The problem with hate speech is that a lot of it is subjective and if you ban it or whatever then you're telling people what they can and cannot say.
Who decides what is and isn't hate speech? The government? The people?
To some people saying you like President Trump is hate speech. To some saying that you wouldn't date a certain race for whatever reason is hate speech. Saying that you don't agree with LGBT+ is hate speech.
Now you're telling people they can't have a different opinion.
It doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, someone will always get triggered and upset. Someone will always consider it hate speech.
No. With very few exceptions (shouting Fire! in a crowded theater), the First Amendment is absolute.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.
So Justice Holmes ruling violated the first amendment by upholding the criminalization of those who spoke out in opposition the draft. And ever since, his bullshit reasoning has been used to further and further restrict free speech.
But if we are to legislate against, "hate speech", where to draw the line? Who decides what opinions are acceptable and not? Hate speech is a subjective term. You can call anything hate speech if you merely dislike it. There has been societies controlling what people say and do not say and they still exist to some degree. But I would think that to be far more unethical than someone holding a detestable view on something. You can always passionately denounce someone's beliefs if they are wrong, but what gives you the right to say this and this should be allowed to be spoken of, but not that and this?
u As soon as we begin carving out exceptions for out free speech rights, we will no longer have free speech, because it will be controlled by whatever party defines the exceptions. As soon as our free speech rights start to erode, it will become easier for others to impinge on our other constitutional rights.
Of course hate speech is unpopular. We should never confuse our feelings about the speaker with our feelings about free speech.
Thanks for MHO!
Opinion
103Opinion
The question is a little aside the point since the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that "hate speech" is protected speech. Such speech is only restricted insofar as it runs up against libel and slander laws or against speech that is designed to provoke violence.
Of course, God is in the adjectives and the devil is in the details, and the courts will be in business forevermore. The question having to be decided on an almost case-by-case basis.
The most recent question being the limits of speech on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and the like. On the one hand, those are private companies that have a wide ambit to place restrictions on the expressions of speech that take place on their sites. By the same token, insofar as they serve as media outlets, there are limits on the restrictions they impose.
To date, the balance has tilted toward giving such companies discretion. However, there has been strong objection to this from civil liberties groups and some political candidates, particularly in the Democratic party. They argue that such deference effectively allows powerful companies that may be beholden to unspecified "powerful interests" to control free speech.
It is not a view that I hold. Suffice to say that I mention it only to note that the question is not entirely settled.
Beyond that, and more alarming, is the number of Americans - particularly younger Americans - who view the First Amendment's free speech protections as out of date and in need of modification. Such political trendiness is, at the moment, still a minority view overall, but among those 18 to 25, more than half - 55% - argued that the First Amendment needs to be adjusted to forbid speech that is offensive to certain demographic, ethnic and racial groups.
This is an astonishing number and while it is likely a significant portion of those who hold the view that the First Amendment is outdated will likely "mellow" as they get older, it is still remarkable. Particularly given that the mantra of the Baby Boomer generation of the 1960s and 1970s - the age most comparable in social terms to the current period - was just the opposite. See also the Berkley Free Speech movement as Exhibit A.
The paradox being that as technologies have evolved that enhance communication, they reinforce the very human habit of people to live in their own heads. This has caused a splintering of the culture and has resulted in a degradation of the democratic consensus that has generally underpinned the country since its founding.
To be sure, there are some parallels in the more restrictive view. However, they have generally related to wartime and other national emergencies. However, this is the first time that there has been a view that favored not just an episodic modification of free speech laws, but a complete restructuring.
Likely this will calm as the culture calms, but it is still a profound shift. What its long term ramifications may be it is not yet possible to determine. Other than to add that it is a counterintuive of consequence of the nexus between mass communication technology and changing sensibilities - and that technology is not going away.
Hate speech as a concept doesn't exist. There is such as thing as hateful speech, but we have the right to be hateful and say angry, hateful things. Many people have said deplorable and unforgivable things to me that prove just how disgusting and small of a person they are but they have the right to say those things. And it's good they can because now I know what they really think. Now I know cunts like that exist for me to hate back. They say atrocious things as arguments for my death and so this gives me new ways of dismantling a stupid and bigoted belief and telling others who have faced similar discrimination, "look, I know these people, I know their arguments, they are terrible".
Unless something is explicitly calling on others to commit acts of violence, we should be allowed to express ourselves as we please. That doesn't mean we don't have to live with the consequences of our actions though. Talk shit get hit as far as I'm concerned. But the government nor corporations should be able to prohibit or censor speech.
