Mass Shooting At Newspaper In Paris

The obscenity and incitement exceptions beg to differ.

I should say I don't agree with most limitations on freedom of speech, but let's not act like it's been absolute until this morning.

 

That's not "hate speech." There is no exception for "hate speech."

 

Not explicitly. But tell me how much hate speech couldn't conceivably fall under "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

 

Zero hate speech would fall under those exceptions.

 

There's really no distinction between broad freedom of speech and freedom of the "press."

There is no First Amendment exception for "hate speech." None. Nada. Zilch. Not a one. You could name your restaurant the "Kike Cafe" if you wanted. You could name your newspaper "The Nigger Times."

 

When James Andrews opened a hot-dog stand on this city's rough West Side, he thought he was doing a community service by hiring ex-convicts. But some in the neighborhood think the name he chose -- Felony Franks -- is a crime.

An alderman has refused Mr. Andrews permission to hang a new sign or build a drive-through lane. A pastor accused the restaurant owner, who is not an ex-convict, of "pimping out" the community. Members of a neighborhood association have vowed to stay away from Felony Franks until the name is changed and the décor -- including paintings of cartoon hot dogs in prison stripes -- is removed.
...
Felony Franks encountered friction even before it opened in July. Last year, after securing building permits from the city, Mr. Andrews visited Robert Fioretti, the alderman who represents the area around Felony Franks. "I don't like the name," Mr. Andrews recalls the alderman saying.

Mr. Andrews needed Mr. Fioretti's approval to install a sign in an empty frame that juts from the building. He estimates he could bring in 15% to 20% more revenue with more visibility from passing cars. When the sign company he had paid $1,700 told him permission had been denied, Mr. Andrews called the alderman's office. A staffer, he says, told him Mr. Fioretti wouldn't approve the sign because he didn't like "Felony Franks."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125538779820481255

 

Oh, Dick. You know the thought police are going to swarm on this post.

 

Yeah, wake me up when there's a court decision.

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to argue your point.

I was just trying to show the absurdity of the thought police, especially when we elect them to public office.

 

Ragu, you're trying to draw a distinction between freedom of the press and freedom of speech that doesn't exist.

Even if it did, the ombudsman conflated the two in the statement YF quoted and bolded and that is what I was responding to. He questioned whether an American court would find Charlie Hebdo's work to be unprotected hate speech There is no such thing. Yet he held out his credentials as some sort of first amendment scholar.