Neither case is really suppression of free speech. The police removing someone for laughing at Jefferson Beauregard Sessions on the other hand is.

Incorrect.

Disrupting a Senate hearing is unlawful and therefore not a free speech issue.

Boy.

That article doesn't talk about how Palestinians want to wipe Israel off the map. It doesn't discuss Hamas and Hezbullah. However, it does make a point to call Netenyahu corrupt. You have clearly posted a very hateful source.

Get yourself on the right side of history and then we can talk. Actually, learn the history first.

This lady should not be allowed to speak just like neo nazis should not be allowed to speak.....simple.

You don't think neo-nazis should be allowed to speak?

Nope!

Criminals lose rights when they commit crimes so why can't dispicable people lose rights? In this case, the right to speak. What the nazis did and what they continue to represent is one of the true evil's in history. I see no benefit giving groups that spread hate a platform. To me we need to focus on common sense and stop being so attached to the so called freedom of speech.

Cut out the extremists on all sides. It's like cutting the crust off bread, only the soft remains.

If I were to list ten groups and ask is this beneficial for society or not beneficial to let them speak, I think we could answer the question rather easily.

Nazis...nope

Fuzzy kittens club...sure

Terrorists....nope

Ivanka Trump fan club....yes please

Common sense>free speech.

But then who decides who gets to speak?

The democratically elected government get's to pass legislation determining what is off limits.

That's how we do it in the UK (and I believe much of Europe) anyway.

Ok. Would you be comfortable with the current government in the U.S. passing such legislation?

If the Brexit-type people in the UK were to get a majority or controlling stake or whatever (I'm not really familiar with the UK political process) would you be comfortable with them passing such laws?

I mean I know this is fundamentally an issue with all laws, not just speech laws, but the idea of making it illegal for someone to say something does not sit well with me, with few exceptions (basically direct provocations to violence or statements that can cause direct physical harm, i.e. I am on board with yelling FIRE in crowded theater being illegal).

When those students aren't allowed to have her speak, isn't that suppression of free speech? They have chosen for her to speak. Doesn't that become their speech?

Re the protestor being booted from the Senate, we've hashed that over (not that I mind doing it again). I don't think we have a recording of the event. I haven't seen/heard one. I could say "ha" real loud in such a way that one would certainly know I was calling bull****. We do have the cop saying that other people turned around when she "laughed."

Also, while the prosecutor argued that just laughing is an offense, he also argued on the weight of her talking/disrupting while leaving.

This was on the floor of the Senate for God's sake. You do not have the right to disrupt the Senate.

This is a terrible statement. I suspect you're trolling the other side, but it worked on me.

Read post number two ITT again.

The first amendment limits the power of the government, in this case the police. What you're trying to do with Ann Coulter situations is give more power to the government.

I read it. It doesn't change anything for me. I realize my ideas are not shared by most, but I have always ben ahead of the curve in regard to innovative thoughts.

What do you mean by trolling the other side?

I currently believe we can do no better than democracy. Lots of laws I don't like get passed (many I abhor) but even so I prefer democracy to anything else. I'd rather we take bad laws along the way as we try to progress forward in a democratic manner than get held to some increasingly historic view unless and until the system breaks.

The difference isn't actually that stark as supreme courts will effectively change the law by reinterpreting. The same political battle goes on but somewhat removed from democracy. Instead of the UK government passing new legislation, what happens is the supreme court might decide that some acts are not just speech - fighting talk for example. I wouldn't be surprised if one day the supreme court decides some part of being hateful isn't speech and hence isn't protected.

I don't think laws against free speech are "ahead of the curve, innovative thoughts". That kind of **** exists all over the world and it's bad. What is the point of it?

Hey, maybe you're right microbet. Maybe I'm slow. Let's walk this through.

I'm saying that the police should protect her and her supporters - and her opponents - from violence, especially when that violence is speech content motivated. I'm saying that if the police refuse to do that, the police have violated your free speech rights. Violated the free speech rights of the students who invited her to speak.

I am talking morally still. As stated in post #2. Free speech makes a free society, which makes a good (ok, just a generally improving) society. I intend to get into the U.S. Constitutional Law question, but so far, talking morally, like, what in your morality, should be done.

So what are you saying, or where am I mistaken? It sounds like you're saying that if we insist that the police MUST protect free speech against suppression by the threat of violence, then we are expanding the power of the police? Am I misunderstanding?

I think the idea that certain ideas (or people, holy ****), should not be heard is horrible.

By "trolling the other side," I was saying that it looked like you were saying that inflammatory statement just to get a reaction from the left. I'm on the right, and I can't stand that statement. You sound like a totalitarian when you say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to speak.

Eh, I think our differences here are mostly differences of philosophy and not logic, and I respect your views here.

I agree that democracy is certainly the best form of government among those humans have thought up so far, and I agree that in theory those democracies can ban certain types of speech.

I do not base my positions on the first amendment of the US, because
1) I recognize it applies only in the US, and
2) Just because something exists in the US constitution does not mean it is "correct" or the best view on something.


All that being said, I am strongly in favor of free speech. I would be strongly against any law barring any kind of speech that does not result or directly lead to immediate physical harm to another human.

I'm not necessarily saying they are. Either way, the laws being made by a government accountable to the people is the way our democratic system progresses and that's a good system (or least bad imo) even when it's going in the direction I don't like.

Having said that I do think the UK is better for the laws we now have restricting hate speech. They aren't perfect and it's still an evolving area of law but I for one wouldn't want to see them completely repealed.

I am admittedly coming late to this conversation.

I don't think the police must protect free speech from suppression. I just think that the police must not suppress free speech. I may even extend that to "the police must not base decisions on whether to protect free speech from suppression on the content of said speech" but I'm not 100% certain on that one.

Yeah, sorry, my points about the US constitution weren't meant to be rebuttals to anything you said, there were just statements of my own views.

Like I said, this seems to me mostly like an issue where we will have to agree to disagree because I don't think either of our positions has a logical flaw, it's mostly just a difference in preference.

I'm not familiar with the specific laws in the UK but I would generally be against anti hate speech laws.

I would be fine with your wording, but I would say that an important part of the job of police is to go further, and do what I suggest, actively protect free speech.

Let's be clear though, it seems obvious that the police/Berkeley were violating your stated principle as well. I believe they let the violence prevail in this case, because of the content of her speech.

The US Constitution fits great into the democratic theory/social contract theory. It's just an agreement put in place, where you have to have a complicated type of super majority to modify it (Const Amendments), with judges put in place to interpret it. It's a different structure (but then, UK and Germany, e.g., have different structures from each other as well), but not that complicated.

I agree totally except I happen to disagree about free speech

There was a case in the UK recently where a black women was sitting in 1st class on the train with her child and a white man was telling her to get out because she didn't belong there. It ended up in court and he got found guilty - I can't remember the punishment but it wasn't prison or anything ridiculous.

I think that's a good thing and I don't want to see a viable defense of 'a right to free speech'.

Ah, to be fair, I wouldn't lump this into the category of free speech. I'd be perfectly fine with prosecuting a case like this based on some sort of anti-harassment statute and wouldn't consider that a violation of free speech.