If you are incarcerated, you lose various privileges (most particularly freedom of movement). You still retain your Constitutional rights.
]]>Could be. Words can be used to hurt others. But is it a government action?
I just think y'all don't understand how the US Government is constrained by the Constitution; what lawful actions the government is allowed to take. In the U.S., the government is not supposed to suppress "free speech", even when the speaker is vile and hateful or even if the speaker advocates vile and hateful racist actions.
Quite simply, this is NOT someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. If it was, the government could do something about it, although I don't know how they could go about preventing it without trampling the rights of innocent persons (those who would NOT and DO NOT shout "fire" in a crowded theater).
They can prosecute you for doing it, but I don't see how they could stop you in advance if you were so determined. They can't even prevent people from saying "FUCK" on television.
Another thing the government is not allowed to do is turn a blind eye to vigilantism.
If you go around beating up people for being "nazis, the government is going to have to arrest you. Just like the government are supposed to (and do) arrest white supremacists attacking people for being the wrong color or having the wrong political opinions.
If you are the kind of person who wants to go around beating people up because they believe something you find unacceptable, you're no different than the "nazis". If you are the kind of person who actually DOES go around beating up people who believe things you find unacceptable, you SHOULD be arrested and held accountable for your actions.
]]>How would you go about proving it in court? How do you prove a perpetrator's action was inspired by any one particular advocate's speech?
If you can't, you're back to just suppressing speech (and speakers) you disagree with.
]]>Here's the solution: From Wikipedia on "Hate Crime Laws in the US": "The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin"[1] or because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting."
A couple of things to notice. One is that I was wrong, in that hate speech is defended by the 1st Amendment generally. However, hate crimes are not, as you can see above.
The problem is that this particular law can also be used by, say, extremist Christians to claim that people who are attacking them because of their beliefs should be locked up too. That's why we don't advocate beating up US Nazis, except in self-defense.
Remember, this is a game of jujitsu, not boxing. The point isn't to punch out the Nazis, it's to use their vile acts against them in a way that disempowers them without getting hurt yourself.
]]>These laws are mainly proposed by right-wingnut legislatures so they can appease their christian-right-wingnut constituents. Even the legislators who introduce the bills and those who vote for them don't expect them to stand up in court.
It's more laws in the vein of "Don't do like I do, do like I tell you to do." Next they'll make "adultery" a crime, but they'll never prosecute preachers who indulge in it. The preachers can take the money out of the collection plate when they want to send their mistresses out of state to get an abortion. Won't cost them any more out of their own pockets if they have to send them out of the country
It's just like they preach "homosexuality is evil because all them gay guy's a child molesters", but the churches shield the preachers when they get accused.
If you think that only happens in the Roman Catholic Church, I've got a Bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.
]]>And usefully, contra JBS, it doesn't require that an actual act of violence was directly caused by the speech in question. All you need now is a legal system capable of and inclined to enforce those laws (and a judiciary not inclined to limit them to a ridiculous degree).
Aotearoa has just seen a dodgy bill defeated that, as part of the preparations, gained a completely batshit Attorney-General opinion that "only if there is a difference in treatment on the basis of one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination between those in 'comparable circumstances'... but no-one is comparable". So apparently you're only protected against discrimination if there is someone exactly like you in all respects except for the protected grounds and they're being treated differently.
So while the letter of the law says one thing, the de facto law is that well never you mind.
]]>With respect to the right to vote, it depends on which state you live in now, which state you lived in then and whether it was a conviction in a state court or a federal court. With regards to the "right to arm bears", it's even more complicated, but again "it depends" on who you are, what you were convicted of - state or federal - what state you live in now & lived in then ... and which way the wind is blowing next Tuesday.
Best bit of legal advice I ever got was,
"Don't go into court expecting TRUTH, JUSTICE & THE AMERICAN WAY, because what you're going to get is THE LAW ... and the law is whatever the Judge says the law is"
Which I later figured out is whatever some lawyer can convince the judge to say the law is.
]]>