All these were done with the help of his friends.Well, lucky for him his friend Seinfeld is a Jew. If Seinfeld was black and Hollywood were run by blacks, Richards would be screwed just like Gibson is now.
Remember Mel Gibson? His one drunken tirade about Jewish people will stay with him forever.I don't know about forever, but so long as the Jews are in control of Hollywood, he is pretty much unemployable. It's obviously fine for Jews to mock others ethnicities, as is evident from Sacha Baron Cohen's success, brought together by making fun of blacks (Ali G), Arabs (General Aladeen) and Eastern Europeans (Borat). Every time his name is mentioned he will be remembered for the drunken rants. People outside hollywood pretty much don't care who runs Hollywood. All they care about is the quality of the movies.True, but it's not impossible for him to be successful, even with that hanging over his head. The movie "Apocalypto" was released after Gibson's rant, and was very successful; of course that may be because he did not appear in the film, only directed it..... still, though.
Democracy can only exist where people respect minorities. No law, guaranteeing the possibility of free speech or forbidding hate speech can teach people to be democratic.Agreed.
Somebody who thinks he is democratic and professes hate speech is a living contradiction. He is not worth to listen to.This is true in the sense of a Democracy being a system where all citizens have a say in the process.
Should we listen to fascists? Or should we even forbid them to speak?We should let everyone speak; we don't have to like what they say, IMHO.
I am sure mid atlantic respects minorities. Don't you?Yes, they're citizens with constitutional rights.
All these were done with the help of his friends.Well, lucky for him his friend Seinfeld is a Jew. If Seinfeld was black and Hollywood were run by blacks, Richards would be screwed just like Gibson is now. Lets not reduce everything down to race. There are people of all colors that are above revenge on those with small minds
Remember Mel Gibson? His one drunken tirade about Jewish people will stay with him forever.I don't know about forever, but so long as the Jews are in control of Hollywood, he is pretty much unemployable. It's obviously fine for Jews to mock others ethnicities, as is evident from Sacha Baron Cohen's success, brought together by making fun of blacks (Ali G), Arabs (General Aladeen) and Eastern Europeans (Borat). Every time his name is mentioned he will be remembered for the drunken rants. People outside hollywood pretty much don't care who runs Hollywood. All they care about is the quality of the movies.True, but it's not impossible for him to be successful, even with that hanging over his head. The movie "Apocalypto" was released after Gibson's rant, and was very successful; of course that may be because he did not appear in the film, only directed it..... still, though. Yes, but look at his history in films dating back the The Mad Max days. He is a marketable person in the eyes of the entertainment industry. Profit can make a world of difference in a world built, not on ethics but capitalism.
Remember Mel Gibson? His one drunken tirade about Jewish people will stay with him forever.I don't know about forever, but so long as the Jews are in control of Hollywood, he is pretty much unemployable. It's obviously fine for Jews to mock others ethnicities, as is evident from Sacha Baron Cohen's success, brought together by making fun of blacks (Ali G), Arabs (General Aladeen) and Eastern Europeans (Borat). Every time his name is mentioned he will be remembered for the drunken rants. People outside hollywood pretty much don't care who runs Hollywood. All they care about is the quality of the movies. I doubt that. What they care about is what is spectacular, exciting, scary, loud, often vomit-inducing. It seems to me that any movie considered "quality" is guaranteed to be a box office bust. Lois
George,
Once again you have demonstrated your deep-seated racism couched as sociological observation. “Jews run Hollywood” isn’t that far off from “international Zionist conspiracy for world domination,” and it’s equally ridiculous. Of course you will likely say that the relative proprotion of Jewish Americans in the film industry is higher than in the genral population, which might very well be true. But the implication that anti-semitism like that expressed by Mel Gibson is somehow only denounced because of this, and that other kinds of racism are tolerated, blithely glosses over the fact that such bigoted behavior deserves to be denounced by everyone, Jewish or not. That you seem less bothered by anti-semitism than by the purported domination of the film industry by Jews says nothing good about your own racial attitudes. Not that this is surprising given the more and more blatant racism you have expressed over the years here.
