I do believe it's time for FCC restrictions,...restrictions on hate.

[Just Me]

Janet's breast isn't hate.

Sponge Bob isn't hate.

A word (shit, fuck, damn) isn't hate.

What O'Reilly and Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh et al spread is hate. They spread hatred against fellow Americans!!!! It's bad enough they spread hate against people outside this nation. But, they advance hatred within our own borders: HATE of dissidents, HATE of "liberals", HATE of non-Christians, HATE of Democrats, HATE of truth-bearers, HATE of soldiers who don't toe-the-line, HATE of inquisitive minds, HATE of compassionate advocates for human rights, HATE of those fighting for civil rights, HATE for the poor and disenchanted and sensitive, HATE HATE HATE!!!!

These people are making a living from spreading HATE!!!

They should be restricted. Yes. I do believe hate-profiteering should have strict limits.

[bluestateguy]

1. Do you really trust the current people in power

with the right to make those determininations about what constitutes "hate"? I don't. They would get rid of this website, daily kos and Air America radio.

[eallen]

2. So they win? They take our freedom?

[Just Me]

4. What do you mean? Is freedom to hate by a few more important than,...

,...the freedom to exist without hate?

What "freedom" do you embrace? Does human freedom weigh more than the freedom to hate fellow human beings?

On edit: I do believe no human being can be truly free unless protected from hatred. I'd rather protect a person's freedom from hatred that person's freedom to express hatred.

[Eric J in MN]

14. People don't have a right to be free from hearing hate.

There are plenty of upsetting things in life, but we shouldn't ditch the ideal of freedom of speech.

[Just Me]

25. Why not? Who made that rule? Why can't people be free from hate?

How is the freedom to speak encumbered by some limits about hatred?

Do you assume that human beings cannot freely communicate their ideas absent hate?

:shrug:

[tx_dem41]

30. Isn't a female comedian telling a joke about men hate speech?

How about a blonde joke?

[Just Me]

37. Is she profiteering by inciting hatred against others?

Is she inciting hatred?

Compare her to the right-wing hate machine that is profiteering from others' anger and desperation.

Where she is breaking the ice,...they are creating pure, dark, cold hatred.

There's a difference.

If you can't see it,...I am lost as to how to pull you into reality.

[tx_dem41]

39. No, you're right I don't see it. I thought you were for banning

HATE speech. I now see you are as opportunistic as those you are attacking.

[Just Me]

46. Well, I am glad you are feeling so much better.

Good night.

[Eric J in MN]

59. Yes. People who feel hate can't freely communicate their

ideas absent hate.

[forgethell]

42. Well, none

of us are entitled to protection from being offended. Violence is a different matter.

But, if this power belongs to the government, who gets to decide how to define "hate". a case could be made the progressives hate white people, Christians, America. In fact, it is made all the time. Do you want the people that think that to have the power to restrict "hate"? Because I sure don't.

Just like the Supreme Court, we would use this power to do good. but like the Supreme Court it could be taken over by the forces of Mordor.

[eallen]

60. Hate cannot be outlawed, only its expression. And that, not in the US.

Personally, I'm quite fond of the first amendment. The only politicians now who are seriously considering its rollback are the conservatives, such as Clarence Thomas, who advocate its disincorporation. That would return us to the days prior to the 14th amendment, when the states could regulate speech. They could ban hate speech. Or blasphemy. Are you sure certain you want the legislators to have such power?

[fooj]

3. I think you've got a valid point, Just Me.

I believe that people behave the way they are allowed to behave. It's time to stand up and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Peace!

[Just Me]

8. Thanks. I'm just tired of persecution by persecutors who advance hatred.

I want warriors for tolerance, inclusiveness, progression and hope in humanity.

[forgethell]

45. Just Me

was talking about speech, the free exchange of ideas, not behavior.

[fooj]

55. Isn't the free exchange of speech a certain type of behavior?

[Eric J in MN]

57. Yes, all speech is behavior, but it's a behavior people

have been trying to keep free for hundreds of years.

