What constitutes “hate speech”?
A large number of religious leaders opposed the recently-enacted Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Law because they said it would make it a criminal offense for them to preach in their churches that homosexuality is a sin. But is that hate speech, or a reasonable expression of religious beliefs?
I don’t think the new law encroaches on anyone’s ability to preach that kind of sermon. I don’t think it’s hate speech, although I know plenty of people disagree with me on that. Many, many people do believe that homosexuality is a sin, and surely they have the right to express that belief.
But if a preacher stands in his or her pulpit on a Sunday morning and tells the congregation that God says homosexuals should be put to death and then encourages the members of that congregation to carry out God’s word — is that hate speech? Is that constitutionally protected?
Would your opinion of whether or not someone expressing their religious views constituted “hate speech” change if the person were an Imam in an Islamic extremist sect saying that the Koran teaches that the U.S. is “the great Satan” and that Allah decrees Americans should be killed, and then encouraging his followers to stage attacks to carry out Allah’s decree?
Where do we draw the line? Do we draw a line at all? Should people be able to say whatever they want just because they believe a religious text tells them to? How do we decide what is “valid” religious text? Is the Bible more valid than the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the teachings of Buddha?
Tell me what you think.
25 Comments
Hi Tammye,
VERY interesting question! Here is the way I see it:
If a preacher stands in a pulpit and tells his congregation that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death and so encourages same congregation to go and carry out God’s word, I see that not only as hate speech, but pre-meditated murder. If you think about it, it’s no different than what Charles Manson got his “family” to do so many years ago. Encouraging violence under the pretence of “religious freedom” should NOT be protected at all!
I believe that where we need to draw the line Tammye is to have the Dallas Voice editor and its journalists stop abusing their jobs by forcing their personal views on everyone via their articles and have our community paper get back to its original mission, which is to report unbiased community journalism…………..
Your constant religious and political dictatorial ideology is getting very old……………..
I must ask, is the Dallas Voice still a community publication or has it secretly turned into some religious organization or Political Action Committee, with the editor and her journalist followers at the pulpit ???…………
Stop beating a dead horse here (again, used figuratively, we wouldn’t it to be misconstrued as cruelty to animals here warranting another article………). Go “tell it on the mountain” somewhere else, not in this journalistic forum (or lack thereof).
I believe that where we need to draw the line Tammye is to have the Dallas Voice editor and its journalists stop abusing their jobs by forcing their personal views on everyone via their articles and have our community paper get back to its original mission, which is to report unbiased community journalism…………..
Your constant religious and political dictatorial ideology is getting very old……………..
I must ask, is the Dallas Voice still a community publication or has it secretly turned into some religious organization or Political Action Committee, with the editor and her journalist followers at the pulpit ???…………
Stop beating a dead horse here (again, used figuratively, we wouldn’t it to be misconstrued as cruelty to animals here warranting another article………). Go “tell it on the mountain” somewhere else, not in this journalistic forum (or lack thereof).
I believe that where we need to draw the line Tammye is to have the Dallas Voice editor and its journalists stop abusing their jobs by forcing their personal views on everyone via their articles and have our community paper get back to its original mission, which is to report unbiased community journalism…………..
Your constant religious and political dictatorial ideology is getting very old……………..
I must ask, is the Dallas Voice still a community publication or has it secretly turned into some religious organization or Political Action Committee, with the editor and her journalist followers at the pulpit ???…………
Stop beating a dead horse here (again, used figuratively, we wouldn’t it to be misconstrued as cruelty to animals here warranting another article………). Go “tell it on the mountain” somewhere else, not in this journalistic forum (or lack thereof).
Isn’t the purpose of the Instant Tea BLOG to allow for personal opinions and items that don’t make it to print in the paper as journalism?
Just an observation.
I’m sorry, perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but the way I read this article, Tammye was asking for OPINIONS. I don’t see anything in there that would indicate she is “forcing” her views on anyone!
Dissapointed, I suggest you read the article again and this time, why don’t you cite examples of what you accuse Tammye of? I bet you don’t find any……………..