I’m not going to bother digging up the research, but as I recall, George, a study a few years ago found that the number of Jews in top positions, financial and controlling, in the entertainment industry, especially Hollywood, has shrunk greatly, and they no longer have much say. I think Mel Gibson sank his own career by a number of asshole things he did including his attacks on a variety of people, Jews being only one. The studios are only interested in profit, not people’s opinions, and Gibson developed enough of a negative reputation to a great many movie goers that the studios felt he would decrease viewership greatly if used in any movie.
Occam
If the theater has large enough exit doors and there are few enough people so that no one would be harmed, then would it be constitutionally legal to call "fire" in the theater?The implication of the famous phrase "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" relies on the fact that theaters are dark with lots of people, narrow aisles and only a few exits which cause a funnel effect during the exiting process and the fear of a fire would likely cause panic. In your scenario, the person doing the yelling is similar to a person pointing a gun they think is loaded (but really isn't) at another person and pulling the trigger. Just because no danger exists in reality, the person doesn't know that. The intent is there in both cases.
I didn't see anything in the Constitution limiting Freedom of Speech when children are present. Which Amendment does this? And, if you don't consider "hate speech" to be limited by the First Amendment, would it be acceptable for someone to engage in that when children are present?The Constitution was written by adults for adults. It's a given that children are different than adults. The Framers would never stop vomiting if they thought their descendants would see children and adults as the exact same across the board. I draw a clear distinction between children and adults. That's why I use the benchmark "Consenting Adults" when deciding on the morality of something. But I'm willing to listen to differing opinions on this topic, and thus, I do see where you are coming from. It all depends on if it takes place in public or private and on the child's parent's or guardian's desires on whether or not the child should be subjected to whatever form of speech is occurring. At this point it starts to become so subjective that broad proclamations can't be made. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, "I know it when I hear it." :-)
I think it depends on the platform. If it is a private group on their own property (such as a church teaching what ever they want), I feel they have that right, whether I agree with it or it is popular is none of my business. If you’re in the public square and you’re shouting degrading terms at people such as calling them “Fags,” I think that should be some sort of violation, or disorderly conduct. Also, bullying in the school system I think should come under the harassment umbrella…you wouldn’t be expected to report to work or any other public facility and receive unsolicited degradation (not that solicited degradation occurs). I think it all should come down to location such as public vs private property/organizations.
Democracy can only exist where people respect minorities. No law, guaranteeing the possibility of free speech or forbidding hate speech can teach people to be democratic.Agreed.
Somebody who thinks he is democratic and professes hate speech is a living contradiction. He is not worth to listen to.This is true in the sense of a Democracy being a system where all citizens have a say in the process.
Should we listen to fascists? Or should we even forbid them to speak?We should let everyone speak; we don't have to like what they say, IMHO.
I am sure mid atlantic respects minorities. Don't you?Yes, they're citizens with constitutional rights. There may sometimes be a difference between how different nations may understand certain constitutional rights. Take the quote below for example: while all EU Member States have legislation outlawing hate speech, a majority of EU countries have long considered that the fundamental right to freedom of expression inter alia precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se. http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.pdf page 2-3 Now these laws is to prevent any harm from befalling Jewish citizens (which seems to be quite reasonable) But what is hate speech may vary from place to place. For example; holocaust denail is not a crime in the US. In the United States, where the First Amendment to the Constitution ensures freedom of speech, it is not against the law to deny the Holocaust or to propagate Nazi and antisemitic hate speech. European countries such as Germany and France have criminalized denial of the Holocaust and have banned Nazi and neo-Nazi publications. The Internet is now the chief source of Holocaust denial and the chief means of recruiting for Holocaust denial organizations. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007272 So what is the proper way of knowing which speech is allowed and which isn’t? Not just for Jews, but for everyone?
Democracy can only exist where people respect minorities. No law, guaranteeing the possibility of free speech or forbidding hate speech can teach people to be democratic.Agreed.
Somebody who thinks he is democratic and professes hate speech is a living contradiction. He is not worth to listen to.This is true in the sense of a Democracy being a system where all citizens have a say in the process.
Should we listen to fascists? Or should we even forbid them to speak?We should let everyone speak; we don't have to like what they say, IMHO.
