is Freedom of speech in the 5th a licence to discriminate

Post Reply New Topic

Just out of interest
what are people's opinions on Freedom of Speech when it comes to people who hold views that promote racial discrimination?

I have heard many times such people refer to Freedom of Speech as their defence when caught or
prosecuted for discrimination or abuse.

Their defence goes something like "it is my right to express what i believe in, and doing so would be an infringement on my freedom of speech", however, surely in cases where a person's beliefs infringe on others human rights to exist and promote race hate bigotry, this freedom of speech is nullified.

Otherwise, what would then stop serial killers defending themselves to the right to indiscriminately murder people
because not allowing them to do so would be an infringement on their human rights.

I find such reasoning from some, who twist the 5th amendment (i am not an american btw so i do not have the best understanding of US law or founding fathers proclamation).

I remember several cases of people who murdered their own children in ritual black magick abuse to claim religious intolerance because they claimed their actions were nothing but part of their faith. I remember seeing this picture of this demented couple who seriously were perplexed as to why they had been convicted of murder, because they thought it was normal to abuse and kill their own 5 year old child. I mean, how twisted...

but anyway i digress....

By the way, the 5th Amendment reads as follows...

Freedom of speech means unpopular opinions will get you shunned, but not incarcerated.

Yes. The OP confused the fifth with the first.

Its the First Amendment that has to with freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, and also freedom of religion.

"Taking the Fifth" means "to keep your mouth shut" because the Fifth Amendment has to do with protecting you from self incrimination (the cops cant beat confessions out of you).

But about the First. It protects against government censoring you. Private entities (like websites like WP) are free to censor all that they want.

Freedom of religion can get dicey. The First is interpreted to allow some American Indian tribes to use hallucinogenic mescaline in tribal religious rituals, even though its a dangerous controlled substance that you and I are forbidden to use. But I doubt they would allow you to revive the Aztec Sun worship religion, and allow you to cut out the hearts of human sacrifice victims on top of pyramids- even though it would curtail your "freedom of religion". During Prohibition they allowed priests and rabbis to possess wine for religious rituals in Catholicism and Judaism. The Catholic church is a monolithic beauracracy that keeps official track who is priest. But no one is in charge of Judaism. So...around 1920 there was a sudden population explosion of guys claiming to be rabbis (red haired guys with names like O'Sullivan claiming to be rabbis, and Black guys claiming to rabbis, etc).

Freedom of Speech must necessarily include the freedom to offend. That being said, OP seems to be lumping together things that wouldn't fall under speech at all.