As much as I dislike hate speech, I don't think any speech should be condemned. Be very careful where you tread when it comes to limiting freedom of speech, as that can lead to even more limiting until eventually you're living in a dictatorship where speaking out against the government or having any opinion the government doesn't support can lead to you being imprisoned or executed.
In other words, we either have freedom of speech, or we don't. I think we should be able to have it. Unfortunately, that comes with hearing some things we don't like.
I say let the hate speech run freely. The more people hear it the more of a joke it becomes. It only grows now because we silence it and pretend like if we hear it, it will destroy society or something. The racists will run rampant through the steets spewing hate and converting everyone into racists and homophobes!
Nah. Let them do their thing and the more people who know about them the more they are seen as a joke.
Racism dies to public and rational scrutiny. It’s only still alive because we give it space to grow by silencing them. They grow in private and then they shoot shit up because they are living in echo chambers just like the rest of us. Just our beliefs don’t lead to violence.
Unfortunately I am British, free-speech is dead in Britain as it is now criminalised to the extent that one will end up in prison for causing offence to a snowflake. There is absolutely NOTHING! wrong with expressing hatered, besides hate in some cases can be perfectly JUSTIFIED. The toughest and the most resilient people are of the older generation; whereas those born after 1995 are a bunch of wussies who upon being spooked by the sound of a flea-fart start crying for their moms. I believe in ABSOLUTE free-speech even if it offends. By the way I am a ethnic minority who is anti-political-correctness.
yes as it serves nothing to promote a persons oppinion but instead serves to disrupt and sully the nature of those it is intended to target...
the problem with hate speech is simply cowardice... whoever wants to cause trouble will do so to rally others to fight for them, it's cowardly and mainly targets those who are feeling the struggle by providing answers to the many questions that keep amounting, eeven though those answers seldom answer anything but the wording behind hate speech can make a lot of sense even when if you step back and look at the matter and said answers closer, you'll find much of what was said didn't actually answer anything it merely pandered to the tension and emotion each person had building up
Hate speech has always been around since there are people. Today we are all networked and these talk spread faster. Also, some hate speech can not be taken seriously.
We have hard won the free speech, they should continue to stay.
People have died protecting those rights. That’s not an exaggeration. If the the United States didn’t get involved I’m WW2 either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union would of taken over Europe and then attack us.
These kids saying we need “hate speech” laws are so incredibly stupid. They don’t get it.
No I was completely agreeing with you. Did you misread what I wrote?
Right. But who gets to determine what is hate speech or not?
But when you throw a whole group of people under the bus (what liberals are trying to do to conversatives) then the real bad guys are never identified
I also like how this take owner sourced several media journals that have liberal bias.
this generation is just to damn soft in my opinion , back in the early 90's you could say anything you wanted and people laughed it off , now you got people who get offended if you make fun of count chocula.
i could care less about who said what because it isn't what people say that matters no matter how many sensitive overly offended people say its wrong.
its about how you react to it which is the problem no one anywhere today reacts like a normal person , they act like a mentally disturbed person who is offended that there voices are being ignored.
thats not how it should be , i want to be able to talk about your mom and everyone laugh about it, but that want happen any time soon...
First, what is the point of freedom of speech if your not protecting all speech? I mean that's just idiotically stupid, you don't protect speech that people like you protect the speech that people don't.
Second who determines what is hate speech? I mean are we going by what offends people? If that's the case then you wouldn't be able to regulate it at all because you have people who are offended by those who don't support the LGBT community, but the people who don't support it are offended by them. So who's side do you choose? That's the fundamental problem of this argument, beyond the logistics of giving the power to regulate and punish those who speak or think differently (ironic since it would literally give power to the majority to oppress the minority), you have to choose one moral world view as being right and one that is wrong which means you are now enforcing morality upon a people. That's a dictatorship.
Speech isn’t entirely free in the US nor should it be. But the US leans closer than most countries to a very “free” legal rule set around speech. I think it’s part of a range of speech standards that’s good. I’m also comfortable with the laws in Canada where I am. Canada does have laws against hate speech, but the laws and legal precedents around them are VERY narrow.
Western Europe has slightly more restrictive laws again and I’d say most of them are “okay”, though I prefer either the Canadian or US models.
In both Canada and the US the criminal court system around speech is good. The actual problematic and challenging areas are around campus speech, deplatforming, censorship on critical internet platforms, Canadian provincial rights tribunals and so on.
free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want freely. hate speech isn't speech that offends or hurts someone. people who wanna stop others from being offensive are against free speech. people who wanna support inciting violence and discrimination are for hate speech.
in this entire debate about hate speech people fail to understand what "hate speech" is and in the debate about free speech, people fail to understand what free speech is. it's quite annoying to watch those debates in the media which are conducted by fools. my head hurts from face palming when i see that.
