When Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez was asked over and over again if criticizing religion . read "islam" in the U.S.A. could be a criminal offence he refused to answer. This reflections shows where we're heading.

Could you provide sources for your information? As is the case in the UK and many European countries, criticism of religion is not the issue, but thinly veiled incitement to religious hatred is.

The NY Times has published several excellent articles on the topic, beginning with a book review You Can’t Say That -- ‘The Harm in Hate Speech,’ by Jeremy Waldron (I have not yet read the book). From the review: This review was followed by a long op-ed, The Harm in Free Speech and a follow-up op-ed on reader responses, Hate Speech and Free Speech, Part Two.

Much food for thought on a very complex set of issues.

Who is "we"?

You posted another sh1t stirring post before saying that you've never even been to the US, so... who is this "we" you refer to?


As RetiredInNH says though - yes, "we" are heading in a direction where more and more legal distinction is made between hate speech and regular freedom of expression. The intent of Freedom of Speech was to be able to bring complaint against government or whatever ruling entities without fear of reprisal, NOT to be able to say whatever the flip you want about anyone anytime.

Unfortunately some people simply don't know how to behave these days, it's a pity. (Then again, my views about these things reflect upon my upbringing amongst military folks. Some things you simply don't do, some things you simply don't say.)


Oh, and... I think the forum rules should have something about folks who start threads like this (this is your 2nd now, this being the first, halevai) having to reveal more of themselves than simply this crappy copout:

I haven't yet been to the States, by "we" I was referring to a democratic civilised country.

The general American attitude is "nobody is gonna tell us what to do, even our government". It's an American's idea of freedom.

If hate speech were outlawed, that would be taking away a freedom. Just like it would be taking a freedom away to own guns and lots of ammunition.

Now excuse me while I get on my trusty steed horse and ride into the beckoning red, white and blue sunset.

In that case you are behind the times. It is already a crime in most "democratic civilised countries" to incite racial tension/hatred.

Indeed, it is because they are democratic and civilised that it is a crime.

I'll repeat my question (which I am not sure you answered):

EDIT: I see that RinNH has beaten me to it... that must be because he's retired and has more time to look these things up.

Oxymoron Alert!

I think it is utterly stupid to persecute people over free speech as you are only making martyrs out of idiots, thus furthering their cause. It's the same with Holocaust denial. I'd much rather see these guys exposed and disarmed in open debate than have them circulate their theories underground where they cannot be challenged and the force with which they are supressed gives them the underdog bonus.

here is the text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, for those who may not have seen it:

"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."

of course, the founders never intended the First Amendment to restrict actions taken by local governments, which is where the whole train first got off the tracks.