I am sure mid atlantic respects minorities. Don't you?Yes, they're citizens with constitutional rights. There may sometimes be a difference between how different nations may understand certain constitutional rights. Take the quote below for example: while all EU Member States have legislation outlawing hate speech, a majority of EU countries have long considered that the fundamental right to freedom of expression inter alia precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se. http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.pdf page 2-3 Now these laws is to prevent any harm from befalling Jewish citizens (which seems to be quite reasonable) But what is hate speech may vary from place to place. For example; holocaust denail is not a crime in the US. In the United States, where the First Amendment to the Constitution ensures freedom of speech, it is not against the law to deny the Holocaust or to propagate Nazi and antisemitic hate speech. European countries such as Germany and France have criminalized denial of the Holocaust and have banned Nazi and neo-Nazi publications. The Internet is now the chief source of Holocaust denial and the chief means of recruiting for Holocaust denial organizations. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007272 So what is the proper way of knowing which speech is allowed and which isn’t? Not just for Jews, but for everyone?There is no proper way, if I understand you correctly. Free speech is free speech.
If the theater has large enough exit doors and there are few enough people so that no one would be harmed, then would it be constitutionally legal to call "fire" in the theater?The implication of the famous phrase "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" relies on the fact that theaters are dark with lots of people, narrow aisles and only a few exits which cause a funnel effect during the exiting process and the fear of a fire would likely cause panic. In your scenario, the person doing the yelling is similar to a person pointing a gun they think is loaded (but really isn't) at another person and pulling the trigger. Just because no danger exists in reality, the person doesn't know that. The intent is there in both cases.
I didn't see anything in the Constitution limiting Freedom of Speech when children are present. Which Amendment does this? And, if you don't consider "hate speech" to be limited by the First Amendment, would it be acceptable for someone to engage in that when children are present?The Constitution was written by adults for adults. It's a given that children are different than adults. The Framers would never stop vomiting if they thought their descendants would see children and adults as the exact same across the board. I draw a clear distinction between children and adults. That's why I use the benchmark "Consenting Adults" when deciding on the morality of something. But I'm willing to listen to differing opinions on this topic, and thus, I do see where you are coming from. It all depends on if it takes place in public or private and on the child's parent's or guardian's desires on whether or not the child should be subjected to whatever form of speech is occurring. At this point it starts to become so subjective that broad proclamations can't be made. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, "I know it when I hear it." :-) At what moment do children become adults?
Democracy can only exist where people respect minorities. No law, guaranteeing the possibility of free speech or forbidding hate speech can teach people to be democratic.Agreed.
Somebody who thinks he is democratic and professes hate speech is a living contradiction. He is not worth to listen to.This is true in the sense of a Democracy being a system where all citizens have a say in the process.
Should we listen to fascists? Or should we even forbid them to speak?We should let everyone speak; we don't have to like what they say, IMHO.
I am sure mid atlantic respects minorities. Don't you?Yes, they're citizens with constitutional rights. There may sometimes be a difference between how different nations may understand certain constitutional rights. Take the quote below for example: while all EU Member States have legislation outlawing hate speech, a majority of EU countries have long considered that the fundamental right to freedom of expression inter alia precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se. http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.pdf page 2-3 Now these laws is to prevent any harm from befalling Jewish citizens (which seems to be quite reasonable) But what is hate speech may vary from place to place. For example; holocaust denail is not a crime in the US. In the United States, where the First Amendment to the Constitution ensures freedom of speech, it is not against the law to deny the Holocaust or to propagate Nazi and antisemitic hate speech. European countries such as Germany and France have criminalized denial of the Holocaust and have banned Nazi and neo-Nazi publications. The Internet is now the chief source of Holocaust denial and the chief means of recruiting for Holocaust denial organizations. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007272 So what is the proper way of knowing which speech is allowed and which isn’t? Not just for Jews, but for everyone?There is no proper way, if I understand you correctly. Free speech is free speech. Then there is no country which practices free speech. Every country has laws against ratting out government / military secrets. What is the limit to what speech should be allowed and which shouldn't be. For example (this kind of surprised me) Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their way of thinking. Blasphemy... had been a very serious offense in the colonial period.... Thomas Jefferson Chandler...was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this...was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes... it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 So, in the days of our Founding Fathers, it was considered "against the public order" (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy. Now one may be able to argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore. But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similar
Then there is no country which practices free speech. Every country has laws against ratting out government / military secrets. What is the limit to what speech should be allowed and which shouldn't be.To be precise, a person who has access to government/military secrets has to have some type of security clearance, and that comes with the understanding that you waive certain rights. You're correct in that sense, there isn't total free speech.