In the US, "freedom of speech" means that the government cannot generally suppress speech. Happily there's no right not to be offended. Everyone has the right not to listen, or to present an opposing viewpoint, to refuse to socialize with someone because of their viewpoint. This includes the right to stop employing someone because of hate speech.
There's no clear definition of hate speech. Anyone can choose to be offended by anything. Outlawing "hate speech" could result in the suppression of any minority viewpoint. No thanks.
Everything, no matter how upsetting it can be has to be alright to be said, otherwise you do not truly live in a free society. How people act upon their words or how people act towards views they find uncomfortable or wrong is a matter of their own morals and perception.
Some people will always be horrible for no reason and others will hold a core belief so strong that they cannot be persuaded to change it even when they are confronted with evidence that proves them to be incorrect. Only that individual can reach their own conclusions and should be free to do so, life has a funny way of dealing idiots a healthy dose of reality at some point. Why get hung up on it? If it effects us all however then don't be afraid to voice your concerns back, that's the beauty of living in a free society (supposedly).
No and thank God those of us with a brain voted the same way. The problem with hate speech is it is subjective.. What might be hate speech to you might not be hate speech to me.. Banning a form of speech simply because it offends you is the definition of fascism.. It's a slippery slope that no one with a brain wants to go down.. Thank God there are enough of us in the US that feel the same... Including the Supreme Court..
I feel the same about free speech as I do about the right to bear arms.. You will take it from me over my cold dead body..
Justice Kennedy was one of the justices that were involved in this
279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Well I guess it depends on what falls under hate speech.
Cause like the picture you posted speech that hurts others feelings may not necessarily be hate speech. Like for example being fired from your job.
It might make you upset, but doesn't mean the person doing it is using hate speech.
However if someone is threatening a group of people or saying clearly displaying signs of racism, sexism, and so on then I think that shouldn't be covered.
But... I hate it when I see people playing the race card over everything.
I know that hate speech is not protected here in The Netherlands as free speech.
It is illegal to incite hatred towards specific groups (could be gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion and sexual orientation) here.
It used to be illegal to insult the head of state of a friendly nation until a couple years ago, if I recall correctly.
Personally, eh I don’t really care about this legislation. This law is not really upheld, because it is simply impossible to do so at the rate hatred is spread in a nation but also legal limitations for the public prosecutor.
Hate speech is not the same as just speech that hurts other people's feelings, SJW's nowadays consider any opinion different from their's "hate speech" and that is what is wrong.
There is no such thing as hate speech in the US, all speech is protected by the first amendment, regardless of the beliefs or opinions expressed, and is one of the biggest reasons that make the US the greatest country in history. People like to point at the classic "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire". Unfortunately those people's government and society teachers failed them, this is a call to action, not speech. Calls to action can be regulated when it puts people at risk of getting hurt. While I could say very hateful things about a group of people that would cause most people to disassociate with me, I'm not allowed to tell people to attack or harm a group of people.
It depends on what you mean by "hate speech".
There are obviously things that aren't protected by freedom of speech. You're not allowed to yell fire in a public space if there is no fire, and threatening someone is illegal, regardless of whether or not it's just empty words.
Calling for violence towards a group of people is one thing. Simply saying something like, "I think black people are inferior" is another. It's certainly not a view I respect, but it should always be allowed to be said. After all, the only way to get rid of bad ideas is to confront them.
I think "free speech" is a misunderstood term. There's no country in the world that advocates the rights to freely say anything, at any time, to any person. Most truly democratic countries encourage freedom of belief, and the right to express that belief in the appropriate forum. Most people respect this, and that's why there is usually more harmony than disharmony. Hate-speech though, is usually only carried-out by people in an unstructured, inappropriate way. Usually, social-media, the internet in general etc. For example, if a group of people wanted to march through London with banners saying they believed in under-age sex, they would absolutely not be allowed to do it, obviously. However, this doesn't stop people expressing their warped views, normally about race or religion, then bleating on about "free speech" when all the decent people just tell them to shut up and go away.
"However, this doesn't stop people expressing their warped views," that however is EXACTLY what happens!!! In platforms like Twitter and countries like Canada it is a punishable offense if you call a transgendered individual by the wrong pronoun. Stating a conservative position that you have 2 genders can be a crime for example. In general these laws are abused by tyrannical groups to suppress the opposition and i see that effect every single week with the constant deplatforming going on.
