Do you believe that "Hate Speech" isn't free speech, and it shouldn't be covered under the 1st Amendment? (Page 2)

[atlantis2019]

Who determines what hate speech is? That is the problem with questions like this one. The truth is the only solution to this let people say that want. If you don't like it, don't associate with that person. Associate with people who feel as you do. Its wrong to try to force people to think like you. That is what dictators do. The beautiful thing about the United States is we can say what we want as long as we are prepared to live with the consequences.

[BCA6010]

People need to get over themselves and mentally toughen up. All this proves is that we have gotten significantly weaker as a society since the late 1700s.

[FavoriteColor]

This is a very poorly worded question. The first amendment covers more then free speech, it also protects or freedoms of expression, and the rights to media. I do not mean to offend but I would vote no and have to state that because, all speach should be protected under the first amendment.

[Nate_99]

All speech is free. If you tell one group that they are not allowed to speak freely, then you no longer have free speech. If you allow one part of an argument you you have to make it free for everyone even if you do not agree. Just because someone says something harmful doesn't mean they are protected from people's reactions. If someone says something that another person doesn't agree with then that other person has equal freedom to respond however they wish.

[Juxtapose]

I am damn near a free-speech absolutist and I despise, from the bottom of my heart, these disgusting authoritarians who want to let their feelings get in the way of freedom of expression.

[Lliam]

I'm with you, Juxtapose.

[Juxtapose]

@Lliam Good! The more that do, the better. We both know what will happen if authoritarians become the majority..

[normalice]

there has to be a line somewhere. Otherwise, if you hire a hit man to kill someone (and then don't pay them) you can't really be accused of anything beyond just talking.

[sawno]

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.

[normalice]

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.

[normalice]

Violent, not ciolent..

[broncobryan]

The first amendment protects all speech, there may be consequences to what you say however. Like a bloody nose or a fat lip. When we start limiting our speech is when we lose the 1st amendment, kinda like the 2nd amendment right now

[Dargil]

Read the First Amendment. It is unconditional. Yelling FIRE! in a theater is an exception because it exposes persons to immediate potential harm. Calling Elizabeth Warren Liawatha doesn't.

[Gammerman]

The only reason Im saying no, is because that would be twisted into something other than that, and politicians and others would pin criticism as hate speech and would add to corruption.

[FunkyMonkee]

You mean when people call others racist or what have you and refuse them service in certain places just because they have a slightly different opinion?

[Janncis]

Well who is going to define what is hate speech? What is normal for you might be hate for other, so if i dont like what your saying, i can just claim it as hate speech. It may warrie from community to community.

[loveslongnails]

It's a thin line to walk. I'd rather be on the side of "too much" than "not enough" free speech, even hate speech. But I also think you can set boundaries, even regulate, where it's done.

[westwordbound]

And who gets to decide what is the hate speech vs. free speech? The NY Times? CNN? College activists who scream racist, bigot and homophobe at anybody who doesn’t look at them the right way?

[Philyouup]

Hate speech or any speech that dehumanizes other is not free speech. Not in a civilized world.

It’s not about hurting other people feelings. Not even close. It’s about the promotion of harm to people that are subject to the hate speech. Jews , even today , are subject to hate speech and the harm it brings. This is not a snow flake issue , except to somebody in the extreme right!

[Marriedwith2]

the exact same people who want to have their hate speech protected are always the ones who cry like babies when they hear something they don't like or are called on it

[Inv8derChris]

I don't think there should be legal consequenses of hate speech; but people should definitely be held accountable for what they say and do.

[Prime_Sol]

Everyone that's cool with the "hate speech is free speech" would be the same people mad and ready to fight when their children start getting shit on under that same free speech

[Guanfei]

Words only have the power you give them. No matter what someone tells you, all you have to do is walk away.

[jakeofalltrades]

I believe free speech is free speech. if you don't like what someone has to say don't listen to them. I also believe that if you start trying to censor our rights soon we won't have any

[Mexicoman101]

Hate speech is free speech and necessarily needs to be covered by the first amendment.

