There's been plenty of US court cases where hate speech has been held to be so and not protected under the First Amendment. These were overturned by the US supreme court. However, it has been shown that this was ultimately dependant upon the socio-political climate in the US at the time. As there were periods where this shifted in opposing directions before settling where it is currently. With everything going on this year with BLM and such it may end up being that hate speech isn't considered free speech.
@Silver158 On your last point, that is speculative. Right now, given the shape of the Supreme Court, I think that rather unlikely.As to your previous point, yes. That was my point as well. It is why I wrote at the outset, " There is, in First Amendment law, no such thing as "hate speech." THAT TERM BEING OF RELTAIVELY RECENT VINTAGE AND APPLYING MOSTLY IN A CULTURAL CONTEXT. As a matter of the First Amendment - and the Supreme Court rulings made pursuant to it - "hate speech" does not exist and is, nominally at least, protected." (Emphasis added.)In terms of Supreme Court being the final arbiter of First Amendment questions, this the case. Other lower courts have indeed dealt with the question. None who have attempted to so define it and ban it have prevailed to date.
Yeah my point was purely speculative. I personally think it may go that way though. But who knows.
@Silver158 There is little point in tormenting oneself with such speculations. Disraeli famously said that, "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics." Thus few things can ever be fully ruled out.However, that does not require that we assume the worst - or the best - absent some indication that things are moving in a given direction. To repeat then that, for the time being at least and the foreseeable future, given the current composition of the Supreme Court, the odds of "hate speech" being defined and not given some First Amendment protections is - relatively - remote.
doesn't torment me at all mate. I live in the UK so
@Silver158 My favorite country outside of my own!!! God save the Queen!!!
Not American, but I agree its really hard to define hate speach. You can ban topic like holocaust didn't happen, but you can't ban saying transpeople are gender there real gender not after changes. Because you just can't be oposit gender. I will respect there decision but I will not agree on there logic, so dont press me on it and you wil be fine.
everything is going to be "hate speech" under Harris
What constitutes hate can sometimes be a gray area. It’s why you don’t open that door to government intervention. I don’t think everything will be labeled hate under Harris but she won’t coddle the racists that Trump enables, nor should she.
@Roxxy99 bingo. You give me faith that some logical women still exist. The insane Marxism I’m seeing in some of these young women is scary.
Free speech and a free press are the basically the bedrock of liberty. We’ve reached a point politically in this country where people increasingly want government to intervene in speech, either not realizing or caring that it will destroy it. The left wants hate speech banned. The right now wants government to regulate the internet and social media. All of it is just bad juju.
Irrespective of what the GAG Bot says, this right here is the Superb Opinion.
Reading yalls replies its no wonder people are marxists. Your arguments are retarded lol. Roxxy the only person to make the argument and not sound like an idiot.
@Kaazsz yep. I must be even tougher to be a woman with common sense than a man. More women voted yes to hate speech regulation than no. She’s got guts.
@guesswhoseback There was a time on this site when you would NEVER see female support for a "conservative" opinion besides rissyanne if she's still around (she blocked me back when I was a rampaging leftist). These days I see pink upvotes and pink replies who are in favor of liberty all the time.
@Kaazsz I’ve been on and off this site for 11 years. I can tell you that back in 2010 people didn’t even act half insane as they do now. There were always conservatives vs. liberals of course. But nowhere near the extent there has been in the last 5 years.
*near the extent of the complete insanity.
@guesswhoseback the far left is on the ideological rise. Liberals are a dying breed and marxists are reproducing at rapid rates. But seeing women actually make non leftist arguments and show support gives me hope that we won't someday starve to death in a socialist "utopian" overthrow lol.
@Kaazsz there is a great division happening inside the Democratic Party. Many former democrats believed in social liberalism but also in the American dream. Now democrats have a choice to make. Go communist or leave the democrats. You can either be independent or defect to the GOP.
@Kaazsz I’m not a conservative. I’m more of a libertarian. Free speech infringements are often supported by both the left and the right.
@Roxxy99 Same as me. I put conservative in quotes though lol. Because I don't consider myself a conservative at all. But to people on the left, libertarians are just ultra conservatives on steroids, oh and apparently we are racists too lol.
@Kaazsz Neither party supports liberty we live in a country where having shrooms less adictive and harmful then alcohol or weed gets higher sentence then rape. Gun laws are another law to target everyday people.
@israelisevil I agree 100% it is what it is lol.
@Kaazsz yah im just excited for once one party collapses and other one will fall in under a month tops
@israelisevil Michael Malice thinks so too lol
I’ll take a libertarian over a libtard marxist ANY day. They can be a bit weird sometimes but at least they respect other people’s liberties. They often seem to be deeper thinkers about societal issues too.
@israelisevil You’re 100% correct that neither party really supports liberty. Both are eroding the constitution. They’re just doing it in different ways. I threw my vote to Jo Jorgensen in the election. It didn’t mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things but if we’re going to beat back the worst instincts of the two parties to save speech, privacy, guns, civil rights, and voting rights for all, then we’re gonna need those libertarian voices in government.
Jo Jorgensen sadly isn't any better. She hopped on the BLM bandwagon and preached censorship on Twitter until she became the receiving end of big tech censorship and then flip-flopped. I don't any hardcore Libertarian who'd ever vote for her.
