T. Belman. “Hate speech” was criminalized many years ago in Canada where it includes an incitement to violence. Absent the call to violence, what is “hate speech”? This is not easily answered especially in a world where feelings matter and truth is irrelevant.
They also believe that “government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false.” All three of these terms are difficult to define. I have no trouble with “false” except that who is to decide what is true and what is false. There is nothing wrong with “inflamatory” comments if they are true but today truth is no defense. Bias is impossible to prevent.
51 percent of Millennials want fines or jail time for ‘hate speech’
By Collin Anderson, WASH FREE BEACON
A majority of Americans believe the First Amendment should be rewritten and are willing to crack down on free speech, as well as the press, according to a new poll.
More than 60 percent of Americans agree on restricting speech in some way, while a slim majority, 51 percent, want to see the First Amendment rewritten to “reflect the cultural norms of today.” The Campaign for Free Speech, which conducted the survey, said the results “indicate free speech is under more threat than previously believed.”
“The findings are frankly extraordinary,” executive director Bob Lystad told the Washington Free Beacon. “Our free speech rights and our free press rights have evolved well over 200 years, and people now seem to be rethinking them.”
Of the 1,004 respondents, young people were the most likely to support curbing free expression and punishing those who engage in “hate speech.” Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution “goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America” and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make “hate speech” a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.
American hostility to the First Amendment did not stop at speech. Many would also like to see a crackdown on the free press. Nearly 60 percent of respondents agreed that the “government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false.” Of those respondents, 46 percent supported possible jail time.
The poll was released just two days after two University of Connecticut students were arrested for allegedly saying racial slurs in a viral video. The 21-year-old suspects were allegedly playing “a game in which they yelled vulgar words,” according to the police report. Lystad said such incidents and the rise of social media may be behind the increased willingness of Americans to curb speech rights.
“I think [our findings] are fueled in large part because of a rise of hate speech, but traditionally, hate speech is protected in the First Amendment,” Lystad said. “The Supreme Court has upheld that principle time and time again.”
Lystad launched the Campaign for Free Speech to advocate for preserving free and open dialogue in America. The group emphasizes that hate speech should be denounced, but does not think censorship is the answer. The group plans to push back against efforts to restrict speech at the local, state, and federal levels.
“Hate speech should be condemned, but legally, the answer to speech we don’t like is more speech, not censorship,” he said. “Our primary focus is education, and to help people better understand the First Amendment, free speech, free press, and why it’s so vital to our democracy.”
Collin Anderson is an editorial assistant for the Washington Free Beacon. He graduated from the University of Missouri, where he studied politics. He is originally from St. Louis and now lives in Arlington, VA.
@ Ted Belman:
Yes, every one should know and be able to speak the truth about Islam. It is a real danger to our freedoms. Just two verses of a 100, call for violence against 99% of Americans, Quran Sura 9-5 and 9-29. Islam should have NO rights under our Constitution and should be banned.
There is a problem in putting this matter to a jury. Most juries are not representative because most people will do anything to get out of jury duty.
I would also like to see what the question(s) was (were) and the specific sampling method used to identify respondents.
From what I read about this, the group most in favour of restrictions was women.
@ Frank Adam:
The problem is that the people have been indoctrinated. It has become a crime in Europe to tell the truth about Islam. Social media prevents telling the truth about Islam.
Feelings are being protected. This shouldn’t be.
Just put the item to a jury as in a libel/slander trial. Remember the paragraph in Toqueville that he jury represents the people and with it contemporary norms of what is repectable language and what is NOT rational and “peaceable” . False is easy enough to argue in court, hate and inflammatory is clear enough in context. Is violence being encouraged or any other form of hostile and anti-social behaviour?