Deb:
Normally Yes, but when you have an editor and journalists from the same publication who decide to wear both hats as journalists and viewpoint columnists there becomes a biased viewpoint because they control both genres…………..
If any of the above journalists wrote exclusively op. / ed. pieces or wrote exclusively reported articles then that would be different, however these people engage in both genres as well as manage the paper…….thus a biased viewpoint and ultimately leading to a biased publication as a whole.
Deb:
Normally Yes, but when you have an editor and journalists from the same publication who decide to wear both hats as journalists and viewpoint columnists there becomes a biased viewpoint because they control both genres…………..
If any of the above journalists wrote exclusively op. / ed. pieces or wrote exclusively reported articles then that would be different, however these people engage in both genres as well as manage the paper…….thus a biased viewpoint and ultimately leading to a biased publication as a whole.
Deb:
Normally Yes, but when you have an editor and journalists from the same publication who decide to wear both hats as journalists and viewpoint columnists there becomes a biased viewpoint because they control both genres…………..
If any of the above journalists wrote exclusively op. / ed. pieces or wrote exclusively reported articles then that would be different, however these people engage in both genres as well as manage the paper…….thus a biased viewpoint and ultimately leading to a biased publication as a whole.
Chip,
Obviously you have not read Tammye’s previous posts on this very same topic earlier this week, posts which helped lay a foundation for this particular article and also my comment above. Read the posts and you will find the references you need.
Chip,
Obviously you have not read Tammye’s previous posts on this very same topic earlier this week, posts which helped lay a foundation for this particular article and also my comment above. Read the posts and you will find the references you need.
Chip,
Obviously you have not read Tammye’s previous posts on this very same topic earlier this week, posts which helped lay a foundation for this particular article and also my comment above. Read the posts and you will find the references you need.
@ Disappointed Reader:
When will you be “disappointed” enough to go away? I mean, really.
Tammye invited us to have an opinionated conversation on an important matter. Grow up.
If you have something to offer besides bitching, please share.
Disappointed Reader = Old School. Welcome to 2009. We can actually compare opinions and discuss important topics. All this Blog did was ask a question. Do you have something against questions, too?
Don’t give a disappointing answer, please.
The difference between expressing religious morality and inciting direct action against others is the difference in what is protected speech and what is a “breach of peace.”
Religious leader or not, if a preacher instructs his sheeple to go out against a specific group, that’s not protected speech. These pulpit pounders are worried about their rhetoric, and they should be.
If I said, “Oh my, isn’t the sky a lovely shade of blue today?” Disappointed Reader would accuse me of trying to shove my opinion down everyone else’s throat. I am sorry to see that he or she has managed, once again, to hijack a comment thread.
What I would really like to hear/see are other people’s opinions about the original question: What constitutes hate speech?
(Not saying I don’t appreciate all my “cronies” and “groupies” defending me and my intentions. But to continue to argue with Disappointed Reader allows that person to distract from an important and topical debate.)
@Disappointed
Many mainstream commentators, journalists and such have blogs, write op eds and even deliver commentary (Keith Olbermann comes immediately to mind) on current events and topics.
I see nothing whatsoever wrong with what John and Tammye do in the manner they do it. If the previous post re: hate speech made it to print as an actual article, then I believe you would have some standing.
Just my observation.
Tammye,
To answer the original question is where is the line, if there is one at all. The line for me is drawn when it rides the line of physical harm disquised within a letter of calling for action. The statements quoted earlier appear as a “wink wink nudge nudge” statement. They are clever to not cross the call to action in print but the call intent sounds rather clear, especially to extremists.
As we watch the memorial services today for those who were killed at Ft. Worth, the government is backtracking to identify where they missed the signals. If they are honest, at least with themselves, they will see the signs immediately and find they simply chose to ignore them.
Let’s pray law enforcement wises up to these groups and people who stretch the line into a mile and run along side it to spew hate.
sorry– Memorial for Fort Hood, not Ft Worth.
