Mike: you certainly jump to conclusions, don’t you?

1) Hate speech is not synonymous with racism although racism is often at the root of hate speech. Hate speech is when someone is so blinded by hatred as to start wishing harm on others. Bill O’Reilly is prone to that sort of thing.

2) I agree that hate speech is hate speech regardless of the source but can’t for the life of me see where the above article fits in that category. In the six years I’ve frequented this blog, the articles have never contained an apology of violence, only sarcasm – a lot of it, sometimes – but it never goes beyond words. Further, the owners are quick to clamp down on anything that may be understood as an apology of violence. Quite the contrary, even the regulars are “disappeared” if they cross the line. As I said earlier, stick around and see for yourself.

3) Tell the truth, I don’t understand the phrase that bothers you. If you are objecting to the use of “white” as an adjective, I would tend to think you were reaching a bit far. But that’s only my opinion. As you said, it’s easy to read extra things into a text when one has a pre-conceived attitude. I saw nothing wrong in this. You did. End of story.

4) You wrote the following with a cute ring of sarcasm (or would you call it hate speech if written by someone else?): “After all, you claim to have such great knowledge of what ideas can do to people.” I can only respond that I’ve studied history and the role of hate speech on human events over the centuries comes out pretty clearly. Hitler comes immediately to mind, for starters, but there are many other examples and my years working in Yugoslavia showed me what a tolerance for hate speech can open the door to. Doesn’t mean that every hater will grab a gun but it certainly increases the chances that one will eventually “snap” and go on a killing rampage.

5) I do not think hate speech is “illegal” in the USA but I certainly do think (a right I believe I enjoy as you do) that there is a need for stricter limits. In the USA, in particular, the legally sanctioned tolerance of violent expressions of hatred is associated with a proliferation of arms that – always my own opinion – creates a potentially explosive situation.

6) Even in the USA, the law evolves with the times. The Founding Fathers felt the need to add a few amendments almost immediately after approving the Constitution and other amendments have been made over the years, e.g. to give women and non-whites of African origin the vote. I am confident that reason will eventually win out and trust that it won’t take a catastrophe like one of those that other countries have experienced to prompt the change.

Peace.

Bemused, "Is Megyn Kelly vying to be Donald Sterling’s white Santa?
You claim to dislike hate speech. Do you not see the racism in this comment? Is it not racist simply because you think it’s funny or agree with it? Hate speech is hate speech regardless from whom it might come. After all, you claim to have such great knowledge of what ideas can do to people. What force it can to drive them to do insane things. Why is it you support racism in this article by this author yet find it so detestable from other sources? Is he not using this comment to incite in you and others, a hatred of someone? Is that not hate speech?

Again, just as with Sterling, while I do not agree with this author and find their words detestable, I will defend their right to freedom of speech in stating it. BTW, too bad you couldn’t find the time to read the cliff notes on first amendment restrictions I pasted prior. For some reason you still think hate speech is illegal here in the US. It may be reprehensible (in whatever form it takes and by whomever authors it), but it’s not illegal.

Sorry Mike, but I don’t have the time or patience to wade through all that cut-and-pasted stuff. You’ve posted a blithering text book! Anyway, it won’t change my mind because I firmly believe that tolerance for hate speech is not a proof of civility but an opening of the door to violence and intolerance. I lived in Yugoslavia prior to the civil war and saw it happen. Not pretty.

Americans as a whole have not yet experienced – on a sufficiently massive scale – the sort of consequences that Europeans have experienced first hand, repeatedly. Accordingly, hate speech is firmly against the law over here, and that’s how I think it should be.

Your continued reference to the fact that words don’t hurt one physically is exactly what my mother used to say when the other kids taunted me in elementary school. Not the same thing for adults because hate speech can and does prompt the weak-minded to alleviate the tension by resorting to violence. That’s happened often enough in history to suggest that hate speech is wrong. Period. Shall we agree to disagree?

