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
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
105Opinion
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.
"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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@sawno Yes, I agree with that statement.
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.