My country has "Freedom of Opinion" laws and i believe even the UK might, but that watered down version is effectively useless. So no, anything should be allowed to be said. You should only punish for intended associated actions if these associated actions are illegal.
For example i should be allowed to mention "I want you to kill 10 children" as part of this example to illustrate a point, or for example say it in a fictional or satirical context. But if i actually instruct someone to kill 10 children that is an entirely different matter because then i actually instructed someone to commit a crime. So context and the associated actions should matter and not the words like it is when hate speech laws are implemented.
Or do you want teens getting a criminal record for posting rap lyrics on twitter? www.BBC.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
So no hate speech laws are the end of freedom and should be fought and disrespected at any oppertunity (But do so safely, don't get yourself in conflict with the law).
As for the pedophile group promoting underaged sex with a banner? That is a GOOD thing! Let them do it, let them advocate it openly and shout from the roof tops how great sex with children is to them. The whole town will know who to avoid and shun from coming close to their kids. Sunlight is the best disinfectant in that regard and suppressing it will make it go dark and then you have no idea how bad things are.
@sawno isn't that what I said? Free speech is the right to say whatever you like, as long it's said in the right forum/context. As for your opinion about a child-molester's march being a good thing... I don't know about Canada, but here in the UK two things would happen. Firstly, they would be held up as heroes by the all the weirdos, and the cause would just be legitimised. Secondly, half of them would be killed within hours, and then held up as martyrs because the government let them march.
If you ban someone's speech cause it offends you. Someone can ban yours if it offends them. Example: many would want to ban Nazis, cause they killed 6 million innocent people. But the same logic can be applied to socialists, who, in total killed 200+ million. Almost every left wing politician in America describes themselves as some form of socialist. So the same logic can be applied to arrest an entire wing of the American government.
So when you're arguing to ban 'hate speech'. You're also arguing for allowing Trump to arrest Bernie, AOC and everyone else in that camp.
It's similar with almost all speech restrictions, which is why we should just leave it free.
Besides the government has no business policing your opinions.
Well if you wanna go that way it's got to apply to everyone not just those "dang white people". I say that as a Brit. In the UK hate priests & others of different ethnic groups can run their mouths 24/7 and police won't do a dang thing about it. An actual Brit says something & he/she best run before the plods arrive.
@wankiam Obviously you're not British and/or have not a single clue about what you're talking. Anjem Choudary, one of the loudest mouths in this regard, is still in the UK.
@wankiam - by the way wherever did I say Muslim? Far more than just that. Muslims just make the news. Go visit the UK for a learning experience.
@wankiam Oh do be quiet you ignorant fool. By the way if you were a Brit you must hang your tail between your legs like a whipped cur. Embarrassing response you just gave as Farage & the others have little to do with a mentality that's far older.
@wankiam Just because you live in the UK doesn't mean you're British. You could be one of the countless American or Canadian or Australian kids whose parents moved back while I, on the other hand, my family's been in the UK for centuries.
Any self respecting Brit, after all, would know what exactly is going on in the country & not make lame excuses or point the wrong fingers trying to excuse it. The real politician to blame, after all, is that moronic spineless sniveling coward called Tony Blair. Not Farage nor anyone else except they've balls not to put up with garbage in their own country.
* with garbage behaviour in their own country
well im English and i disliked blair too but that doesn't mean farage isn't a knighthood chasing tool of trump now does it? also you may have noticed one thing here... we have clearly very differing views on politics in the uk but you are the one who seems to be struggling with civil discussion. to that end this conversation is done as far as im concerned.
@wankiam Fine. I don't like discussing the UK with someone who's pretending to be a real Brit. As for Trump. Better than the wanker in charge of Canada or the pansy who runs France. If we were back a century, after all, the French would probably do as their forefathers did and sit watching as their leaders' heads rolled.
@wankiam Obviously you're not very British if you don't understand most Brits realize we're European too. The Continent, after all, is but a hop, skip & a jump away. There's a number of European aspects still in the UK - such as dialects, northern England & southern Scotland dialects apparently sound very Scandinavian still.
It's real only Americans that can't grasp that concept and believe Brits are more like them than we are a culture onto ourselves or more European even.
But as for Europe. Thanks to Blair and his lackeys & the mentality of having borders open wider & easier than a brothel house's doors... forgetting the Muslim issue let's consider why human & drug trafficking has high ties with Romanians & from neighboring regions. Just check the stats on jail house inmates.
@wankiam Ah typical leftist personality. When someone doesn't agree with your unable-to-be-backed-with-facts claims you call them a racist. Don't you leftists ever get tried of slinging names as if you're nothing but children slinging mud on the school yard?