PS: Re your post to Aria: stick around and you will realise that the people who own this blog do read the posts. You will realise that any post advocating violence of any kind will disappear within the space of a few minutes. It’s Nox Fation that likes to leave the nasty wishes of death and harm up for days on end.

@aria, I have not moderated anything. I have not said you don’t have the right to say or think what you have said. Thank you in fact for proving my point.
As for this web site moderating their own boards and people’s comments, I really doubt they read anything posted by readers after they have posted an article. Are YOU an employee of the company? Unless someone flags it for them they will never know what’s said here. Nor do they really care.
As for Sterling’s rights being violated, he said what he said in the privacy of his home and was never intended for the rash of public opinion that has condemned him.
Again, I don’t condone what he said, I find it offensive. I raised 3 racially mixed children. I taught them that there were going to be people in this world in their lifetimes that would say mean, hateful, hurtful words they could hear or read. But those words CANNOT hurt them because they are better than that. They were also brought up in a Christian home where they were taught to forgive trespasses against them first so they might ask God to forgive their own trespasses. And yes they lead happy lives today.
Words can only hurt your pocketbook and not you unless you ALLOW them to hurt you. They are just that, WORDS.
Again, I thank those who would carry on telling me to basically shut up and go away. You have proven my point in a most excellent manner and should be proud of yourselves for it.
And for those that hate Christians because they are Christian, and take offense to my referencing God, Jesus and the Bible, have a blessed day.

@bemused the SCOTUS determines applicability of the Constitution of this country. Your premise is not nor has it ever been supported by those who’s job it is to do the interpretation. There are only limited exceptions to protection of free speech here. I’ll make it simple for you rather than citing specific case law and let you read the Wikipedia information on those exceptions: Communicative impact restrictions[edit]

Incitement[edit]

The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action”.¹² In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court struck down a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for “advocating … violence … as a means of accomplishing political reform” because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.³ This rule amended a previous decision of the Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919), which simply decided that a “clear and present danger” could justify a congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize “mere advocacy”.⁴

False statements of fact[edit]

Main article: False statements of fact

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is “no constitutional value in false statements of fact”.⁵ However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the “speech that matters” can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.⁶

The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.⁷ There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a “sufficiently culpable mental state” can be subject to civil or criminal liability.⁸ Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.⁹ Additionally, some implicit statements of fact—those that may just have a “false factual connotation”—still could fall under this exception.¹⁰¹¹

There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), that lies about the government may be protected completely.¹² However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.¹³

Obscenity[edit]

Main article: Miller v. California

Under the Miller test (which takes its name from Miller v. California ¹⁹⁷³), speech is unprotected if (1) “the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest” and (2) “depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards,¹⁴ sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law” and (3) “the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”.¹⁵ Some subsidiary components of this rule may permit private possession of obscene materials at one’s home.¹⁶ Additionally, the phrase “appeals to the prurient interest” is limited to appeals to a “shameful or morbid interest in sex”.¹⁷¹⁸

The Court has also held that a person may only be punished if he knows the actual “contents of the material”.¹⁹ In Smith v. California (1959), the Supreme Court thus gave a defense of “reasonable ignorance” to an obscenity charge. The basis for this exception is that justices have believed that obscenity has a “tendency to exert a corrupting and debasing impact leading to antisocial behavior”.²⁰²¹

Child pornography[edit]

Main article: New York v. Ferber

The exception for child pornography is distinct from the obscenity exception in a few ways. Firstly, the rule is much more specific to what falls under the exception. Secondly, it is irrelevant whether any part of the speech meets the Miller test; if it is classified under the child pornography exception at all, it becomes unprotected.²² The rule provides that speech is unprotected if it (1) “visually depicts” children below the age of majority (2) “performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals”.²³ Unlike the rules for simple obscenity, private possession of child pornography “may be outlawed”.²⁴

While this exception is very concrete, it is also limited. It does not apply to pornography that looks like it involves children,²⁵ pornography that people think is harmful when shown to children,²⁶ or pornography that urges viewers to harm children.²⁷

