Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Well said, sir!
Finally someone that understands the whole concept of hate speech being subjective
Banning hate speech can literally be like banning all speech. Because someone somewhere will be offended by something or not like your views on something and claim you're being hateful and have you arrested. Its similar to what they are doing in the uk and Canada.
Justice Kennedy was one of the justices that were involved in this279 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.
"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-43816921So 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, You're right.
I agree, Kaazsz.
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.
@sawno Yes, I agree with that statement.
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.
@westwordbound So a freedom of speech is a total nonsense, in your eyes. Great, I can not share that.
No I was completely agreeing with you. Did you misread what I wrote?
@westwordbound It's about hate speech. If hate speech can be spoken publicly, the police can better prosecute these orators and then arrest them. Hate speech and its consequences are punished, destroyed.
Right. But who gets to determine what is hate speech or not?
@westwordbound You're right. Filtering hate speech is difficult, but the observation that everyone is allowed to talk freely is easier, and thus the bad person can be identified more quickly
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.
@westwordbound It's about recognizing such people quickly and effectively. Only when they speak publicly, is this possible. So you should and can talk.
@WhiteShoulder- well said👏🏼👏🏼
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.
"All black people are lazy and all white people are crazy."Oh no, "slander"! Arrest me!Good luck having that held up in court xD
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.
Also, slander is very difficult to prove in court and almost always is just about an individual having lies spread about them.
Sorry. Hate speech not slander. It is opinion. And while it is absolutely stupid opinion, people have the right to their own stupid opinions. that's what makes America great. People can have their own stupid opinions. Including you. You need to go back and read the Constitution.
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
Ouch. I just had to look that up and point goes to lady on that one. :)
How about the case of the Nazi pug? Free speech or inciting hatred against jews?
@sawno nasty example but still covered by free speech and even artistic expression. He’s not calling for the (2nd) extermination of the Jewish people. I find it extremely bad taste but it’s not incitement of hatred.
He got fined for it being offensive to jews and the money was taken by force. It goes to show how important it is to never let these tyrannical rules.
Wrong. Speaking against the government has always been protected speech before during or after world war one
In fact the first amendment is as old as our country is it has nothing to do with world war one
You are not inches from madness you were there days ago
@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.
Therefore making hate speech subjective at best. Basically if they don't agree with your point of view they can say its hate speech and have you arrested. They literally do this in Canada and the uk.
Yes and that is insane, I would only classify hate speech as something that calls for violence against others which is pretty easy to tell apart from just an opinion others may dislike.
If that's the case then all SJWs would be guilty of hate speech. As i see they are the only ones calling for violence against other people that disagree with them.
A good line is making the intended associated actions punishable.So i can perfectly say "You should hire a hitman to kill jessica" as part of this example, because we all understand it is an example and i am not literally ordering you to kill jessica. It could be part of a play or you citing what someone else said.However when you give direct and clear instruction that someone should hire a hitmen to kill jessica then there is an action associated with the words with clear intent. And that should be punishable. Its the perfect ground that we used for years before people tried scrutinizing the barrier.
Yeah, except there are ways to blur this line, as well. If someone with a lot of ciolent followers with nothing to lose said "It sure would be easier if Jessica died" is that clear intent? It would be to me. But in a court of law that is supposed to err on the side of not guilty, probably not.
Violent, not ciolent..
No, honey, it’s not. Pure “hate speech” (as opposed to a hate crime like burning a cross) is not a tort in any state in the US. And if a law like that was passed, it would be struck down as unconstitutional. The fact that you know the word “tort” suggests that you’ve been to law school, but speech alone is not and should not be a tort, let alone a crime (they’re not the same thing).@wankiam I don't know about Britain. They have different rules about free speech. But I’m a lawyer in the US (for real; ignore what I said to you in pm) and I’ve taken a seminar on this subject. I believe very strongly in equal rights for minority groups, but I also believe people should be allowed to say whatever they want.
@WhiteShoulder it differs in uk law because it can be seen as a means to incite hate or violence. thats why we have certain people in prison for such things. it doesn't mean i dont persoanally advocate free speech but unlike america we dont have it all tied up in the constitution
@wankiam I understand. Thanks 😊.
it’s actually covered under slander or libel
if you were any good at being a lawyer, you’d be able to convince the jury that hate speech is under defamation or whatever else (depending on what was said) it lies on your skill. if you’re Not a good lawyer, you wouldn’t be able to prove all the requirements and will just Shun off your client with a lazy answer like you just did. lawyers are supposed to make a square fit into a circular hole, if you know what i mean.
Of course. But I were defending a client against a lawsuit for defamation because of alleged "hate speech," I would simply file a motion for summary judgment arguing that even if my client did what my opponent said she did, she did nothing wrong AS A MATTER OF LAW. The judge would dismiss the case and it would never get to a jury.I take it back. You obviously didn't go to law school, which means you probably found the word "tort" in one of those online law dictionaries (which explains how you confused a tort with a crime...).
i won’t let you insult me, it’s obvious i’m not confused by it. it doesn’t seem like you’d be a good lawyer if you were to just dismiss it & not fight for hate speech being a thing
If my client wanted to sue someone for "hate speech" (and could afford my fee) OF COURSE I'd argue that hate speech is a thing. But my personal view is that people should be allowed to say whatever they want. "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Jefferson)God I love arguing with people!
i haven’t read this yet, you seem very passionate about proving me wrong. i’m not going to argue with you any more, i just feel really bad for your clients. they deserve someone more intelligent and who uses the facts to their advantage. people are free to say what they want, but not if it puts another at risk. sorry for your clients. maybe refer them to someone else next time
@valsaie if you mean speech designed to incite violence, I agree
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".
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
Many extremists consider preaching the gospel as *hate* speech
To speak with “tact”? Who decides what “tact” is? You? Lol😅😂
Well, I suppose that given the logic I presented, the giver of the right would decide the corresponding responsibility. In American law, that's God, although the definition of the responsibilities he gives is open to interpretation.
So God decides what “tact” is?
Remind me not to ask you anymore hard questions
What if the five year old kid down the street decides that he does not like certain speech so he is the one we listen to
Alright, you're free not to like my answers or ask me questions. But the fact is that in America, the law of the land declares that human rights are given by God and cannot be taken away by any lesser power, including the government.