The irony of course is I have probably far more friends among different cultures than you have or can even imagine for that matter. Nigerian, Japanese, South African (white, black & "Coloured"), Thai, Korean, South Indian, Punjabi, Sikh, Afghan Gurjar, Egyptian (Muslim & Copt), and people of mixed. We have good rapports because I respect them & want to learn about them, their culture, religion, etc. Many leftists on the other hand just like running their mouths but when push comes to shove know very little about others.
@wankiam - friends *Nigerian, Japanese, South African (white, black & "Coloured"), Thai, Korean, South Indian, Punjabi, Sikh, Afghan Gurjar, Egyptian (Muslim & Copt), and people of mixed. That's not including others or other Europeans for that matter. I do know a number of Bulgarians & Serbs as example.
@wankiam ROFL. A leftist. Can't realize you backed yourself into a corner, hmm.. But you claim to be British. So why, as an actual Brit, would I ask about you or your life unless you being British is indeed a lie as I've assumed from the start?
But do entertain me. What is it about your life I should know?
@wankiam If I were to assume southern of lower middle class. Correct me if wrong.
As a northerner or, as a Londoner once put it "one of those fools who speaks funny" (and foreigners think there's no rifts between British except for the most publicized), after all, your sheltered commentary and blatant disregard for what it is to the British is amusing.
@wankiam Ah. The irony is it's not like liberals or leftists care about the British poor either. If they truly did they'd have sought a means to stop the endless/unchecked migration of far cheaper labour from other countries that, in essence, steal British jobs. Why, after all, pay a Brit 20 pounds when someone from let's say Poland will do the same job for 10.
you mean the jobs no one wants to do... i pulled leeks out of the ground for fuck all money myself when i was a lot younger and i can't say its great. then lets consider the fact that taxes paid by migrant workers far outweigh any costs to the government but it was tories not spending that gained tax revenue on improving the nhs or schools etc so good old nationalists can blame the migrants instead for the pressures on social services. then there's the staff shortfalls in may other services where if eu migration stops we still need to bring in foreign workers but from farther afield where we have no security accords between governments. ironically the biggest group of people that repeat what you just said are sat on the dole or upper middle class. either they dont want to pull leeks or they dont want to use the extra tax revenue to give phoney trade deals to their corporate mates who then asset strip peopes pensions or stop bulding roads half way through
@wankiam Those jobs no one else wanted to do? Money is money. You need money or you starve. You need money or you live on the street. A lot of Brits during the early 19th century worked shit jobs. Lot harder than pulling leeks with far less pay. They earned respect because of their work ethic. My mother did the same - pulled fruits. I never heard her squawking about it. ... But then it's absolutely no wonder the younger generation is full of slackers & layabouts when their parents do nothing but whine about a hard day's work...
As for myself. My grandfather was dirt poor Irish. Dirt poor. Barely had the clothes on his back. My other grandfather left the UK years ago with just pocket lint of change. So I'd watch what I'd say if I were you, boyo, when you assume things of other people. I know exactly how the British poor is.
i have made no assumptions about you whatso ever though have i? all i said is you use the same arguements as the edl or rees mogg but what i dont understand now is why you are using the same rhetoric to suggest the modern world is the same as the ones our forefathers fought for. and given the fact that in those days we also relied on migrant workers im still failing to see any logic to it... or are we just ignoring the windrush generation and the invite to indians and pakistanis to come and live and work here after the war when we had a similar shortage of labour at the unskilled manual level
No law can replace education. If you outlaw hate speech there will be those who use this law to their advantage just like there are thise who use free speech totheir advantage. How about creating laws that support ethical education as a requirement for everyone who chooses to participate in public debate and discourse. These days it actually is everyone. We all have access to this right. The question is, is our intention the betterment of humanity or our own self interest?
I think this is one of those issues on which the right and left are just talking over each other and debating straw men.
The right is making a claim of policy: "hate speech should remain legal". While the left is making a claim of value: "hate speech is wrong".
Both are correct.
It’s free speech. Free speech doesn’t mean we have to like it or agree with it. However, it does not make the speech free from consequences.
Free speech is binary, you either have the freedom to say what you want without legal consequences or you can't speak freely. It absolutely should be protected to say anything, but you can prevent certain actions from being done such as keeping it illegal to order something already illegal to be done.
"Hate Speech" at the end of the day is still speech.
The idea that verbal hatred leads the violence, or that restricting verbal hatred prevents violence, is not supported by the evidence.
In fact, the evidence supports the contrary. Look up Daryl Davis sometime.
I can say "I hate xyz people because they..." all day long and that's fine. But it crosses a line if I say "All xyz people should be killed".
@WalterBlack why?
If I was an influential person and I was saying this publically, it might be enough to push someone over the edge who was already thinking about doing harm to xyz people.
@WalterBlack you use the word "might", because the evidence doesn't support it would. It's already illegal, yet it hasn't had any effect on reducing the amount of violence. The only effect it's had force these views underground where most people can't see it
Inciting people to commit a criminal act is a criminal act unto itself.
@WalterBlack Doesn't mean it makes sense or it should. "Hate Speech" laws are a restriction on freedom of speech, that serves no pragmatic purpose.
Everyone has the right to say what they need to say. This fired not apply to lies and slander. That's not hate speech. That's not even speech, it's a hate crime done with words. Now, before you go calling me out for voting no then saying yes, that's not what I'm doing. Words are not speech. Words are a tool that is used for speech. Speech is how you communicate with the world through words or actions, or, silence. You wouldn't take a screwdriver or a hammer and call those things carpentry. No. They are told used by carpenters. So-called hate speech communicates nothing and is merely misusing a tool.
Unfortunately, we have to put up with some hate speech, to allow free speech. If we didn't allow hate speech, then all a president would have to do, is decide anything that is said against him/her, is hate speech, and stop all talk against their actions. Much like Trump calls anything said against him is fake news. If the term was changed from fake news, to hate speech, then anyone speaking against him or his policies, would be doing something illegal.
ALL speech should be free speech. If you want to go down the road of what is hate speech and what is not... MOST of the whiners who bitch about what is hate speech are the most hateful garbage people there are.
Ex: The assholes who claim Jordan Peterson is "hate speech" (when he is not), are the most violent, hateful, and bigoted group of people there are.
Just look up the Queen's University Protest.
Or the bigots who tried to shut down Warren Farrell's lecture about the issues boys have in school, over it being "hate speech" (which again... it was not).
These garbage parasites were the worst type of human garbage.
THIS piece of garbage ---->
Expressing hate or disdain is most certainly a right. Without that right we don´t have democracy.
Who decides what constitutes free speech? Many extremists consider preaching the gospel as free speech. Theyd see disagreeing against climate change as hate speech or rejecting the notion of white privledge as hate speech. It would be a slippery slope.
Many extremists consider preaching the gospel as *hate* speech
Hate speech is subjective. There are things most reasonablrpeople would say is hate speech. But what if I talk shit on french people. Saying they are rude and smell or say dems/republicans are dumb. What I'm getting at is that no matter what you say someone will be offended. We start banning all things "offensive" iand we all lose our rights even those who were offended to begin with. It's a slippery slope.
Real free speech is being allowed to say ANYTHING, included so called ”hate speech”. If there are some things you’re not allowed to say then there is no free speech.
In America, if you say FIRE in a movie theatre, you will be arrested and taken to jail and fined. If you say, I Wanna kill whitie on a crowded plane, you will be deplaned, as that is inappropriate behavior in that space. I'm gonna blow up the plane will get you banned and sent to jail. If you're in a protest march, you might be able to say you want to blow up blacks or kill whites as you walk down the street. So, it's situational.
@Screenwriter wow...
I believe that though "hate speech" is wrong, and people shouldn't hate on others. People should still be allowed to use it if they want, if you start taking away one part of "speech" then they can start restricting other parts until there is no freedom of "speech"
Any speech that is offensive is hate speech? Then everyone should STFU because everyone will find something offensive. Or maybe we ought to just suck it up and not care about what others are saying. After all it's just talk get the sand out of your sensitive ass.
Anuone who does not understand that so-called hate speech is a Marxist delusion that is used to suppress opposition to Communism should move to Venezeuela, or Cuba, or North Korea today, so that they can live in what Marx described as his “workers’ paradise”.
You have to leave it alone, because there is no consensus on what Constitutes hate speech. We start banning hate speech, next thing we'll be arresting comedians for making Jewish jokes.
Honestly, I think as long as you're not encouraging violence, it should be protected.
"Although I may not agree with what you are saying, I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Freedom comes with responsibilities. If you can't be bothered to exercise your responsibility to speak with tact, then you also shouldn't exercise your right to free speech. However, since the right is given by God and not by any human organization, no one can rightfully take it away either.
Not to get nit picky, but... it’s not “the law of the land “ that gives us these certain inalienable rights, like life itself, but they come from the diety itself, and isimmortalized in the preamble to the constitution, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That they come from the hand of God means only god can take them away.