Fighting words and offensive speech[edit]

Main article: Fighting words A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an “offensive speech” Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes “fighting words”.²⁸ Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that “tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace” by provoking a fight, so long as it is a “personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction”.²⁹ Additionally, such speech must be “directed to the person of the hearer” and is “thus likely to be seen as a ‘direct personal insult’”.³⁰³¹

Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.³² However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a “public figure” is fully protected.³³ Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.³⁴ A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.³⁵

Threats[edit]

Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.³⁶ However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that “threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole”, he writes.³⁷³⁸ Additionally, threats of “social ostracism” and of “politically motivated boycotts” are constitutionally protected.³⁹ However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.⁴⁰

Speech owned by others[edit]

Main article: Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises

Another class of permissible restrictions on speech are based on intellectual property rights.⁴¹ Things like copyrights or trademarks fall under this exception. The Supreme Court first held this in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985), where copyright law was upheld against a First Amendment free speech challenge.⁴² Also, broadcasting rights for shows are not an infringement of free speech rights.⁴³ The Court has upheld such restrictions as an incentive for artists in the ‘speech marketplace’.⁴⁴

Commercial speech[edit]

Main article: Commercial speech

Commercial speech occupies a unique role as a free speech exception. While there is no complete exception, legal advocates recognize it as having “diminished protection”.⁴⁵ For example, false advertising can be punished and misleading advertising may be prohibited.⁴⁶ Commercial advertising may be restricted in ways that other speech can’t if a substantial governmental interest is advanced, and that restriction supports that interest as well as not being overly broad.⁴⁷ This doctrine of limited protection for advertisements is due to a balancing inherent in the policy explanations for the rule, namely that other types of speech (for example, political) are much more important.⁴⁸

Hate speech is dangerous and it was never intended to be protected by the First Amendment the aim of which was to protect ordinary citizens from censorship by more powerful elements. Hate speech withers the soul of the hater and creates a potentially dangerous situation for the hated.

There’s always some weak-minded listener/talker (usually a male) who might start to think that he can win attention and admiration by doing something totally uncivilised/unChristian by beating a representative of the hated category up (usually several against one, aka cowardly fashion) even trying to kill them.

There’s no way that the Founding Fathers, as sons of the Enlightenment, could have so destructive an intention.

Mike Atwood,

Thanks, but we do not need your help in moderating comments.

Hey guys- The thought police are here. And they’re conservatives- Imagine my shock at that part.

Newshounds has admins, MIke- they don’t need you.

And since you’re so hung up on proof, how about you show us how Sterling’s rights are being violated. He’s not in a stockade for saying it, no one who defended him is being persecuted, and he got his ban because he created this many problems for the league on a repeat offense.

Or is the problem that the media didn’t go out and tell us to look the other way on him, because 1st Amendment?

As one who raised 3 racially mixed children, I find Sterling’s comments and ideas reprehensible and aberrant. However, his basic human right to free speech is just that. What I find not only criminal but even more aberrant that his statement is the liberal “free press’” attempt at subjugation of his basic human right to free speech. The idea of this country was always in the past that while we may not like what was said or agree with it, everyone has a basic right to say something. The left wing liberal “free press” has taken it upon themselves to deny this right to others while demanding it for themselves. THAT is aberrant behavior and thought, in complete opposition to everything this country this country was founded. They should be supporting his “RIGHT” to say what he said, but you’ll never see that from them. It’s not politically correct. What people any more fail to realize is that words cannot hurt you. If they damage you financially you have the means through court to recover what you lost. Use that right if circumstances apply. But you can walk away from other words. They only hurt you if you allow them to do so.

Aria wrote: “…because she’s not only this dishonest, she’s so incompetent being this dishonest that two minutes and Google are all it takes to tear down her black & White, one side only arguments.”

Wow, just wow! You rock, lassie!

Bill Friday, I think O’Reilly does actually like Stewart. I think he’s nice to Donald Trump because it’s expedient, e.g., but having seen him together with Stewart many times, I am pretty sure they genuinely like each other. They can be very funny together, too.

