Civil liberties (aka the first 10 amendments)

[Kathandira]

So in my Poli Sci - American Government class we are on the part about civil liberties and specifically the first 10 amendments. For our discussion post we had to explain if they treat us all equal in front of the law or if certain amendments were more beneficial to one class or group more. Then we had to explain why we felt that way. This is what I had to say:



So question to you guys, do you think that the first 10 amendments? Do you feel that some/all favor one group/class of people more than another group/class?

Your paper sound like a Forum post rather than an Academic paper. I guess it is good that this is not a literature class assignment. It reads more like a rant than an analysis.

That said, I agree with what you are saying, however it doesn't come from a non-biased perspective. It focuses on the popular stories of these grievances, but doesn't do anything to talk about how these amendments can be used by those who are shown as victims in your write up. For example, the religious freedom amendment. Yes, Christians can deny people housing based on their beliefs, but would you also agree that a Muslim owner could also deny the same people housing for the same reasons? Or even an Atheist being able to deny anyone of any religion a place to live as it conflicts with their religious beliefs?

[Deleted]

By that token, Europe doesn't have hate speech laws either.

See, you're trying to throw in a media buzzword into a legal arena. That usually ends up in misunderstandings and endless discussions about what words mean.

We can do whatever this side of the Ocean.
Their highest court has repeatedly ruled that criminalizing hate speech violates the amendment. In their context, it's not a thing that carries any legal weight whatsoever.
OP introduced the term and they're wrong about the terminology.

[Endus]

Which is precisely why obscenity laws need to be scrutinized. For example some modest people take moral offense to pornography. Doesn't mean it should be legal grounds for censoring porn.

And yet, you can't broadcast pornography on basic cable during prime time. Not even softcore. You'd get fined up the wazoo.

Hate speech everywhere is related to incitement.

As I said, the US simply has a very strict legal test for that incitement - it has to be directed at an individual, be "provocative" and "without societal value" (note complete subjectivity there). You refer to this as the "fighting words" exception to freedom of speech. Comical, isn't it?

The USA is in a frankly weird position where it's A-OK to lead a parade chanting "KILL ALL JEWS" while waving AR-15s around, but if they started chanting "KILL THAT ONE JEW OVER THERE", it's suddenly a problem, even though the first statement implicitly includes the latter.

[Deleted]

The USA is in a frankly weird position where it's A-OK to lead a parade chanting "KILL ALL JEWS" while waving AR-15s around, but if they started chanting "KILL THAT ONE JEW OVER THERE", it's suddenly a problem, even though the first statement implicitly includes the latter.

It doesn't necessarily include it: symbolic speech is a thing.
Context matters. It is hateful either way, but one pointing at a demographic rarely incites the action it demands (let alone imminent action).
Same goes for "the only good cop is a dead cop" kind of rhetoric, or "X brand of politicians should be publicly hang" which is important to protect, regardless of how hateful it is. Whereas demanding we kill this or that person is not protected.

In essence: not weird at all. Concluding that symbolic speech over a demographic implies action over the individuals is abandoning context, often seeking any egregious assault on liberties.

[Felya]

And yet, you can't broadcast pornography on basic cable during prime time. Not even softcore. You'd get fined up the wazoo.

The USA is in a frankly weird position where it's A-OK to lead a parade chanting "KILL ALL JEWS" while waving AR-15s around, but if they started chanting "KILL THAT ONE JEW OVER THERE", it's suddenly a problem, even though the first statement implicitly includes the latter.

They were not chanting that. Chanting either of those is a problem. They chant ‘blood and soil’, ‘Jews will not replace us’ because those are ‘peaceful ethnic cleansing’ enough for people not to bother thinking what it actually means.

[Cthulhu 2020]

By law they are applied the same regardless of your identity traits.

Hate speech is free speech because the only alternative is to ban speech based on subjective feelings. Which is the polar opposite of having a rigorous objective metric

"By the law" they are applied equally, but within courts and within society, they are not. Words on paper are translated by real people with biases.

[Nellise]

And yet, you can't broadcast pornography on basic cable during prime time. Not even softcore. You'd get fined up the wazoo.

I don't believe that's true of basic cable, they don't have to follow the FCC rules that broadcast networks do. They mostly follow the same rules because of advertisers. But for instance Syfy and FX now let "fuck" be uncensored in some shows and have some nudity.

[Citizen T]

Couching gender discussion within a civil liberties discussion is still gender discussion. closing now...