Disappointed Reader, shut the f*ck up. I am SICK AND TIRED of reading your whiney, bitchy, constant tirades. “Oh woe is me, the paper doesn’t print only the things I like. Let me whine about it some more and see who else might be willing to listen.” Sick. Tired. Fed up. Now GROW UP. The media is an editorial mechanism. If you think you can do a better job, then go get a journalism degree and do it yourself. You have bitched, whined, moan and complained to the point that no one–NO ONE–takes you seriously. You couldn’t make a case for your position now even if you wanted to. Please re-read the first sentence of this message, then go out and play in the traffic. (Preferably on a busy street).
preach [ preech ] (past and past participle preached, present participle preach·ing, 3rd person present singular preach·es)
verb
Definition:
1. transitive and intransitive verb religion give sermon: to give a talk on a religious or moral subject, especially in church
2. intransitive verb give advice in irritating way: to give advice on morality or behavior in an irritatingly tedious or overbearing way
3. transitive verb urge people to accept idea: to make an opinion or attitude known to others and urge others to share it
preached restraint in the midst of chaos
[13th century. Via Old French prechier< Latin praedicare (see predicate)]
By definition it is hate speech.
Standing in front of a group of people and bad mouthing another group of people is hate speech.
That’s it James.. slash their miserable whiney ass and the rest of us will make note to ignore anything further that Disappointed Reader says on these topics.
After reading back through the archives it seems this phenomenon exists on all topics that they have remarked on.
Yeah.. thanks for the commentary Freddie.. I’m getting tired of this negative stuff myself.
it doest matter wht people think because mob mentality prevails in chaotic situations. violence is not preached in islam except when muslims are attacked upon and have the right to self defense. in certain context against jews and christians , considered people of the book, but mainly against pagans and idolators jihad is ordained for muslims as a struggle against opposing forces. Forces of evil should be dealt with appropriately – that is jihad in arabic.
islam is a religion of peace. the Quran is the word of Allah. no creature should deny this truth.
The Quran should never be considered similar to the bible or torah or any other scripture, simply because its in a class of its own . a person who has read it will realize its fluidity and beautiful design. something as pure as the Quran has no comparison, and will always be the manual for all humans to lead happy peaceful lives from Allah himself.
Tammye,
Thank-you for posting the Question: What constitutes “hate speech”?
Beliefs are not “hate speech.” But, contributors on this Blog don’t want to tell the whole story. The “taboo” of discussing religion makes everyone defensive or cautious. It’s time for that to end.
We should be willing to tell the truth – about anything, including religion and LGBT issues. It is not helpful for any of us to call someone religious a “bigot” because they actually “believe” what they are saying. They also believe that it’s from “God.” That’s an argument that CANNOT be won. In fact, it’s a complete waste of time. Don’t bother.
But, there is good news. Only about 1/3 of those who claim to be “religious” cling to that literal interpretation of the Bible that damns homosexuals. The remaining two-thirds have grown past that – spiritually and civilly. They respect the idea of “equality.” They have the capacity to see all of us as equals. We need to pay attention to THEM.
Instead of making such a “big deal” about those who cling to an ancient “bigoted belief system,” we would be much better served enrolling the others. They would stand with us for equality, but we’re too busy yelling at the other crowd. Let that other crowd fade away, as is already happening. Let THEM be the minority. Eventually, they’ll die..
The LGBT Community has wrongly believed (for a long time) that the far right, very conservative religious people speak for our Nation. They DO NOT. Right now, nobody is. It’s an opportunity for us to lead an effort to have people stand up for equality. Without even discussing religion, we can create the “equality majority.” That would be “game over” for the religious institutions that wish to preserve their bigoted belief systems. They’ve been marketing hate for long enough. We can market fairness, honesty and equality.
We are all part of the most creative, compassionate and generous community on earth. We must always remember that and stop letting the zealots define us. We can define ourselves – accurately and positively.
We also live in a whole new world. A world of new ideas, and (thankfully) a bunch of “new” people. Young people get it. It’s time to stop fighting and start creating. We must create the change we desire. We must create our equality. We won’t be alone.