Who desides what's hate and what's not? That's just another way to pull just a little more freedoms from citizens. Never effects the ones who they target. Just like taking guns, criminals will always have them. And why you ask... cause they're criminals. Laws haven't stopped them yet.
No, I don't. If everyone agrees speech is okay, there is no reason to enshrine a restriction on government against impeding it. It's the speech that is uncomfortable that needs to be protected. I hate when someone uses hate speech, but I'll fight to the death for their right to say it
The problem with the overused term "hate speech" is that so many people will just slap that label on just about ANY comment that doesn't agree with their own. Someone doesn't like your chartreuse snowpants? That's obviously "hate speech"- snowpants shaming, etc.
Freedom of speech means Freedom of speech how are you supposed to call it free if you want to be subtracting speech that you don't like that's not free
Hate speech should absolutely be protected by the first amendment. I have spent most of my life in opposition to haters. But I would lay down my life to defend their right to spout they're bullshit.
Hate speech is slander. It isn't allowed under our constitution however, it's always left up to debate on just how severe the slander would need to be to be illegal. People commenting on this act like they've never read our actual constitution and just say freedom of speech is for everything when it's really not.
Like I said, its left up for debate on how severe the slander is. "Defamation is not protected by the First Amendment. When defamation occurs in speech it is referred to as slander and when in print it is called libel. While defamation does not count as free speech, defining what defamation is can get tricky. Defamation is essentially a lie that can harm a person’s reputation. However, not all statements that can harm a person’s reputation count as defamation. Basically, the statement has to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to be defamatory. Spreading a lie that an individual is on a sex offender registry, for example, when you know that that individual is not on any such registry would count as defamation. Merely expressing a negative opinion about that same individual’s character and temperament, however, would not count as defamation since such opinions are not being presented as facts." -thelawdictionary. org
You are referring to laws against individuals. People are free to talk about groups of people as they want.
And I can insult an individual for being black or whatever is much as I want, as long as I do not spread something that is more than just an opinion.
"He's a typical (n-word)" vs "I saw him steal."
Saying he stole is slander.
Our country and our constitution is never more than one generation away from failing. That is because we must ensure that each generation understands it. You're 17 years old. You need to understand it. because if you don't, you will be one of the people that brings this country down. Hate speech needs to be protected. If you ban it today, what will be banned tomorrow? Religious speech? Maybe speaking out against the government will be banned after that. I'm sure our great president would love to see us lose our right to make fun of him. Understand that you don't have to like the hate speech. Just understand that it is not practical. It must be protected or no opinions will be protected.
There is a difference in banning hate speech blatantly against individuals and religious speech. Just because I'm 17, doesn't mean that I'll bring this country down by thinking that. If anyone was to bring this country down, it would be the very people in power inciting so much hate against eachother and playing sides.
You clearly don't know what defamation is. Defamation is the action of damaging someone's good reputation.
First you have to make a statement that is false while purporting that it's a fact.
Second you have to communicate this to a third person. (So, one on one conversations can't be defamation)
Third requires fault amounting to negligence.
Fourth you have to prove damages. So, you have to prove that the lie that was communicated to outside parties and are negligent (some states require actual malice) caused some sort of damage to you. For example you losing your job over it.
If you can prove all of that then, and only then, is it defamation. Slander is just verbal defamation as oppose to written defamation known as libel.
If I hate on anyone and everyone and it's just my opinion then in no way can it ever be considered defamation. If what I am saying actually is true, then in no way is it defamation. Hate speech can be a fact and it can be (mostly is) an opinion.
You don’t know what slander is. Making a false story about a real person and spreading it around to damage their reputation is slander.
Making a general statement that “gender is determined by chromosomes” is not fucking slander. It’s not even hate speech. It’s scientific fact.
Okay by gender is determined by chromosomes. Sex is determined by chromosomes - not gender. Gender is a social construct and usually pertains to the gender role we give people. www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php www.physiology.org/.../japplphysiol.00376.2005
Oops *but and *isn't. My keyboard wacks out sometimes
It depends, if you're just online saying something that falls under hate speech, you should be fine. However, if you're yelling offensive things at someone on the street due to race, religion, sexuality, etc, that's a different story and should be considered hazing and be dealt with legally
Absolutely not. The freedom Americans have to be free of government nitwits deciding what is so-called "hate speech" is something that is precious and distinguishes us from other Western countries.
Leftists are trying to implement hate speech laws in Europe but it doesn't work out so well because we dont have much free speech to begin with. Many people simply refuse to answer certain questions and portray avoidant behaviour when an answer could be offensive or hate speech or something similar like that.
