Rush Limbaugh's statements about Sandra Fluke

CountryPumpkin · 2012-03-05 17:57:27

On the other hand, something like Schneck v. United States or the Espionage Act of 1917 demonstrates that limiting the freedom of speech based on the grounds of "it hurts feelings" is bad. Not that telling people not to sign is on the same level as hate speech, but that it demonstrates the ability of the government to censor speech based on the idea of protecting the country. Of course speech that intentionally demonizes a group of people should be punished, but I doubt that it could be outlawed outright.

Something like what Rush Limbaugh said is clearly in the wrong for a number of reasons, but I would far rather have freedom of speech that includes hate speech (excluding any calls to action in the hate speech, of course) than no freedom of speech at all. The balance is tricky.

All Nines · 2012-03-05 18:03:00

The balance is tricky.

Pretty much.

Crimson · 2012-03-05 18:08:06

Something like what Rush Limbaugh said is clearly in the wrong for a number of reasons, but I would far rather have freedom of speech that includes hate speech (excluding any calls to action in the hate speech, of course) than no freedom of speech at all. The balance is tricky.

Agreed. Rush getting publically criticized/ridiculed (more that usual) and advertising pulled is an acceptable consequence. Though I wouldn't mind if Sandra Fluke decided to sue for slander.

CountryPumpkin · 2012-03-05 18:18:30

Believe me, I wouldn't mind it either.

RedEyedAbyss · 2012-03-05 18:19:06

Ostracism can be an effective hate speech deterrent, but then what do you do about the people around to reinforce hate speech?

IanExMachina · 2012-03-05 19:21:01

Just for informed debate I'll post the UK hate speech laws:

In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Part 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Part 4A states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

An important part about the limits of hate speech regarding religion:

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."
The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

Sexual Orientation:

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation.

All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts:

the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.

So yeah probably Limbaugh would be violating the law under the alarm and distress part.

RedEyedAbyss · 2012-03-05 19:26:48

"In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:"

So how does the BNP manage to get so many votes?

randomtropeloser · 2012-03-05 19:27:20

Id have been much more forgiving if he hadn't spun his most recent apology into yet another attack on his perceived opponents, the "left."

IanExMachina · 2012-03-05 19:31:02

^^
'They don't hate black people they just love Britain and want it to be British!'
Officially anyhow, individuals would still be done for hate speech if there was proof of it.

Scythemantis · 2012-03-05 19:49:45

I'd rather live in a totalitarian world where I risk my own beliefs being criminalized than a world where people like Limbaugh, the Ku Klux and Westboro Baptist can't be executed for their statements. Their beliefs are exactly as evil as actually committing murder, which they would do if they thought they could get away with it (and in some cases, they have)

RedEyedAbyss · 2012-03-05 20:09:51

"I'd rather live in a totalitarian world where I risk my own beliefs being criminalized"

How about taking a Holiday in Cambodia?

CountryPumpkin · 2012-03-05 20:17:02

Well if efficiency and progress are ours once more, I'm gonna kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight.

All Nines · 2012-03-05 20:20:05

a world where people like Limbaugh, the Ku Klux and Westboro Baptist can't be executed for their statements.

Uh . . .

Their beliefs are exactly as evil as actually committing murder

Uhhhhh . . . . .

RedEyedAbyss · 2012-03-05 20:21:26

^^Ssh, you might give David Cameron ideas. Oh, wait.

IanExMachina · 2012-03-05 20:38:22

^
Exactly. He's already doing that, but subtly.

CountryPumpkin · 2012-03-05 20:59:25

I'd rather live in a totalitarian world where I risk my own beliefs being criminalized than a world where people like Limbaugh, the Ku Klux and Westboro Baptist can't be executed for their statements. Their beliefs are exactly as evil as actually committing murder, which they would do if they thought they could get away with it (and in some cases, they have)

Hey dude, how about you don't say things like this, okay? I mean, I'm an economically and socially inconsistent libertarian socialist Choskybot and even I understand the difference between some guys holding up signs saying "God loved 9/11" and some people murdering a gay teen.

Alkthash · 2012-03-05 21:08:20

Their beliefs are exactly as evil as actually committing murder

CountryPumpkin · 2012-03-05 21:14:51

He is a fucking criminal and a monster.

As a person who had his username changed to reflect his opinion of the man, I can safely say that he has never done anything explicitly illegal regarding speech. Despicable, yes, and his drug use is illegal, but nothing in a combination of "clearly against the law" and "things he said."

Scythemantis · 2012-03-05 22:02:56

^^Why don't you and some of the other weenies here make a real argument instead of quoting memes?

These are people who live by pure hatred and malice. If they could press a button to send gays and liberals to hell, they would. Fuck them, and fuck anybody who defends their right to verbally and psychologically abuse the world with their filthy and despicable thoughts.

Uhhhhh . . . . .

"Uhhhhh" what? You're not going to tell me that it's somehow contradictory to call murder evil and support the execution of evil people, are you? Because I can't imagine any intelligent person thinking something so positively insane.

Forzare · 2012-03-05 22:04:11

I agree that people who do stuff like this all the time are wastes of space, but this is hilariously over the top.

ClockworkUniverse · 2012-03-05 22:05:29

"Uhhhhh" what? Murder is evil.

I don't think he was claiming it wasn't, but rather replying to your claim that murder and being a douchebag on the radio are exactly equivalent.

All Nines · 2012-03-05 22:10:05

"Uhhhhh" what? You're not going to tell me that it's somehow contradictory to call murder evil and support the execution of evil people, are you? Because I can't imagine any intelligent person thinking something so positively insane.

lolwat

You know what? Nah, I'm not going to bother. I can't take this kind of rhetoric seriously.

Scythemantis · 2012-03-05 22:10:07

Over the top is the only emotionally satisfying way to react to hate.

ClockworkUniverse · 2012-03-05 22:11:03

Emotionally satisfying =/= remotely reasonable.

Forzare · 2012-03-05 22:11:51

It's also pretty much the least productive reaction to hate.

And makes you come off as kind of a jackass.

All Nines · 2012-03-05 22:15:03

If he can't contain himself when he gets into debates, he can take some time to cool down.

Scythemantis · 2012-03-05 22:15:21

^^^^What can't you take seriously? Justice? Remorseless killers, rapists, abusers and perpetrators of hate just have to go. They're not going to stop. We kill animals over less.

I'd say "an eye for an eye," but that implies two equivalent actions. Killing an innocent person and killing their killer are not equal.

Alkthash · 2012-03-05 22:15:40

^^Why don't you and some of the other weenies here make a real argument instead of quoting memes?

Because arguing with that kind of statement is like banging your head against the wall. But I'll give it a shot. Actually murdering or hurting people is not remotely equivalent to hating somebody. Because if it is just in their head and they never act on it, whatever they believe is pretty harmless. It's only when the person actually goes out with intent to cause harm that you can start reasonably calling their actions evil. Just thinking about it is just thinking about it. You can't punish people for things they haven't acted on.

Forzare · 2012-03-05 22:16:58

It's not the difference between killing an innocent person and killing their killer here, it's the difference between killing an innocent person and killing an innocent person who's also a dick.

ClockworkUniverse · 2012-03-05 22:17:12

Crake, thanks for quoting that. I'd just monthbanned him, but I'd missed that, so that's probably changing into a permaban.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Rush Limbaugh's statements about Sandra Fluke

Comments