For example (this kind of surprised me) Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their way of thinking. Blasphemy... had been a very serious offense in the colonial period.... Thomas Jefferson Chandler...was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this...was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes... it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 So, in the days of our Founding Fathers, it was considered "against the public order" (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy. Now one may be able to argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore. But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similarWell, the Chandler case was after the founding fathers' day; that is messed up though. As I understand it, states rights cannot supercede the supreme court, judge Clayton got very lucky.
Then there is no country which practices free speech. Every country has laws against ratting out government / military secrets. What is the limit to what speech should be allowed and which shouldn't be.To be precise, a person who has access to government/military secrets has to have some type of security clearance, and that comes with the understanding that you waive certain rights. You're correct in that sense, there isn't total free speech.
For example (this kind of surprised me) Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their way of thinking. Blasphemy... had been a very serious offense in the colonial period.... Thomas Jefferson Chandler...was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this...was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes... it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 So, in the days of our Founding Fathers, it was considered "against the public order" (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy. Now one may be able to argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore. But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similarWell, the Chandler case was after the founding fathers' day; that is messed up though. As I understand it, states rights cannot supercede the supreme court, judge Clayton got very lucky. I would have to disagree blasphemy statues did not disappear after the revolution. They survived the disestablishment of churches and remained on the books in many states throughout the nineteenth century. Few people, apparently, saw any conflict between these laws and the Bill of rights, or freedom of religion. Total justice, By Lawrence Meir Friedman (Standford Law School), Page 114] But again, one can argue that this may not be the ideal case in the US anymore. (I am not arguing if that argument is correct or not, just saying it is a good point) If that is case, what is the universal case of what speech should be allowed and forbidden.
Then there is no country which practices free speech. Every country has laws against ratting out government / military secrets. What is the limit to what speech should be allowed and which shouldn't be.To be precise, a person who has access to government/military secrets has to have some type of security clearance, and that comes with the understanding that you waive certain rights. You're correct in that sense, there isn't total free speech.
For example (this kind of surprised me) Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their way of thinking. Blasphemy... had been a very serious offense in the colonial period.... Thomas Jefferson Chandler...was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this...was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes... it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 So, in the days of our Founding Fathers, it was considered "against the public order" (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy. Now one may be able to argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore. But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similarWell, the Chandler case was after the founding fathers' day; that is messed up though. As I understand it, states rights cannot supercede the supreme court, judge Clayton got very lucky. I would have to disagree blasphemy statues did not disappear after the revolution. They survived the disestablishment of churches and remained on the books in many states throughout the nineteenth century. Few people, apparently, saw any conflict between these laws and the Bill of rights, or freedom of religion. Total justice, By Lawrence Meir Friedman (Standford Law School), Page 114] But again, one can argue that this may not be the ideal case in the US anymore. (I am not arguing if that argument is correct or not, just saying it is a good point) If that is case, what is the universal case of what speech should be allowed and forbidden. There is no universal case, but if you mean universal in the "American" sense, all speech - controversial or not, should be allowed in the US.
The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection. Hating something or someone is not a crime.excellent point - nice post. People forget that it is not a crime to hate. I don't know about others on here but I want to know what people think even if I find it abhorrent. Farrakhan is a perfect example.
There is one thing more dangerous to a population than free speech–restrictions on free speech.
Lois
Free Speech is becoming overrated.
Free speech has without a doubt allowed propaganda organs to arise in the US
that have had a definite impact on the intelligence level of voters.
So while some of you may complain out of one side of your mouth about the social-political situation we have found ourselves in
and then hail Free speech as a blessing out of the other side of your mouth…
Please don’t bother retorting about the sacred sacrament of Amendment #1. Hoky Fiddle Faddle!
There’s dozen upon dozens of other nations with various iterations of law and speech protections
with speech being protected in varying degrees.
Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets.
Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate. But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive
populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show.
In order to maintain that “theater” peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon.
This is how you end up with a nation of seemingly vibrant, cultured, innovative people who somehow
live in parallel with the most incarcerated people per capita
and the biggest War/Killing machine the world has ever known, that absorbs half of the national treasury.
How’s that free speech working out for ya’ll!?!?