[valsaie]

it’s NOT covered by the amendment, it’s actually considered a tort. most people don’t know this. that’s why they think that hate speech is seen as free speech. but it’s punishable by law.

[WhiteShoulder]

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.

[wankiam]

@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

[WhiteShoulder]

@wankiam I understand. Thanks 😊.

[valsaie]

it’s actually covered under slander or libel

[valsaie]

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.

[WhiteShoulder]

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...).

[valsaie]

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

[WhiteShoulder]

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!

[valsaie]

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

[WhiteShoulder]

@valsaie if you mean speech designed to incite violence, I agree

[JesseJayNeak]

The "hate speech" they're talking about it's basically a different opinion from theirs. The ones who call out hate speech are the ones who perform it

[FlaviusStilicho]

Hate speech is nonsense and a nebulous term. People are free to say whatever they want, unless it's a direct incitement to violence, slander, or a false warning like fire in a theater.

[SomeGuyCalledTom]

It depends who gets to define what's considered hate speech.

[EABsTUQ]

Hate speech isn't the issue. Individualism is. But now I crazy huh

[Anonymous]

Liberals hate opinions that do not match their own. They are intolerant of other opinions. They are hateful! Free Speech is necessary, they just hate it.

[Opinion Owner]

Slippery slope as hate speech can be expanded to encompass anything someone seems hate. Saying bad things about the President could be hate speech. Be careful what you ask for, you could get it.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

No. People have the right to hate if we call it free speech. Free speech can cover things we love or hate.

[YHL6965]

I think people should be free to say whatever they want, the dangerous parts of speech is already covered by what we call "harassment".

[Anonymous]

hate speech that is JUST speech, is freedom of speech

hate speech, such as the one that hitler did, to incite violence, is of course, not free speech, since violence then occurred

keep in mind, im jewish

[Lunatic1]

It depends on what the speech is. But most speech deemed "hate speech" is not really hateful at all, they just don't agree with it.

[bladedshard]

Freedom of speech means everyone can yell, that includes; both liberals and conservatives. Its how you respond to others that matters.

[Fmitaahayc]

All speech is free speech just becaise you don't like it doesn't mean it should be stopped. I mean freedom of SPEECH and hate SPEEECH can't have freedom of speech if you take some away

[DWornock]

No! I believe, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but..."

[aguyintheworld]

Hate speech is just an excuse to shut certain people up. Cuz if it pisses off somebody enough it considered hate speech.

[Amanda269]

Hate speech is included in free speech, but free speech is not consequence free. You can and will be persecuted for hate speech

[sawno]

No, the whole point of free speech is that you can't get persecuted for what you say.
Your peers can treat you different based on what you say but you are allowed to say anything along as the intended action your words cause is not illegal.

[Amanda269]

You are right. It separates from free speech along with slander, defamation and racism in the legal system.

[Lliam]

Are you guys talking about persecution or prosecution?

I oppose hate speech laws and hence prosecution, except in cases of slander or open encouragement of violence.

I'm actually opposed to persecution, too. It implies an actual campaign of oppression, maltreatment, abuse, brutality. It is a form of violence. It's ironic to say "I hate people who hate."

However, certain opinions and behaviors have repercussions. They can lead to alienation from friends, family and neighbors, mockery, disdain, unpopularity, and even ostracism. I don't know if I would say this is the same as persecution, though.

Today, we have so-called liberals (whom I don't consider to be liberal all) condemning all kinds of opinions as hate speech. And we have Zionists claiming that any criticism of Israel is "antisemtic" hatred. People hold confrontational "counter rallies" to oppose groups they oppose. They disrupt lectures. They protest to cancel scheduled speakers with whom they disagree.
I strongly oppose all of these things because they are antithetical to free speech.

What I support are reasoned counter arguments. I also think it's important to lead by example. If you disagree with someone's views, counter them with well reasoned arguments. Help the public to understand why you think they are wrong. I think this is more effective than acting as badly as those with whom you disagree. For example, behaving like a fascist is a poor way to oppose fascism.

[devilman666]

@sawmo you have it backwards here. You have the right to say whatever you want, "black people are evil", as an example. Then I can respond, "that's fucked up and I think you're racist.", I just persecuted you in the example, but that is my free speech, giving me the right to judge you and to state my opinion of you. If you have free speech then I do too, and that means I have the freedom to say that I think the things you said are fucked up, wrong, and toxic.

Just to be clear, I dont think you're racist, I just made an example.

[devilman666]

Persecution: (google dictionary) hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

Merriam-webster:
1. to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict
specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2. to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches

The definition seems a little varried, but it mostly seems like ill-will to me.

[Savage_Wisdom]

I may not agree with what they say, but I will gladly give my life for their right to say it.

[Codywow]

Unless you are brandishing a weapon and threatening someone the law should not be involved.

[GreatnessBack]

I've often seen hate speech lead to actual violence, and that's not good. People with enough hatred and rage will eventually act out, in a negative way.
Apart from that, hate speech is baseless, pointless and useless.
I see no need for it.

[mrkdvsn]

A resounding NO. Nobody necessarily has the right to not be offended by what someone else says.

[13IsALuckyNumber]

Hate speech is not free speech in any way. Hate speech is out there to not even prove a point, but just to say something negative. It’s not okay and it shouldn’t be covered in the 1st amendment.

[sawno]

I consider this an attack to my rights and take it as hateful to people like me who wish to be able to speak freely. Your opinion should be censored by your own admission.

[Lliam]

I agree, sawno. By his logic, he should be prosecuted.

[OddBeMe]

That’s the paradox of free speech. We could go broader and say there’s no freedoms at all because of consequences. But unfortunately racists dictate a lot of our laws, and they should be punished for their racist fueled deeds.

[Anonymous]

Obviously it’s part of free speech. If not then your speech is hate speech and you’re boned.

[Anonymous]

What is "hate speech"? Whose definition would we use in such a law? Sounds like a quagmire to me.

[AbsoluteMadladd]

The first amendment should be protected at all costs

[mrArcher]

The only speech that isn't free speech is speech that directly incites or encourages violence. End of.

[Girther10]

Who decides what “hate speech” is? You? 😂🤣😅

[sawno]

Lets appoint me to do it, i find anything totalitarian hateful against society. So anyone promoting hate speech laws should be banned for spreading hatred and trying to get people silenced and we can all peacefully move on :D

[Girther10]

That’s great for a good laugh but seriously carving out exceptions for free speech only starts you down a slippery slope to know free speech

[Girther10]

To NO freee speech

[sawno]

Yeah i totally agree which is why i jokishly said i should get that job. Because in a position where i can censor anyone i want (A position i am actually in on a small scale) i choose to let people speak unless they deliverately try to inflict harm which is against our community rules. I am 99% on the side of free speech.

[Girther10]

What about the other 1%?

[sawno]

That is the associated illegal actions like ordering that someone gets killed.

[Samhanks]

Hate is Hate, its that simple, you cannot hide hatred under 'Free speech'

[sheepdip]

Free speech is all speech

[aasstolfho]

Man those people are idiots

[Twenty2]

There's no such thing as hate speech!

[bangyourhead]

There’s no ugh thing as hate speech

[grega239]

Hate speech is free speech. Fuck your feelings

[Wasteland_Wanderer]

The left commits more hate speech than anybody.

[RussianBot900]

Who decides what is hate speech and what is not?

[Nachowedgie]

Absolutely not. Don't like it, fuck off

[John_Doesnt]

People should be safe from hate speech.

[Babygirl_S]

It encourages hatred so not good.

[DylanJJ]

Hate speech isn't ok towards anyone except Trump

[yourfavperson]

Yes. Obviously.

[zobsahrao]

bonjour cv watssup 00 212 606 76 57 49