Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Do you believe that "Hate Speech" isn't free speech, and it shouldn't be covered under the 1st Amendment? (Page 4)
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
The 1st amendment protects your right to say what you want.
It doesn't protect you from an ass whooping though, for the consequences of what is blurted out. Lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm with you, Juxtapose.
@Lliam Good! The more that do, the better. We both know what will happen if authoritarians become the majority..
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.
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..
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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!
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
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.
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.
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
Words only have the power you give them. No matter what someone tells you, all you have to do is walk away.
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
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.
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