[forgethell]

63. No one

is entitled not to be offended. We believe that as progressives, and have used the right to offend vigourously in pursuit of out goals. Check out the 60s where a deliberate attempt was made to offend the middle-classes.

so we can hardly complain if they have returned the favor. so long as there is no incitement to violence, let 'em say what they want. Otherwise, well, the worm can always turn. Fre speech has always been a two-edged sword, but overall it has benefited progressives more than it has harmed them. It would be risky to tamper with it just for temporary political advantage.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. To be honest, I've started to question how far freedom of speech goes.

It's sad, but the fact is that nearly every country that is moving in a progressive way has some restrictions on hate speech.

The only "free" country that doesn't seems to be the US and we are moving backwards while the rest of the world is moving forward on the issues of equality and human rights and education.

I think it's a worthy debate.

[Just Me]

10. If we can't be protected from hatred,...how can we possibly be "free"?

What's really weird is,...Eminem doesn't spread hatred like the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world. Eminem DESCRIBES what exists. Coulter and Limbaugh CREATE hatred.

It's weird.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. So... it's not so much the spread of democracy, as it is the forced

projection of an ideology. Look at the pot calling the kettle black. Extremists here, extremists there, extremists everywhere. I am more afraid of the extremists here, since they are working on tactical nukes and have enough stuff to probably wipe the entire galaxy in addition to the entire planet... crap, now I'm scared again. Damn.

If we could get the world's "leaders" to all do some acid under a group of rather large oak trees on a starry night in the middle of summer, during a meteor shower, and perhaps a lunar eclipse, I think much of our world problems would dimish by several orders of magnitude... then again, they might not. 'Twould be nice though if it happened. Can't hurt to dream...

[Just Me]

13. That would be too much,...forcing all world leaders to "camp",...

,...force them to strip off their illusions and actually visit reality and the earth and our people,...for just a little while,...under a piece of cloth for shelter.

[New Democrat]

7. Hell no

It is not the role of the government to ban "hate speech." If you dont like what O'reilly, or Hannity or Coulter are saying, then don't watch Fox News. Some people may actually want to watch that, and who are you to tell them they can't? Hell for all I care, the KKK can start a channel if they want.


Remember when the government starts banning hate speech, it wont be long before they start calling your opinions "hate speech."

[Stirk]

9. I'd rather see a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine,

with the FCC's regulatory powers extended to cable news.

They can hate all they like- but have someone there to point out when they're lying.

[Just Me]

15. That would be, in effect, a ban on hate speech, wouldn't it. eom

[Stirk]

21. I'm not sure I take your meaning.

A ban on hate speech suggests a degree of suppression. I'd rather see media outlets be required to offer some degree of balance.

Limbaugh can still get on the radio and blame 9-11 on the godless libruls, as far as I'm concerned. He can spew all the hate he likes. But there should be time for rebuttal.

[Just Me]

31. No. The "fairness doctrine" would preclude the hatred Rush spews,...

,...because the basis upon which he spews hatred has no fairness involved, whatsoever.

The "fairness doctrine" imposes a commitment to fact and an absence of partiality. The right-wingers would suffer quick death by a "fairness doctrine".

[Stirk]

32. Oh ok- yes I agree.

[tx_dem41]

35. The fairness doctrine imposes NO committment to fact nor an

absence of partiality. It just imposes that two very partial sides can be heard. That is neither required to be factual nor impartial.

BTW, I thought you were for banning hate speech? Now I see you are for the Fairness Doctrine. You're giving me whiplash here. :-)

[Just Me]

38. Explain.

[tx_dem41]

40. The fairness doctrine just imposes equal time...

Equal time that invariably will be used to spout partial lies. It won't guarantee rational balanced debate at all.