You a wise gal Roxx. Why do you think they call me the Bastard Scorekeeper in certain locales?It's because I always know what the score is. How does Roxy scorekeeper sound?You don't need a green card do you? LOL I'm just kidding around wit ya gal. I can tell you. have skills with the pen. keep it up! take care
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
You can be arrested for saying you are going to kill the president, why shouldn’t you be arrested for saying you are going to kill another individual or group of individuals?
@zeitgeist057 I wouldn't class that as hate speech. I would class it as a threat
That brings up a good point, I see different people having different definitions of what constitutes hate speech. It’s kind of like the definition of harassment being “anything I felt like I was being harassed, Regardless of the intention behind it.” In which the person making the accusation gets to define what behavior is and is not acceptable. “That guy said he doesn’t like my hat, that’s hate speech, call the police and shut him up.” I know that, but I wouldn’t be surprised the way things are going. I read an article/post the other day about a woman who was forced to close her restaurant because she’s white and serving Chinese food.
The thing is you DON'T get to decide what is "hate speech" the censors do...
It normally leads to it eventually or something similar to it. Society isn’t a nice place to be in now a days because of hate.
So if I say, "The Eagles suck" and a rabid Philadelphia fan kills himself I should be prosecuted? Where is the line?
I love how people want government to control speech. They are too stupid to understand that the laws would be enforced based entirely on who is in power, so suddenly something innocent could randomly become hate speech.So stupid. I'm so happy those of us with a brain voted the same way I did, keep the government out of my speech.
Reading some of the comments leads me to believe most people in the comments are just stupid.. Calling for canceling the constitution? Are you insane? You would lose the right to abortion, the right to free speech, the right to equal and fair representation, the right to a fair trial, and a myriad of other rights. Please go to school.. Jfc you're stupid.
So does bragging about the Red Sox in a NYC bar, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
So do you want Donald Trump and his administration deciding what is and is not "hate speech"?
A lot of hate speech has already been defined, but no. I do not want that.
I want to incite violence against politicians on right and left. Is that hatespeach.
So rioting and calling violence against conservatives is okay?
@guesswhoseback If its against liberals too then yes
@guesswhoseback not damaging normal family owned stores is bad but my friend went target during riot got lego set. Target deserves it they own private prisons that pay government for slaves or criminals wich then the government gives higher quotas to police making there jobs based on getting arrests rather then keeping peace. Politicians are more responsible militarization of police and police brutality then cops.
@israelisevil prison reform is one thing. Rioting and attacking police officers is quite another. The vast majority of them are doing their job at keeping the peace. I don’t want to get into statistics but BLM rioting has killed more people in 2020 than all the unarmed black man shootings in 2019. But all this rioting is just making everything worse instead of better. I can get in a very long rant about that but I want to keep focused on the free speech regulations. History has shown where Marxism leads and it’s not good.
@guesswhoseback Marxism is ment as a last alternative in the worst of conditions it never ment for america and besides cuba its had 100 percent failure rate. Police enforce unjust laws i dont feel nothing when they die. I find blm a disguise make racism seem the issue when the government is the issue. im a liberatarian i hate drug gun abortion individual fishing Individual hunting collecting rain water laws. i wish every market was like drug market unregulated but not punishable for participating in.
@israelisevil Venezuela used to be the gym of South America and were second only to the USA until communism took over. I’m okay with libertarianism. Basically the government should exist to protect its citizens but not infringe on individual rights. But you can NOT legislate morality and even “safety”. The government is made of up of flawed, often corrupt and power hungry individuals. This is a much more complex subject. But getting back to free speech I am completely disgusted that so many sheeple out there (usually impressionable liberal women with some libtard moron guys) who think this is a good idea.
*gem of South America
@guesswhoseback venezuela was better befor but i woudlnt call it a gem. Yah the liberals used be party of free speach but in late 90s there was this switch and now the right is the voice of free speach. All sides government are too authoritarian for me though.
That is the nature of "hate speech" laws, the government or corporation gets to define them.
Or shouldn't refuse to give our business to dipshits who engage in it.
Define harm.Someone could get offended, and say it harmed him mentally, caused depression etc.
Threaten to delete someone or call for someone to do so. Can’t threaten a Politician that not good.
There's a difference between speech and action. Speech is when you say something, action is when something happens because you saying something.
“Harm” should be strictly defined. There are slander laws. Someone can’t propagate lies about someone without civil penalties (different than criminal).
Like Charles Manson technically he didn’t kill anyone he got teens to do it for him.
Exactly! He had the right to speak those things and if people considered him an idiot and ignored his saying then he would have been a free man who was an idiot but considering his speech lead to murders, he is a criminal.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant by harm.
This is just another "Hate speech" loophole. There is no way to prove speech about someone will or is likely to cause violence. The only exception is direct, violent call to action!
If you are telling someone to kill someone else and you'll pay that person 10000USD and he thinks you're insane then it's free speech but if that someone actually kills the other someone then that is action and not speech.
Yes very good. However, that is not what they are proposing for "hate speech laws." It has already been illegal for hundreds of years! "hate speech laws" are just laws the censors HATE.