When he’s not being a dickhead, O’Reilly has a lot of good qualities. You can quote me on that, Fox snoops!

“One thing you will notice about these Fox “News” frauds. They will never go after TMZ, or it’s executive producer Harvey Levin. " Good point, Antoinette.

Regarding the comments saying Fox is merely tolerant of some people out of fear: I agree, especially on Colbert, Maddow and Stewart. All three of them humiliated Fox News so much that you don’t see them trying to get even with them anymore. Even when one of them tries, there’s a very real sense of that they’re afraid of it being responded to, and that they’ll only tough it out for the ratings bump.

But when it comes to TMZ, five words: Jesse Watters and Griff Jenkins. They go after a show that stalks people and uses their shocked responses against them to paint a narrative, it’ll explode all over every venue that every commentary show on Fox has used Jenkins, and quite a few of them have also used Watters to do the same thing, and go even further out of line with it. There are entire blogs and Youtube channels dedicated to nothing but how Fox uses ambush journalism to paint people and issues, so it’s not like they’d even have to go that far to present a case.

They aren’t afraid of TMZ, they’re afraid of tagbacks.

Here’s something the Fox Defenders should Google, because Kelly didn’t feel fit to tell them: Sterling has all of his conversations recorded, because his memory’s going. Part of the previous “gotchas” on him were because he ironically forgot that he had requested to be recorded so there’d be a record of him to prove he said what he was being accused of saying.

According to Stiviano, part of the reason she released this conversation was that he tried to pressure her into a confidentiality agreement after he said it, and how he went about it ended up being one of the factors. Another factor is that Sterling seems to be complicit in how she’s being treated by those around him, including his ex-wife, so this could be a high-payout exit. Take that for whatever you think her word is worth, especially since she told this to TMZ. Here’s the links:

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-racist-audio-v-stiviano-recorded-clippers/

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-v-stiviano-settlement-conversation-book-deal-life-clippers-audio-recordings/

Since we have no evidence that Staviano’s lying, and that this isn’t just a sleazy looking out for #1 dick move on her part, we do have to consider that there may be more to her side of the story. She’s disgusting as far as we’ve seen now, but even the people claiming to be on her side haven’t really explored it past the recording in question. We may find that there’s a lot more against Sterling that she has a record of. Hell, we might see down the road that this was a huge wake-up call for her, and see her turn into a decent person by the end.

And this is why Megyn Kelly’s not a journalist, and I feel sorry for anyone ever stuck with her as a lawyer- because she’s not only this dishonest, she’s so incompetent being this dishonest that two minutes and Google are all it takes to tear down her black & White, one side only arguments.

I agree Antoinette! That’s the same reason O’Reilly says he “likes” Jon Stewart! O’Reilly is terrified of him but is fearful of going after him. He knows he would be totally eviscerated if he did!! Just look what Colbert did to Hannity last week!! LOL

One thing you will notice about these Fox “News” frauds. They will never go after TMZ, or it’s executive producer Harvey Levin. They are afraid of him. He has the resources to dig up dirt on these clowns, and expose to all the masses. And judging by some of these frauds’ behavior off-camera, we don’t blame them.

These cafeteria Catholics will never pick a fight with someone if they know they will lose in the long run.

Something tells me Allen West would be singing a different tune if it had been his war-criminal face in the girlfriend’s pics which led to Sterling’s comments.

Seriously, I have to wonder if FoxNoise would be as blasé about Sterling’s comments if the “negro” in the pictures had been West or Herman Cain or Ben Carson, instead of Magic Johnson.

Skanky Megyn is already dreaming of a white Christmas. White Jesus, white Santa and white NBA owners.

And Megyn was just oh so proud of it! She even ran a clip of her girl asking the question on her show last night! “Look everyone! They even let my girl in with the adults today and let her ask a question!” LOL

Kelly was not always interested in people's privacy rights.