Fuck...I'm in a hurry...

But people feeling that they have a right to not be offended has become a huge problem in this country, and special interest groups have circumvented the first ammedment --- not through legislation--- but with  political pressure and phoney "Outrage"...Ugh...Here's an article i wrote on this subject.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Stuck-in-the-Middle&id=730138

On a persopnal note...It is my humble opinion that the Don Imus firing (granted, he is a douchebag) was the single biggest assault on the first ammendment since its inception... Nappy Headed Ho's indeed.

I defend the right to publish all the images above. I defend the right to publish words and images which I personally am offended by. I would defend the right of a public library to put Mein Kempf on the shelf. I would go so far as even defending the right of violent extremist groups (eg. the KKK, neo-Nazis, etc..) to spew their hateful messages as long as the law punishes those who directly or indirectly causes physical harm to others. If I didn't defend all this, then atheists and all freethinkers would be fucked!!!!

There should be a legal right to offend and a legal methods to respond if you are offended (boycott an offending magazine for example)

I get what you are saying, BUT, there ARE limitations.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Speech CAN be criminal.

"You, Joe Smoe, go kill this other person for me".

Shouting "FIRE" in a movie theatre.

Other than that.

It should be, and is legal to say, "Muslims suck"

Or, "Atheists suck"

Or "Jesus likes it up the ass"

Or, "Atheists love Hitler".

It is the old axiom "Your freedom ends where my nose begins". Merely being offended, however, is not a crime, nor should it be.

 I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, but I've always been confused by something.  We say that we restrict the freedom of speech in cases of public safety.  For instance, it is illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded building (if there's no fire) because it can lead to injuries and even deaths if a panic ensues.

Now, it seems to me that it is not illegal to yell "fire."  There is nothing considered wrong about the word fire, or the content of the message, "fire."  What is wrong is yelling fire in such a way as to cause direct harm to another person.  This doesn't seem like an issue of free speech, but an issue of using speech to commit a crime.

Let me put it another way.  I can't think of a concept that is, in and of itself, always harmful.  It is the context in which a concept is expressed that gives it the potential to do harm.  So, it seems to me that the Consitution ought not to have anything to do with the content of speech, but the context.  Speech is not ever a crime, as far as I can tell, but speech can be used to commit another existing crime.  I can, for instance, say, "Guido, kill that motherfucker right now," and I would be committing a crime if there really is a guy named Guido with a gun to some dude's head.

Am I way off on this?  Does anyone actually know constitutional law and have an opinion on this?

Statutes vary from state to state of course. You can say what you want even offend others or say you hate others.

BUT what you cannot do is physically harm someone or advocate the physical harm of others.

Our laws pretty much boil down to those core concepts.

I am not an expert on constitutional law but "concept is expressed that gives the potential to do harm" is very subjective. Harm could be interpreted as anything from physical assault to hurt feelings. I think a better way of phrasing would be the following:

"It is the context in which a concept is expressed that gives it the potential to violate the civil liberties of others."

Many women may feel harmed by the picture of a woman in the meat grinder but the picture does not violate their civil liberties. They have the right to protest, boycott or use free speech to create counter-images.

Obviously most people have never been on encylopedia dramatica...

I don't get the piglet one.

I'll go with that.  When do we draft the new constitution?  Isn't this going to cause a little bit of a stir in Congress?

Seriously, though, you've captured the essence of what I was trying to say.  I guess the next thing to consider is "emotional distress."  Do you think there are times when, say, offensive speech could cause emotional distress that would constitute a violation of civil rights?  I'm thinking of something like a school principal, or someone in a position of authority who says extremely offensive things to a captive audience.  Should they be culpable under the law?

I'll go with that.  When do we draft the new constitution?  Isn't this going to cause a little bit of a stir in Congress?

Seriously, though, you've captured the essence of what I was trying to say.  I guess the next thing to consider is "emotional distress."  Do you think there are times when, say, offensive speech could cause emotional distress that would constitute a violation of civil rights?  I'm thinking of something like a school principal, or someone in a position of authority who says extremely offensive things to a captive audience.  Should they be culpable under the law?

In Iran, the Ahmedinejad and the ruling mullahs can publicly declare that the Holocaust never happened and the masses have no choice but to agree. The setting you described is exactly what happens in totalitarian societies. The school prinicipal is in a position of power and his/her captive audience have no say. This is a violation of their civil liberties. A school prinicipal is like a politician whose job is dictated by students and parents. They could boycott that school or publish statements of retaliation in the media. The bottom line with all that pressure, a principal would be run out of office. This applies to anyone in a position of power (principal, coach, doctor, lawyer, politician, etc..). That is the safeguard of a proper democracy. The solution to harmful free speech is free speech.

So what about the the following situation. Imagine a school which for many years taught evolutionary biology. Now it comes to pass that the majority of students come from devout Christian families who want the subject stricken from the curriculum and replaced by creationism. Using my above argument, the principal and teachers will likely have to aquiesce. But what if there are a few students who come from atheist families who want evolution to be taught. Democracies are always held hostage to the tyranny of the majority. The majority of folks voted for Bush the past 8 years and the rational populace had to live with that. But here's the clincher. No one has to agree with Bush and those atheist students at the fundie high school don't have to personally agree with creationism. Those parents and students have the freedom to set up their own curriculum (eg. home school) or go to a different high school. Free speech prevails in the end.

And that's why we need something like the Supreme Court, making sure that majority don't make policy that is unconst. or unethical.  (not that it always works)