Here & Now: Why Hate Speech Is Protected Under The Law…


Date: February 21, 2017

01) Why Hate Speech Is Protected Under The Law

02) Direct Download [MP3]

“Right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopolous has come under fire on college campuses and elsewhere for expressing views that some call hate speech.

Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson speaks with Santa Clara University law professor Margaret Russell about what the legal rules on hate speech are.

On if there’s a legal definition of hate speech

“There actually is not, and that may be surprising. However, the Supreme Court has actually taken a number of interesting cases in which it has looked at laws that have tried to define hate speech or otherwise curtail it by limiting it in other categories.”

“The basic principle that the Supreme Court has wrestled with under the Free Speech Clause is the principle of not punishing speech because of its message or its viewpoint. That in itself is a violation of the principles of the Constitution. But, for example, in certain areas like obscenity or child pornography or incitement to violence, the Court has made exceptions based on the dangers that those impose. Hate speech has not been considered to be part of those any of those categories in and of itself. … Under the First Amendment, you really have to have another law regulating conduct that’s broken. So, you know, if you are beating somebody up, obviously you can be charged with a hate crime if you’re doing that with the intention of targeting them because of their race. But if you’re walking beside that person on the sidewalk with a sign or handing out flyers that reflect hatred toward that race, that is protected.”

It seems Milo expressed some politically incorrect opinions on teenagers and adults having sexual relations, while he was on “The Drunken Peasants” podcast…and those of fragile mind soiled themselves…en mass.

8 thoughts on “Here & Now: Why Hate Speech Is Protected Under The Law…

  1. eqfoundation Post author

    “But, for example, in certain areas like obscenity or child pornography or incitement to violence, the Court has made exceptions based on the dangers that those impose.

    As relates to danger imposed by child pornography…Of course, it should not go without noting, that this statement and the sentiment behind it are bullshit.

    Reality is…the supreme court has no balls, and no integrity. It’s as plain and simple as that.

    Reply
  2. Order

    “”””This week, footage of a year-old podcast was unearthed, where Mr Yiannopoulos appears to condone paedophilia.
    He said relationships between “younger boys” and older men could be a “coming-of-age relationship … in which those older men help those younger boys discover who they are”.
    Mr Yiannopoulos has denied the allegations on his Facebook page, blaming the way the clips were edited and his own “sloppy phrasing” for any indication he supported paedophilia. “It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst,” he said.”””””

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39026870

    But what a piece of coward shit that his this ultraconservative or “alt-righter” pedocrite (a “pedophile” who attacks others in order of deny their own “pedophilia”). He is only another megalomaniac in seek of power. Is it a right to hate those who hate you, or not? Love and hate for the one who deserves it.

    Reply
  3. eqfoundation Post author

    Thank you for that link, Order. 🙂

    It can be deciphered pretty clearly from the clip used in the “here & now” segment, that Milo was trying to make a distinction, distancing hebephiles and ephebophiles from pedophiles.

    “Milo supporting pedophilia”, is an accusation made by people who don’t understand the distinctions, in these orientations.

    Milo is a self confessed troll…Sometimes I appreciate the points he’s trying to make…and sometimes, yes…he’s a numbskull.

    I don’t know if he’s actually a pedophile or not…but, like you…I think, given his own past, he should know better than to wipe his feet on pedophiles.

    Reply
  4. Pingback: Milo on The Drunken Peasants… | Our Love Frontier

  5. feinmann0

    http://steigan.no/2017/02/22/freedom-of-speech-under-attack-where-are-the-reactions/

    “A massive campaign to reduce freedom of speech is conducted all over Europe. It started out under the pretext of fighting “hate speech” on the Internet. In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s election defeat in the U.S., the concept of “fake news” has come into fashion, and is now being used as the main excuse to reduce freedom of speech. This isn’t merely a political campaign. The EU has passed radical guidelines and in several countries there are now draft legislations to introduce extensive fines and even imprisonment for statements. Europe hasn’t faced such grave threats against democracy since the days of fascism – but where are the reactions?”

    Reply
    1. eqfoundation Post author

      The effective closing of Newgon, was directly due to U.K. laws criminalizing speech.

      It’s precisely because of things like this, that I am dead set against giving up U.S. control of the internet, to some multinational agency.

      As crap as the U.S. is…they still cannot constitutionally ratify laws of that nature…which leaves them the most fit to maintain the internet.

      Reply
  6. feinmann0

    For reader’s information … newgon.net/wiki/main_page: “This site is an archive. Registration and logging in has been disabled. If you are or were a (co-)owner of this website, or you just need to contact technical support, mail to: hostmaster newgon net. Somebody is still listening there.”

    Does the US control the internet? I understood the management of it was a global initiative: http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/who-makes-it-work: “Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) help coordinate and implement open standards.”

    However, I stand to be corrected.

    Reply
    1. eqfoundation Post author

      Well…I know it’s been in the news, in the last few years, that the more restrictive countries [like the ones that filter content, before it reaches their population], have wanted a more direct control over what is allowed online.

      I don’t have an article I can point to…But I recall it coming from a credible enough source.

      Reply

Tell Us What You Think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.