Russell Turpin wrote:
> 
> Gregory Alan Bolcer:
> >I'm not sure since I haven't attended civics class
> >in quite some time, but the First Amendment doesn't cover protected speech,
> >hate speech, or actions. ..
> 
> The first two are wrong. The first amendment DOES
> protect speech the Supreme Court decides it protects
> (duh!), and that happens to include most of what
> people consider hate speech. Unlike many other
> nations, the US has no laws against hate speech, per
> se. And the first amendment is the reason for that.
> 
This was poking fun of the practice of making
up differnt types of speech with different
types of protected status.  I think the
laws specialing out hate and protected speech
are ridiculous.  The point I keep trying to make
is that there's only two types, speech and action. 
I agree, they are all speech and should be 
covered by the First Amendment, butIf hate speech is so protected, why are certain
states trying to prosecute people for it?  There's
only two answers and one of them is wrong.  1) Because hate speech is different and needs to
     have a different level of protection dictated
     by whoever's offended at the time.
  2) It's because it's not just speech, but action.
     A action who's consequences are foreseeable by 
     any reasonable person. Hate speech is mislabeled.  It's really "threat".  I think
they let the mislabeling perpetuate as there's advantage
in being able to counter-threat with loss of liberty and
money through civil and criminal lawsuits for people THEY
don't like.  
Greg> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
