Is hate speech an abuse of the 1st amendment?

@indexer (4852)
Leicester, England
February 1, 2018 4:41am CST
The photo is of Miriam Margolyes, a British actress whom many people will remember as Professor Sprout in the Harry Potter films. She recently made a short series of TV programmes about a road trip she made across the United States from north to south. She spoke to many people as she progressed, her aim being to try to work out what makes Americans tick. She is a woman of strong liberal views and she came across many people with whom she profoundly disagreed. However, the tone was always dignified and respectful on both sides. Except once. This was when an interview was arranged with a pastor in Arkansas who ran an organization called the Kingdom Identity Ministries. When he was told that Miriam was a Jewish lesbian he refused to meet her face to face, so Miriam sat in her car outside the building while her questions were relayed to the pastor via one of the film crew. It soon became clear that the pastor was an extreme white supremacist who was both racist and anti-Semitic. Miriam asked him what - given the choice - he would do with America's blacks and Jews. He said that he would deport all the blacks to Africa and the Jews would be sent to an island - he suggested Madagascar - where all the men would be castrated and the women given hysterectomies. At this point Miriam could stand it no longer and terminated the interview. She said that she was glad that she was not in the same room as the pastor because she did not know that she could have kept her temper and not thrown something heavy at the man. The thought that struck me was - how on earth can this man be allowed to say such things and peddle this desperate filth to his fellow Americans? The answer is obviously the clause in the Ist Amendment of the US Constitution that allows free speech. We allow free speech in the United Kingdom, but with limits. What we do not allow is hate speech, which can be defined as statements that seek to vilify other people on the grounds of their race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc, etc. This pastor would most definitely have fallen foul of our hate speech laws, and be sent to jail, but the US Constitution defends his right to be as vile and nasty as he likes. My question, therefore, is - is it not high time that the US Government looked long and hard at the 1st Amendment and amended it so that vile creatures such this man - and there are plenty of others - are stopped from their activities?
7 people like this
6 responses
@Plethos (13718)
• United States
1 Feb 18
after reading a lot of the replies, its evident why the u.s. broke from english rule. restricting an individuals speech is government suppressing the common man. thats how governments start to end.
1 person likes this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
1 Feb 18
If an individual spouts vile racist trash and encourages other people to follow his lead, why should the government allow him to do so? The government's job is to support the people it represents, and that means giving them every encouragement to lead peaceful lives free from oppression by people who would seek to do them harm. That is why governments - in Europe at least - outlaw hate speech which can lead to hate crime.
1 person likes this
@Plethos (13718)
• United States
1 Feb 18
@indexer - when was the last time a word physically punched you in the face? the other thing, what may sound racist to one , may not sound racist to another. are you going to fill the prisons with people because of what they said? in that case a lot of black rappers would be in jail. a lot of community leaders would be in prison. a lot of children would be in jail. europe is overly sensitive when it comes to "free" speech. without free unfiltered speech society will never be able to move away from vile speech. there will always be things that we dont approve of, speech is one of them. its how you counter it that moves us forward. in the states, here, there a re a lot of colleges/universities who are going violent because they dont want someone with a differing opinion, view to speak there. is that right? no, those places of learning are supposed to be open to educating the students of other worldly views.
1 person likes this
@Plethos (13718)
• United States
1 Feb 18
@indexer - but you must remember, hate speech by its very nature is subject to ones individual taste. no matter what a "hate speech" law says.
1 person likes this
@JohnRoberts (109841)
• Los Angeles, California
1 Feb 18
I understand what you are saying but to enact such a restriction of speech is the first step toward fascism. Who determines what is hateful? Yes, it is obvious in the case of this pastor but next week some government censor may decide anyone not agreeing with a current government is making hate speech. Remember Nazi German began with the burning of a book that led to burning of all books.
1 person likes this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
1 Feb 18
How interesting - my contention would be that it is the allowing of hate speech that leads to Fascism, and that that is exactly what happened in 1930s Germany. Hitler was not stopped from spreading his vile ideas and making inflammatory speeches, and we all know what happened as a result. As to who determines what is hate speech, we have a system in the UK that does precisely that. There are laws that define hate speech, for which the police can arrest offenders and take them to court, where the guilt or otherwise of the offender is decided. No government censor is involved.
1 person likes this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
1 Feb 18
@JohnRoberts John, there is a world of difference between people declaring their independence, saying nasty things about their British oppressors in the process, and people stating that God only has time for white Christians with all other people being condemned to Hell - because that is the creed of Kingdom Identity Ministries. By the way, the United States has produced quite a lot of tyranny of its own down the centuries!
1 person likes this
@JohnRoberts (109841)
• Los Angeles, California
1 Feb 18
@indexer By your current British definition, there would have been no American Revolution because protestors expressing displeasure with the British crown and government could be deemed hate speech and used as a weapon to squelch dissent. That's why America has the 1st Amendment to prevent tyranny which your country is well known for in its history.
1 person likes this
@Fleura (35034)
• United Kingdom
1 Feb 18
They rely on the 'right to bear arms' so that other people can terminate people they disagree with!
1 person likes this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
1 Feb 18
That's another amendment that needs looking at - but not in this discussion, please!
1 person likes this
@Plethos (13718)
• United States
1 Feb 18
no. he has the right to say what he wants, believe what he wants , no matter how wrong it is. but the thing people forget , is that we also the right to ignore what he says and respond to what he believes. any limits , small or not, is censorship.
1 person likes this
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
2 Feb 18
I suppose that this what the debate boils down to. I take the line that, when it comes to free speech, there are limits, whereas you and others say that there are not. Perhaps - given that these views directly contradict each other - that is where we should leave it!
1 person likes this
@Mike197602 (15504)
• United Kingdom
1 Feb 18
I don't think even here that what he said would be illegal. He isn't inciting racial hatred or violence he's voicing an opinion. If he called on others to take action that would be illegal. He's obviously a neo nazi as the madagasgar thing was first suggested in the 30's as a way to remove the jews from german territory...even they found it was a stupid idea and so they decided to gas them instead.
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
1 Feb 18
Mike, I would have thought that stating his wish to castrate all Jewish males would count as racial hatred anywhere. Just imagine what would happen if a British politician said that! I suggest that you check the website referred to above - he would not away with that in the UK, especially as the whole point of publishing this sort of material is precisely to stir up hatred against certain racial and religious groups. Was Abu Hamza "voicing an opinion" when he stood outside Finsbury Park mosque and encouraged his hearers to kill "kaffirs"? I don't see a lot of difference between the two.
1 person likes this
@Mike197602 (15504)
• United Kingdom
1 Feb 18
@indexer Stating his wish and inciting others to carry out said wish are different things. Abu Hamza is a bit different as he was actively trying to get people to carry out terrible acts...thats why he's currently in a US supermax jail. I'm no legal expert but I do know there is a fine line between free speech and incitement to violence. I did look at the site briefly and it is despicable.
@redurnet (1796)
• United Kingdom
1 Feb 18
Unfortunately I think these kinds of people will always exist. They get their personal power from their hate and their ignorance. They build a barrier so they can stand on one side of it and say that their position is the better one. I think hate speech should be censored on any platform as it is like tinder to people without power and without causes.
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
2 Feb 18
Thanks for your response, and your support! I seem to have had quite a battering from our friends across the Pond on this issue - which has revealed a fundamental difference between the ways Americans and Europeans view such things.
1 person likes this