Anything you say will hurt someone's feelings. This is getting dangerous. You should be able to voice your opinions without being put in jail. Even if those opinions are unpopular and offend others.
Threat speech is the only speech that I can think of that shouldn’t be free speech.
Other than that, hate speech, although it is unfortunate some people feel they have to use, it shouldn’t be illegal.
If you think about it though, it kind of is illegal now. People will be doxxed and/or have their lives destroyed if they say one nonwhite racial slur.
There a such thing as hate speech but it really has to be a hate speech. According to some snowflake, anything can be a hate speech. Its just easy for SJWs to abuse the accusation saying it is hate speech without elaborations even though it is not while they use ad hominems to response making them ironically the one using hate speech. Ad hominems and name callings are examples of hate speech.
Free speech is free speech.
Snow flakes, woke freaks and the endlessly offended by everything don't get to sweep in 240 years ever our liberty's are won and crybaby about "feelings" and nullify our liberty.
if you let government regulate speech in order to spare the feelings of minorities then there wouldn't be any freedom of speech anymore because you only need to find or create a group of victims for banning any kind of speech that you don't like and governments will use this loophole to control speech and eventually control thought.
Free speech is not the same as being allowed to incite hatred. You can say what you want to express your opinion but you’re not allowed to spread willingly hatred. Free speech comes with responsibilities.
No just because the speech is toxic doesn't mean we should ban it after all, speech is speech. besides if someone can't get they're hate out verbally after a while they may turn to releasing it through actions and that will hurt a lot more than people's feelings
This reminds me of WWI when speaking against the government wasn't covered by the First Amendment. It technically is still freedom of speech.
@Girther10 Settlers started migrating from Europe in the 1600s. The "birth" of the USA is generally thought to have occurred with the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788 and went into effect the following year. The first ten Ammendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, was ratified in 1791. So, it is not quite correct to say the First Ammendment is as old as our country.
Around the world many governments have used war as an excuse to give themselves "temporary" emergency powers that limit personal freedoms. In some cases these emergency powers are unconstitutional, but they remain in place unless someone has the courage to mount a legal challenge.
@Girther10 she is correct. Our first amendment liberties were restricted during ww1.
@Blueeyes81, Girther10 was indeed correct. The "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" thing was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s dishonest way of rationalizing the government's prosecution/persecution of people who were exercising their constitutional right to free speech in opposing WWI and the draft. And that argument has been used ever since to further curtail the right of free speech as guaranteed in the first amendment.
@Lliam. 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States,
@Lliam and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated,
@Lliam and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service. . . .
In short any thing deemed offensive to the government in wartime. Strikes at plants, political cartoons, speaking out against war bonds were all a violation of this act. Sure seems like a restriction on free speech.
You either have free speech, or you don't.
If you make exceptions to the law, the whole law becomes worthless.
everyone has a right to free speech not just the ones we agree with (unless you are republican, of course)
Anyone can speak whatever way they want. Intelligence suggest we use prudence. Hate speech to one listener, is endorsement and accepted truth for another. Yes it should be covered by the first amendment. Unless we want a communistic society that dictates what we are suppose to think say and do, we better start to recognize each other concerns, figure out why we dislike actions and words, and own up to maturity... comrades. Signed, a card carrying republican
Republicans are American Citizens, and therefore, have the same rights.
Now, there was a time when a Democrat President actually had a reporter thrown in jail, and all his assets seized, for writing and printing a newspaper column that was harshly critical. The man was kept in jail for quite some time without any due process. Said Democrat passed the "Alien & Sedition Act", specifically to punish his critics.
Well, the whole incident got out, said Democrat POTUS, was furious. Eventually, the Alien & Sedition Act was declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The reporter was freed from jail after a long time. All because the sitting Democrat President went to war with the press because of an unfavourable article, He denied the man his legal rights and held him in solitary confinement with out any due process
of law.
If this is sounding familiar in current events, it should.
The Democrat President I speak of was the 1st Democrat President, Thomas Jefferson... a slave owner too!
That depends on how you define hate speech. Criticism of a person or group is not automatically hate speech and should be protected. However, speech that encourages discrimination or physical harm against a person or group should not be protected. Simply hurting one's feelings is not hate speech.
You could reasonably capture this as the associated action intending to violate the law, violence is against the law so encouraging someone to commit violence is encouraging someone to commit a crime. But in the writing of the law its crucial context and intentions are taken into account otherwise it will get abused when the receiving party interperates it this way but it was never intended by the original speaker.
The 1st amendment protects your right to say what you want.
It doesn't protect you from an ass whooping though, for the consequences of what is blurted out. Lol
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions