in a theater in Compton?
I seem to remember a scene in a movie with a guy doing something similar to that. Except I think he interrupts a card or dice game.
I don't remember much, was laughing too hard.
I still don't think that would rise to the level where state action against the yeller would be justified. He'd get beat up or worse for sure, but I believe that government has no claim to restrict speech.