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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions