Do you believe that "Hate Speech" isn't free speech, and it shouldn't be covered under the 1st Amendment? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
105Opinion
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.
many muslim hate preachers have been deported so this isn't strictly true. the fact more 'white' youth are now on the prevent program is more a reflection of the rise of far right racist groups than i think you appreciate
@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.
well done assumng im not infact a brit lol problem with choudry is its one example of not many but the likes of farage, morgan and hopkins drip feed hatred daily but are glorified
@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.
im 52, white and lived here all my life. also please keep any discussion civil here.
@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.
im 52 and about as English as it gets... atleat 17 years more British than you but if you think britishness equates to nationalistic populism then im glad im also european
@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.
you read like an edl recruitment pamflet and have about as much fact as one... i do however think its hilarious you dont think im a brit just because im not a close minded right wing racist.
@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.
agin all you do is make assumptions... you do know as much as you now say you like to learn from other people from all around the world, you haven't actually asked me a single question about me and my life. i hope you see the irony in that... to me its jumping off the page
@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?
well you seem to think we should all think like you so maybe you could ask why i and at least 50percent of the rest of the population dont. you haven't even asked if im northern or southern and what socioeconomic background im from
@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.
northern and from a background based in poverty though i do have a little money now... certainly only at a working class level. maybe thats why i hate the tories and the way they vilify the poor
@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
so how about you rather than your long lost... whats your location and socioeconomic position here?
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
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.
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.
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...