[Stirk]

49. You can't guarantee rational debate- but you *can* prevent

one side from holding a monopoly on the dialogue. Look at the ridiculous lies that right-wing radio can sell. They do it because there is no one to counter them in any way. There's no reference point, no definite up or down. In that environment, any hack can spin reality into whatever's convenient at that particular moment.

Even if we only had two equally partial points of view, reality would at least become a factor. Today, it is not.

[tx_dem41]

53. But again, that's not banning hate speech...which is what I thought...

this whole thread was about. :shrug:

[tx_dem41]

23. Who would be in charge of "pointing out when they're lying"? n/t

[Stirk]

26. Who was there before?

Who kept AM radio from being a bastion of right-wing hate prior to Rush Limbaugh?

Media outlets could stick anyone they like in the role of "liberal", and I assume most would be Alan Colmes-esque chameleons. But that'd be better than it is today.

I'm not talking about science fiction here- this thing worked in the past.

[bpilgrim]

33. as soon as the fairness act was killed we got the pig-man

he wouldn't be able to survive if his lies were refuted in real-time as he spewed the,

peace

[bpilgrim]

28. ditto

i believe some Dem's are working on just such a bill, too...

anyone know who they are or am i just imagining i heard this?

tia

peace

[forgethell]

47. As numerous cable channels

can exist, what would be the justification for a new Fairness Doctrine? If I recall correctly, the original justification was that the airwaves were a limited public resource. The same cannot be said for cable channels.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

11. No, I don't think we should ban hate speech

That's one of the few things a like better about America than Europe. You censor one form of speech and that opens the door to censoring all kinds of speech people deem offensive.

[Just Me]

18. Supposedly,....we already do BAN "hate speech".

Did you know that?

It's easy for right-wingers to scream "violation of speech" when others voice concern about hate speech.

Your concerns prove just how far to the right, the fascist right, our country has been pulled. We must protect hatred even if it DESTROYS freedom.

Hence, I am an advocate against hate speech. Hate speech KILLS freedom and democracy and equality and justice.

[tx_dem41]

19. Funny that you put hate speech in quotes in your subject line....

what is hate speech?

[Just Me]

22. Why don't we work together to define "hate speech"?

I am open to your perception if you will take the step to share it.

Do you believe there is "hate speech"?

[tx_dem41]

24. Not to be obtuse, but I believe its many different things to different..

people. Hence one of the problems. But, I'm sure your list and my list would overlap by at least 95%.

[Eric J in MN]

12. The Bush Admin. would define what liberals says as hate

and not what Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity say.

[bpilgrim]

16. hard to define 'hate' but we definitely need a cogent campaign to get

people to see it for what it is (hello, Dem leaders)

but we do need FCC regs on the RACIST bullshit they spew daily ESPECIALLY on talk radio and it is INEXCUSABLE!

bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would go a loooong way in restoring responcibility and inteligent, ballenced discussion to the airwaves.

now is a great time though to highlight the problem with the whole homophobic criticism of cartoons and PBS for Christ sake... OPPORTUNITY is definitely KNOCKING.

:hi:

peace

[tx_dem41]

17. WHO determines what is "hate"? n/t

[Just Me]

20. Are you suggesting there is no common definition?

If so, instead of feeling the effects of hatred, we had better define it, huh.

Let's shoot for a "hate-monger": a propagandist who seeks to provoke hatred and prejudice, esp. against a minority group or groups. (Webster's NewWorld Dictionary; wecond college edition).

[tx_dem41]

27. That sounds nice, theoretically. But my question was political.

Who determines what is "hate"?

[Just Me]

34. Let's have Webster be our guide to hate-mongering which must be curbed.

And this problem is clearly political power-grabbing crap that is hurting our people and the world.

I advocate that we limit those who profit from propagandizing hatred against others!!!

[bpilgrim]

36. we need to reinstate the fairness doctrine as mentioned above

outlawing 'hate speech' sounds like something Lynn cheney would come up with, if she hasn't already.

as folks have pointed out to you no one could define other than 'i know it when i see it'

we definitely don't need that.

peace

[Just Me]

44. Ouch. Her version is not at all what I'm talking about.

And I sincerely hope that no one misinterprets my position.

Yikes. I suddenly feel,...not right. How unfair.

:cry:

I'm tired of hatred being used against our people.

:cry:

Maybe, I should just get off this board for awhile because,...I seem to feel much pain hanging out here lately.

[bpilgrim]

48. sorry, i know where your coming from

i am talking about the slippery slope and we must be careful.

we certainly need to call them out DAILY on their hate speech but trying to make a law covering it would be impractical and do more harm then good, imo (but wtf do i know, being a punk philly kid)

i am very sorry to have hurt you, i didn't mean to and i always appreciate your voice here on DU fighting the good fight.

please accept my apology. :loveya:

never give up and keep swinging :toast:

peace

[fooj]

29. I've got a definition of hate: intense hostility and aversion!

Sound familiar?

[tx_dem41]

41. Towards whom? n/t

[fooj]

54. That definition is using hate as a noun (an object of ...)

As a verb: to express or feel extreme enmity (hostility)


I guess it can be a difficult emotion to describe- just like love. Love embodies nurturing, tolerance, understanding, acceptance...all contribute in a positive manner. Hate, however, embodies destruction, division, intolerance, indignation and repulsion...all contribute negatively to humanity. Sometimes, I think it is easy to get HATE confused with anger, disgust- even rage. HATE is a powerful, negative force. I try to stay away from HATING PEOPLE. Instead, I try to focus on the action or behavior which breeds from the hate. Peace!

[ultraist]

43. I do not think we should curtail freedom of speech, more than it is

Freedom of speech ends when it invokes imminent danger. That's where the line should stay. There are other limits on it as well, such as copyright laws, the Miller and Slaps Test (pornography), the "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

I think it would be dangerous to put more limits on freedom of speech. It would lead to more censorship by the government and more restrictions on citizens.

[WillowTree]

50. I can't count the times I've heard Mike Malloy say...

...."Have I mentioned yet tonight how much I really hate these people?"

Should he be thrown off the radio, too? Or do we honor the First Amendment and work to get the truth out in more civil terms despite how others behave?

[ultraist]

52. increase the power of the morality police or protect our civil liberties?

I choose the latter! I agree with you. We KNOW what abuses would occur if they had more power to restrict our speech.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

51. kick

[American Tragedy]

56. I couldn't disagree with you more. I hate George W. Bush.

I wish I could say otherwise - I know it's not nice to use that word. I don't like having my country governed and represented by somebody I hate, but it's the truth, and I sure as hell reserve the right to say so.

I'm not afraid of assholes like O'Reilly. I despise them too, but I'll defend to the death their right to make fools of themselves on national television. Fuck censorship, and fuck censors.

I'm sorry that you put such faith in the government.

[libodem]

58. I think they are hateful

I don't listen often but I always feel irrationally angry, attacked and hurt. They are mean and hurtful and cocky. And who's going to take the time to call them and have them put you down personally? Them if you do get mad, you make yourself and other liberals look stupid. They are told what to think and how to say it. I borrowed Coulter's book from my ex boyfriend and couldn't read more than a couple of pages at a time because I would feel toxic and ill. And I couldn't finish it. " the democrats hate the poor" and other crap. And when the repub's won that sweep of house and senate seats, awhile back, hearing Limbaugh, gloat and say that if the dem's had won they, would be offering a sacrifice, at the alter of abortion. And Tony Snow's smug shot,the reason the tax burden is on the middle-class is because there are so many of them. I get so mad and there is no where to vent. So I've vented Thanks

[ComerPerro]

61. Sorry. Free speech. I agree in spirit. Really, I do.

But, these blowhards are hiding behind the first Amendment.

What would stop the FCC from declaring that "I disagree with Bush on this issue" is hate speech?

[fooj]

62. Can't you be persecuted for a hate crime?

:shrug: