That lovely, peaceful religion of peace...
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 16:15
VIEWED: 15565
PAGE 18 of 21
No, he wasn't. I looked at several Supreme Court rulings on free speech, you can utter "offensive speech". What you CAN"T do is go up to someone personally and verbally bully them by calling them (in the particular case that I read) a "fascist", or disparage or dehumanize a whole class of people via "hate speech".
So, how is "hate speech" different from "I am the zombie Mohammed"? Hate speech would involve saying things like "All Muslims are dangerous and should be rounded up". The parade was silly, and Muslims might find it offensive, but it was neither personally threatening nor categorically hateful. It was, in fact, the exact example of the kind of free speech that is protected by the Constitution- disparaging an IDEA instead of a people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would agree that the Atheist has the right under free speech to be zombie Muhammad, its not tasteful and it is sort of mean, but it is within his free speech rights as Kiki and Signe said. I think what Byte is trying to say isthat sometimes if its a blurry line, between hate speech and not lets say, a judge has some wiggle room in what s/he can decide about a case. Whether we agree with his/her decision is up for debate, but the decision was made and apparently the action was close enough to the hate speech line that it was chunked in. I personally don't think it counts as hate speech to dress up in a costume of anything. What did his sign say? Maybe that's where the hate speech comes in?
I find exceptions for hate speech, as in it is no longer free, kind of odd. Part of me thinks its a good idea and that since those Westborough thugs are spewing hate speech they shouldn't be allowed to do it anymore. But then there's a part of me that says what if they expand hate speech laws to apply to other things and then it nibbles away at free speech little by little? Because that totally could happen.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hate speech is not the same as offensive speech or provocation.
This was provocation.
As an example, ask yourself why in the wikipedia section I called out, they have a picture of the Westborough Baptist Church, and why a judge ruled against them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think so, if by 'provocation' you mean 'fighting words'.
Fighting words and offensive speech
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[28] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[29] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[30][31]
Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[32] However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.[33] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.[34] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[35]
I'm sure Pearson didn't know there were Muslims in the crowd. Nor did he direct his costume and sign specifically at them. I can see how Westborough fails to have protection - it's directed specifically at individuals and can cause severe emotional distress. After all, they target grieving families at funerals.
Pearson in costume in a parade? Not so much.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This has gotten more interesting. I see where both of you are coming from. I would tend to agree that unless the costume wearer is directly harassing and taunting the Muslim he is protected under free speech as Kiki says. But I see how Byte and some judges can come to the other conclusion in a case like this.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Religious beliefs are very personal. So I can see why the judge interpretted the way he did.
Plus, I mean, jeez, most times Muslims don't have to be directly present when someone lampoons their prophet to be offended or turn violent. A guy drawing cartoons in denmark has had a similar result, I don't think it's a stretch to say that this zombie Mohammad is always going to be provocative.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just because someone is culturally conditioned to be provoked doesn't mean we should bend over backwards to protect their sensitivities. In fact, that is a darn good way to slowly move the baseline of your society.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No kidding. When I'm explaining the letter of the law that doesn't mean I LIKE IT. As I've already said. Several times.
Anyway, I'm starting to get frustrated here, so yeah. I'm going to wander off now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
As to the letter of the law, speech involving public figures is specifically allowed. I think the widely known chief Prophet of all Islam is a public figure, which gives this particular speech even stronger protections, even when weighed against exemptions.
In my opinion.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME