To the people who want to ban the use of hate speech, would you still feel that way if it was Trump who could determine what hate speech is?

Question

Updates:

1 y

How did Trump ensure that people loyal to him wom the republican primaries, exactly? And how exactly would Trump pressure congress to allow him to appoint more supreme court justices?

Answer 1

wagsingle

Xper 5

You actually make a valid point. That is why, as much as I hate,"Hate speech" I have to oppose banning it. Is it hate speech when I make fun of wacky religious cults? What if I see Catholicism as wacky? Mormonism? Were the French cartoons that Muslims were so upset about "hate speech?"

React

crmoore

1 y
Are those rhetorical questions?
wagsingle

1 y
Yes they are. It's to make the point that we all see the line differently, so trying to draw on is really problematic for free speech.
crmoore

1 y
I wholeheartedly agree. I've been told that I'm employing hate speech for literally saying that I dont agree with certain contemporary ideas.
Show All Show Less
wagsingle

1 y
You can get accused of hate speech just for criticizing religion. Yes, it's Islamophobic to profile Muslims as terrorist when a tiny percentage are, and to discriminate against them in any way. No, it's not Islamophobic to criticize Islam or call dumb ideas dumb.

Answer 2

crmoore

Are those rhetorical questions?

Answer 3

wagsingle

Yes they are. It's to make the point that we all see the line differently, so trying to draw on is really problematic for free speech.

Answer 4

crmoore

I wholeheartedly agree. I've been told that I'm employing hate speech for literally saying that I dont agree with certain contemporary ideas.

Answer 5

wagsingle

You can get accused of hate speech just for criticizing religion. Yes, it's Islamophobic to profile Muslims as terrorist when a tiny percentage are, and to discriminate against them in any way. No, it's not Islamophobic to criticize Islam or call dumb ideas dumb.

Answer 6

tartaarsaus | 7.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Not American, but sure, if the law is somewhat decent.

Here in the Netherlands there are two main functioning legal means through which hate speech is made illegal.

First, there is an international treaty that says “inciting hatred against any racial, ethnic, linguistic etc. group is illegal”. Second, we have a law that says basically the same thing.

Then it’s completely a matter settled in one of the I think 7 Supreme Courts we have on what constitutes “hatred” and left to lower courts whether that threshold has been met, which depends on context.

Basically, the government has drafted a very general law and then leaves the interpretation up to the courts. And that has led to the law not really specifying any group, which is fine with me.

So yeah, I’d be fine with Trump drafting legislation on that if the law is decent. If the law is bad, I’d be against.

React

1 Person

007kingifrit

1 y
netherlands is barely a country if you respond to or respect international treaties on what you can and can't say lol. totally violates the concept of sovereignty
tartaarsaus

1 y
@007kingifrit

Eh, I hope you realize that the Dutch government with their democratic mandate have the option to agree to that international treaty.

If they don’t sign it, it doesn’t have any effect. If they do sign it, it becomes law. That’s literally how treaties work, and that’s also basic sovereignty of a nation that they can choose to sign a treaty or not.

Also, that treaty is basically copied and pasted in a Dutch law so it doesn’t really matter.

Also, fun fact, the USA is a member to that treaty lol
007kingifrit

1 y
but anyone who DOES agree with the international mandate are weak and not really a country
Show All Show Less
tartaarsaus

1 y
So if you agree with an international treaty then you are not really a country?

Guess it’s time to pack up USA, y’all are not really a country. I mean, with so many treaties signed, you’re not really a country according to @007kingifrit
007kingifrit

1 y
a treaty is fine, a treaty on how we conduct our most fundamental rights? not fine
tartaarsaus

1 y
Yeah I do hope you realize the USA has signed treaties on copyright (which arguably is a right to your invention), how to treat felons, speech (exactly the one I mentioned), access to food, immigration, defense of your own country and when that is appropriate, freedom of religion/assembly and due process
007kingifrit

1 y
maybe to assure those rights to others. never to restrict our own rights

we all agree you can't use someone else's copyrighted work. not the same thing

besides we ignore our signed treaties whenever we want. we never follow them
tartaarsaus

1 y
No lol those are treaties on rights guaranteed to your own citizens, which inherently is a restriction.

And no, the entire point of treaties is that you can’t ignore them. Now, the US ignores some but also sticks to a lot of them (such as civil rights, treatment of prisoners, immigration and more). But that nations can choose to follow them or not is literally the entire point of a sovereign nation and that applies to literally 100% of all nations.
tartaarsaus

1 y
And no, I think you’ll find copyright law is a bit more complicated than “yo don’t use my stuff”.

Answer 7

007kingifrit

netherlands is barely a country if you respond to or respect international treaties on what you can and can't say lol. totally violates the concept of sovereignty

Answer 8

tartaarsaus

@007kingifrit

Eh, I hope you realize that the Dutch government with their democratic mandate have the option to agree to that international treaty.

If they don’t sign it, it doesn’t have any effect. If they do sign it, it becomes law. That’s literally how treaties work, and that’s also basic sovereignty of a nation that they can choose to sign a treaty or not.

Also, that treaty is basically copied and pasted in a Dutch law so it doesn’t really matter.

Also, fun fact, the USA is a member to that treaty lol

Answer 9

007kingifrit

but anyone who DOES agree with the international mandate are weak and not really a country

Answer 10

tartaarsaus

So if you agree with an international treaty then you are not really a country?

Guess it’s time to pack up USA, y’all are not really a country. I mean, with so many treaties signed, you’re not really a country according to @007kingifrit

Answer 11

007kingifrit

a treaty is fine, a treaty on how we conduct our most fundamental rights? not fine

Answer 12

tartaarsaus

Yeah I do hope you realize the USA has signed treaties on copyright (which arguably is a right to your invention), how to treat felons, speech (exactly the one I mentioned), access to food, immigration, defense of your own country and when that is appropriate, freedom of religion/assembly and due process

Answer 13

007kingifrit

maybe to assure those rights to others. never to restrict our own rights

we all agree you can't use someone else's copyrighted work. not the same thing

besides we ignore our signed treaties whenever we want. we never follow them

Answer 14

tartaarsaus

No lol those are treaties on rights guaranteed to your own citizens, which inherently is a restriction.

And no, the entire point of treaties is that you can’t ignore them. Now, the US ignores some but also sticks to a lot of them (such as civil rights, treatment of prisoners, immigration and more). But that nations can choose to follow them or not is literally the entire point of a sovereign nation and that applies to literally 100% of all nations.

Answer 15

tartaarsaus

And no, I think you’ll find copyright law is a bit more complicated than “yo don’t use my stuff”.

Answer 16

Uannoyme | 993 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

Thank you! This is an excellent question. I've tried to make this point many times. If their side can do it, do can the other side. That's the tricky thing about precedent.

React

3 People

Answer 17

Soteris | 6.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Yes, but at that point its not that the concept was bad but that the system itself has failed. Its like saying "Would you still support Democracy if it put Hitler in power and had him dismantle it for a fascist state?". If Trump gets to decide what hate speech is then you have already failed.

React

1 Person

crmoore

1 y
And do you think your political adversaries would think precisely the same if your preferred politician/institution was the one who determines what is hate speech?
Soteris

1 y
Dont care. The idea that you need to be careful what powers you hand the leaders of the country lest they use it against you is a silly argument. They already have all the power in the country to do with as they wish and furthermore they need to have those powers to do their jobs. The question was never "What would you do if a terrible person got into that position of power" because at that point damage will already be done. The question instead should be "How do we prevent that from ever happening?"
crmoore

1 y
I don't agee. If the government has all this power and the people can't do anything about it already as it stands, then according to this, government officials can literally go out and rape and kill someone and live stream it and they wouldn't be subject to any sort 9f legal punishment. But you and I both know that isn't the case. The government isn't all-powerful, not even close. And the constitution is a very tough thing to bypass. I'm sure you are familiar with the poor attempts to ban religious gatherings during this pandemic, here in America. They've tried several times, it doesn't work. Because our constitution protects it.
Show All Show Less
Soteris

1 y
Yeah.. exactly.. Must I remind you that the reason Donald Trump was not dragged into court was NOT because there was not enough evidence but because Muller was of the opinion that the justice system could not convict a sitting president. According to Muller the president of USA is literally above the rule of law. He could literally go around raping and killing while live streaming it and the court of law would be powerless to stop him. The Congress could, but they are ALSO the government. In other words only the government can stop the government.
crmoore

1 y
I don't think continuing conversation with someone who literally just claimed Trump could rape and kill someone live and not be prosecuted and convicted would yield anything productive.
Soteris

1 y
Prove me wrong.
crmoore

1 y
You're genuinely delusional.
Soteris

1 y
I can give you the quote if you want.
crmoore

1 y
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but sure, go ahead.
Soteris

1 y
“The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the O. L. C. opinion”—a reference to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel—“stating that you cannot indict a sitting President. Correct?”

“That is correct,” - Mueller
====
So again, if you can't indict a sitting president, why would it make a difference what crime he was accused of in the first place?
crmoore

1 y
Yeah, that's probably similar to the idea that police have special protection because their job is dangerous and inclines the cop to be subject to being sued. But you act like that policy means they are just entirely immune to any sort of legal ramifications. They're not. The president can be removed from office (such as a successful impeachment) and then indicted

Link: fortune.com/.../

But quite frankly, I'd imagine neither of us are lawyers and truly understand the intricacies of the law. For example, in the link I posted, it states that the policy "prevents a sitting president from being charged with a federal crime." And if you noticed, it said federal crime. Can you definitively tell me whether or not this means that this protection does or doesn't protect against state law, rather than federal law? Likely not. All we can go off of is a Google search. That being said, I'm still entirely confident that a president can't rape and kill someone live and not face legal ramifications.

But even all that considered, you're still wrong because you said the court of law would be powerless to do anything about it. Which is false because they could impeach him, removing those protections, then indict him as he is no longer a sitting president.
Soteris

1 y
The court of law can't impeach the president, that is the role of the congress which is part of the government. Again, only the government can hold the government to account, that is how it works. Its even more sad and pathetic when you consider that the president gets to employ the supreme court judges which is the ultimate arbiters of what the law says. Basically he can put anyone he wants there and they can vote on what they think a law means and there is nothing you can say about it. Totally insane if you ask me.

But you have not really addressed what I said before. How can you punish a president for something illegal if you can't indict him while he is president?
crmoore

1 y
Oh, okay. So your argument is "well the president can be punished for publicly raping and killing someone, but its the court of law who can't do anything." It seems to me like you employed a strawman by using a specificity to make your statement true, to make it seem like the president couldn't be punished overall, when he can.

You say the president can be impeached by congress, but you then follow up by the fact that he appoints Supreme Court judges (typically only when one coincidentally is removed from their position, so it's not like presidents constantly add people who favor them), so that point is moot already, but you fail to also mention that places like the senate are not appointed by the president and instead are voted in. So the president does not have control over that and the senate, which is part of congress, which you say can impeach the president, can punish the president.

And I did address what you said before, but to reiterate, you first properly impeach a president, remove him from office, then the president is no longer the president, and you can then indict them as they no longer have presidential protection.
Soteris

1 y
Yeah.. about that.. If we use Trump as an example, how well did all of those separations of power work? Trump specifically went out of his way to ensure that people who were loyal to him won the Republican primaries as well as elections making house and congress people loyal to him. The same ones who would be required to hold him accountable during impeachment. Furthermore he used the MAGA movement to pressure the rest of the politicians to also not go against him subverting the entire GOP.

At that point there is no reasonable scenario where Trump gets impeached. Beyond that it is random how many supreme court judges you get to appoint but nothing says you can't get lucky and get to appoint enough of them to get a majority. Furthermore you can pressure the politicians in Congress and house to allow you to appoint more supreme court judges. Why does it matter if there are 9 supreme court judges currently if you appoint 10 new ones? If Trump was in any way a competent politician he could have made himself into a king from the position he gained by becoming president. Of course he failed in that as he always has but it does expose the inherent weakness in the system which is the same weakness as you are trying to point out by asking of we would still support hate speech laws if Trump got to decide them.
Soteris

1 y
Trump literally campaigned for people who supported him, appearing on the same stages as them, giving them call-outs and funding ensuring they had an inherent advantage over their competitors. As for how he would pressure Congress to give him more supreme court judges? The same way he pressured Congress to accept his nominees previously. Trump had the whole of the GOP under his thumb.
crmoore

1 y
Your first setnence is something that most, if not all, presidents do. And can you link me him funding those people? In addition, would you like to point out the total amount of funding those people have? Because I recall the Democrats recieving nearly all the funding this last election, and I believe the lectionary prior to that one reflected such a notion. So unless you mean to say that Trump out-donated all of the left-wing billionaires, I'm not sure you can call that an "inherent advantage." Because the advantage is most certainly on the left. Especially when you consider mainstream medias political leanings and their "call-outs."

Can you directly answer the question i asked instead of answering "the same way he did before." You need to be specific and direct. How did he allegedly do it before?
crmoore

1 y
Oops. I missed one of your responses. Give me a moment to read it and update my response.
crmoore

1 y
I stand corrected. I didn't miss one of your responses, but one of mine seems to be missing, leaving two of yours directly next to each other (of which I mistook for two new additions to the conversation). Not sure why my responses are going missing.
Soteris

1 y
The argument was not necessarily that other presidents dont do it but about how much of an influence he could have as a president. What is the scope of his "direct control", could he control all the leavers of power at once? The separations of powers only works if they are truly independent but in this case I can explain directly how one person can control them all and as a result have the theoretical power to do anything he wants and this is not even talking about the power the president wields with pardons.

Here you got a list of endorsements that Trump has made:
ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Donald_Trump

These people have a reason to be loyal to Trump and he has leverage over them even though he is technically supposed to be in a separate but equal branch of the government. Also its not actually about beating the Democrats here, Trump is expanding his influence within the GOP party first and foremost. The GOP already controls the Congress so if Trump gains sufficient control over the GOP then he can not become impeached. If they also gain control over the house then he also gets the power to do whatever he wants by pushing through legislation.

As for how Trump did it before, he has pushed through countless unqualified personnel to both serve in his government and to serve as judges around the country. He even got his own children inside the government even tough that is nepotism.

As a highlighted example lets take Ivanka Trump appearing in official meetings representing the USA on the world stage such as in the UN general assembly or the G20 meetings or when Jared Kushner top security clearance. These things are essentially making a mockery of the USA but Trump could force them through because he has enough influence over the GOP that they essentially work for him.

Answer 18

crmoore

And do you think your political adversaries would think precisely the same if your preferred politician/institution was the one who determines what is hate speech?

Answer 19

Soteris

Dont care. The idea that you need to be careful what powers you hand the leaders of the country lest they use it against you is a silly argument. They already have all the power in the country to do with as they wish and furthermore they need to have those powers to do their jobs. The question was never "What would you do if a terrible person got into that position of power" because at that point damage will already be done. The question instead should be "How do we prevent that from ever happening?"

Answer 20

crmoore

I don't agee. If the government has all this power and the people can't do anything about it already as it stands, then according to this, government officials can literally go out and rape and kill someone and live stream it and they wouldn't be subject to any sort 9f legal punishment. But you and I both know that isn't the case. The government isn't all-powerful, not even close. And the constitution is a very tough thing to bypass. I'm sure you are familiar with the poor attempts to ban religious gatherings during this pandemic, here in America. They've tried several times, it doesn't work. Because our constitution protects it.

Answer 21

Soteris

Yeah.. exactly.. Must I remind you that the reason Donald Trump was not dragged into court was NOT because there was not enough evidence but because Muller was of the opinion that the justice system could not convict a sitting president. According to Muller the president of USA is literally above the rule of law. He could literally go around raping and killing while live streaming it and the court of law would be powerless to stop him. The Congress could, but they are ALSO the government. In other words only the government can stop the government.

Answer 22

crmoore

I don't think continuing conversation with someone who literally just claimed Trump could rape and kill someone live and not be prosecuted and convicted would yield anything productive.

Answer 23

Soteris

Prove me wrong.

Answer 24

crmoore

You're genuinely delusional.

Answer 25

Soteris

I can give you the quote if you want.

Answer 26

crmoore

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but sure, go ahead.

Answer 27

Soteris

“The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the O. L. C. opinion”—a reference to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel—“stating that you cannot indict a sitting President. Correct?”

“That is correct,” - Mueller
====
So again, if you can't indict a sitting president, why would it make a difference what crime he was accused of in the first place?

Answer 28

crmoore

Yeah, that's probably similar to the idea that police have special protection because their job is dangerous and inclines the cop to be subject to being sued. But you act like that policy means they are just entirely immune to any sort of legal ramifications. They're not. The president can be removed from office (such as a successful impeachment) and then indicted

Link: fortune.com/.../

But quite frankly, I'd imagine neither of us are lawyers and truly understand the intricacies of the law. For example, in the link I posted, it states that the policy "prevents a sitting president from being charged with a federal crime." And if you noticed, it said federal crime. Can you definitively tell me whether or not this means that this protection does or doesn't protect against state law, rather than federal law? Likely not. All we can go off of is a Google search. That being said, I'm still entirely confident that a president can't rape and kill someone live and not face legal ramifications.

But even all that considered, you're still wrong because you said the court of law would be powerless to do anything about it. Which is false because they could impeach him, removing those protections, then indict him as he is no longer a sitting president.

Answer 29

Soteris

The court of law can't impeach the president, that is the role of the congress which is part of the government. Again, only the government can hold the government to account, that is how it works. Its even more sad and pathetic when you consider that the president gets to employ the supreme court judges which is the ultimate arbiters of what the law says. Basically he can put anyone he wants there and they can vote on what they think a law means and there is nothing you can say about it. Totally insane if you ask me.

But you have not really addressed what I said before. How can you punish a president for something illegal if you can't indict him while he is president?

Answer 30

crmoore

Oh, okay. So your argument is "well the president can be punished for publicly raping and killing someone, but its the court of law who can't do anything." It seems to me like you employed a strawman by using a specificity to make your statement true, to make it seem like the president couldn't be punished overall, when he can.

You say the president can be impeached by congress, but you then follow up by the fact that he appoints Supreme Court judges (typically only when one coincidentally is removed from their position, so it's not like presidents constantly add people who favor them), so that point is moot already, but you fail to also mention that places like the senate are not appointed by the president and instead are voted in. So the president does not have control over that and the senate, which is part of congress, which you say can impeach the president, can punish the president.

And I did address what you said before, but to reiterate, you first properly impeach a president, remove him from office, then the president is no longer the president, and you can then indict them as they no longer have presidential protection.

Answer 31

Soteris

Yeah.. about that.. If we use Trump as an example, how well did all of those separations of power work? Trump specifically went out of his way to ensure that people who were loyal to him won the Republican primaries as well as elections making house and congress people loyal to him. The same ones who would be required to hold him accountable during impeachment. Furthermore he used the MAGA movement to pressure the rest of the politicians to also not go against him subverting the entire GOP.

At that point there is no reasonable scenario where Trump gets impeached. Beyond that it is random how many supreme court judges you get to appoint but nothing says you can't get lucky and get to appoint enough of them to get a majority. Furthermore you can pressure the politicians in Congress and house to allow you to appoint more supreme court judges. Why does it matter if there are 9 supreme court judges currently if you appoint 10 new ones? If Trump was in any way a competent politician he could have made himself into a king from the position he gained by becoming president. Of course he failed in that as he always has but it does expose the inherent weakness in the system which is the same weakness as you are trying to point out by asking of we would still support hate speech laws if Trump got to decide them.

Answer 32

Soteris

Trump literally campaigned for people who supported him, appearing on the same stages as them, giving them call-outs and funding ensuring they had an inherent advantage over their competitors. As for how he would pressure Congress to give him more supreme court judges? The same way he pressured Congress to accept his nominees previously. Trump had the whole of the GOP under his thumb.

Answer 33

crmoore

Your first setnence is something that most, if not all, presidents do. And can you link me him funding those people? In addition, would you like to point out the total amount of funding those people have? Because I recall the Democrats recieving nearly all the funding this last election, and I believe the lectionary prior to that one reflected such a notion. So unless you mean to say that Trump out-donated all of the left-wing billionaires, I'm not sure you can call that an "inherent advantage." Because the advantage is most certainly on the left. Especially when you consider mainstream medias political leanings and their "call-outs."

Can you directly answer the question i asked instead of answering "the same way he did before." You need to be specific and direct. How did he allegedly do it before?

Answer 34

crmoore

Oops. I missed one of your responses. Give me a moment to read it and update my response.

Answer 35

crmoore

I stand corrected. I didn't miss one of your responses, but one of mine seems to be missing, leaving two of yours directly next to each other (of which I mistook for two new additions to the conversation). Not sure why my responses are going missing.

Answer 36

Soteris

The argument was not necessarily that other presidents dont do it but about how much of an influence he could have as a president. What is the scope of his "direct control", could he control all the leavers of power at once? The separations of powers only works if they are truly independent but in this case I can explain directly how one person can control them all and as a result have the theoretical power to do anything he wants and this is not even talking about the power the president wields with pardons.

Here you got a list of endorsements that Trump has made:
ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Donald_Trump

These people have a reason to be loyal to Trump and he has leverage over them even though he is technically supposed to be in a separate but equal branch of the government. Also its not actually about beating the Democrats here, Trump is expanding his influence within the GOP party first and foremost. The GOP already controls the Congress so if Trump gains sufficient control over the GOP then he can not become impeached. If they also gain control over the house then he also gets the power to do whatever he wants by pushing through legislation.

As for how Trump did it before, he has pushed through countless unqualified personnel to both serve in his government and to serve as judges around the country. He even got his own children inside the government even tough that is nepotism.

As a highlighted example lets take Ivanka Trump appearing in official meetings representing the USA on the world stage such as in the UN general assembly or the G20 meetings or when Jared Kushner top security clearance. These things are essentially making a mockery of the USA but Trump could force them through because he has enough influence over the GOP that they essentially work for him.

Answer 37

Anonymous

it's not really fair to ask those people to think rationally. Their whole base is operating on an irrational fear and hate campaign. Let's be honest. They would be shitting bricks if Trump was trying to push anything close to the same methods of control as they are.

React

2 People

Answer 38

HungLikeAHorsefly | 2.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

I don't want anyone to go to jail or face a fine or any other kind of legal issue for anything they say. I do want them to face humiliating, debilitating public scorn and vicious mockery for saying stupid, hateful shit.

React

1 Person

crmoore

1 y
I wouldn't go that far, but I think social condemnation is fair game. So I'd imagine we more or less agree.
007kingifrit

1 y
democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas, otherwise we must use violent to get our points across

anything that threatens the free exchange of ideas is bad, mob mentality to shut people down and roving groups looking for a problem to fight (twitter) is bad
HungLikeAHorsefly

1 y
@007kingifrit Free exchange of ideas, yes. Acceptance of all ideas, absolutely not.

Answer 39

crmoore

I wouldn't go that far, but I think social condemnation is fair game. So I'd imagine we more or less agree.

Answer 40

007kingifrit

democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas, otherwise we must use violent to get our points across

anything that threatens the free exchange of ideas is bad, mob mentality to shut people down and roving groups looking for a problem to fight (twitter) is bad

Answer 41

HungLikeAHorsefly

@007kingifrit Free exchange of ideas, yes. Acceptance of all ideas, absolutely not.

Answer 42

joeldalton | 6.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Hol up... you’re wanting them to be intellectually consistent? Hahaha.

React

7 People

Answer 43

FakeName123 | 3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Absolutely. The problem about hate speech is that it's definition is arbitrary bad thus can be easily abused.

React

1 Person

Answer 44

jshm2 | 5.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Nobody wants to ban hate speech. They want to curb and prosecute it, where necessary.

Just like Trump will be, when he leaves office.

React

1 Person

crmoore

1 y
Oh, so murder isn't banned or anything. People are totally allowed to go murder people, we just disincline people from doing it with prosecution. But it's not banned.

Answer 45

crmoore

Oh, so murder isn't banned or anything. People are totally allowed to go murder people, we just disincline people from doing it with prosecution. But it's not banned.

Answer 46

Anonymous

No, but that's why we have due process. Have it decided by a jury of your peers.

React

crmoore

1 y
So if a jury under hitler decided that questioning hitler's authority is hate speech, then it would be okay since it was decided by a jury?

An extreme example, but the point being, those who are in power can use the censorship of speech to hinder their opposition, and maintain control.
Opinion Owner

1 y
If the entire nation had decided that was what they had wanted, then yes. Nazi Germany didn't have fair trials and due process, because it was an authoritarian dictatorship wherein the Government, ie Hitler, had complete and total power, while the citizens had none. So long as America continues to be a democracy, wherein the people hold the power, then that will not happen. The citizens hold the power here and if the citizens agree that hate speech should be punishable under the law, then so it must be.
crmoore

1 y
You act like democracies can't become dictatorships. Literally right now, we have government officials calling for lists with the names of all of the people who supported her political adversary. And you don't even need to be a dictatorship for one side to oppress the other's speech. And might I remind you that somewhere along our time-line, someone decided that slavery was okay. Just because we voted on it and did proper legal proceedings doesn't make it right.

Answer 47

crmoore

So if a jury under hitler decided that questioning hitler's authority is hate speech, then it would be okay since it was decided by a jury?

An extreme example, but the point being, those who are in power can use the censorship of speech to hinder their opposition, and maintain control.

Answer 48

Opinion Owner

If the entire nation had decided that was what they had wanted, then yes. Nazi Germany didn't have fair trials and due process, because it was an authoritarian dictatorship wherein the Government, ie Hitler, had complete and total power, while the citizens had none. So long as America continues to be a democracy, wherein the people hold the power, then that will not happen. The citizens hold the power here and if the citizens agree that hate speech should be punishable under the law, then so it must be.

Answer 49

crmoore

You act like democracies can't become dictatorships. Literally right now, we have government officials calling for lists with the names of all of the people who supported her political adversary. And you don't even need to be a dictatorship for one side to oppress the other's speech. And might I remind you that somewhere along our time-line, someone decided that slavery was okay. Just because we voted on it and did proper legal proceedings doesn't make it right.

Answer 50

loveslongnails | 2.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Whatever it is you want to do, it could only be worse if trump had a say in the decision.
Anyway, I don't really see how "hate speech" is ever productive, or informative. If it is, give me some examples... valid ones.

React

1 Person

crmoore

1 y
Can you quote me where I said or indicated that hate speech is productive or informative?
loveslongnails

1 y
No, I was just making a general statement. I guess the best answer I can give to your question is I can't imagine I'd think his definition of hate speech would make any sense, so I'm sure I'd be against it.
crmoore

1 y
Do you think right-wing individuals would feel precisely the same way when a left-wing individual implements a ban on hate speech?
Show All Show Less
loveslongnails

1 y
They probably do, but you need specific examples to examine, and can't just say right wing vs left wing. If Trump decides that "hate speech is anything or anyone that criticizes me, in any form", that's a whole lot different than saying "hate speech is one race calling for that race to commit violent acts against, or kill, all those of every other race not like their own".
crmoore

1 y
Do you think some people could consider citing FBI statistics regarding race and crime rates to be hate speech?

Answer 51

crmoore

Can you quote me where I said or indicated that hate speech is productive or informative?

Answer 52

loveslongnails

No, I was just making a general statement. I guess the best answer I can give to your question is I can't imagine I'd think his definition of hate speech would make any sense, so I'm sure I'd be against it.

Answer 53

crmoore

Do you think right-wing individuals would feel precisely the same way when a left-wing individual implements a ban on hate speech?

Answer 54

loveslongnails

They probably do, but you need specific examples to examine, and can't just say right wing vs left wing. If Trump decides that "hate speech is anything or anyone that criticizes me, in any form", that's a whole lot different than saying "hate speech is one race calling for that race to commit violent acts against, or kill, all those of every other race not like their own".

Answer 55

crmoore

Do you think some people could consider citing FBI statistics regarding race and crime rates to be hate speech?

Answer 56

Anonymous

Trump's definition of hate speech would be: anything that hurts his feelings.

React

Barbaric

1 y
That's the point. That's everyone's definition of hate speech.
Opinion Owner

1 y
@Barbaric Not really. Genuine hate speech can incite violence and discrimination.
crmoore

1 y
But hate speech is subjective. I've been told I'm employing haye speech for saying that I dont believe in certain notions.
Show All Show Less
Opinion Owner

1 y
Trump wants something added to a defense bill that would remove a law known as section 230. That law protects social media companies (like gag) from liability for the actions and statement of their members.

He's mentioned revising liable laws in the past so he can sue anyone who hurts his feelings in the past. So why do you think trump wants to abolish section 230? So he can sue twitter, facebook, etc, for all the people who hurt his wittle feewings there.

That has nothing to do with hate speech, and everything to do with trump being a childish, narcissist.
crmoore

1 y
Actually, I've been following this section 230 thing for a long time. I, for one, love section 230. We need it or something similar to it. And if you want my honest opinion, I think Twitter, etc, should be able to do whatever they want on their private platform, that's what the Libertarian in me thinks. But you're either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting this ordeal.

Section 230's application is being called into question because normally they benefit from such a policy because they do not publish or edit the content they host, thus, rendering them unable to be sued, or otherwise punished, for something someone else says on their platform.

The problem is that they're acting less like a free and open platform, and more like a publisher. Take the New York Times, for example. They aren't a free and open platform. They hire specific people to say specific things. They do not host their platform for otherz to use; they're a publisher. The New York Times can and is held accountable for what they say on their platform. But if Jimmy goes on Facebook and says "I hate n*****s," then it's silly to punish Facebook for what Jimmy said, even though it's on Facebook's platform and technically they own that content.

However, as I stated earlier, these companies are starting to edit and modify the content on their platforms in ways that are not applied equally on each side of politics (again, which I think they should have the right to do, it's their private business/platform), so they're now acting less like a free and open platform, and more like a publisher, where only things they agree with are allowed to flow freely, of which section 230 indicates they're not allowed to do in order to recieve section 230 benefits. They're allowed to ban indisputably objectionable things (such as videos of murder), but they aren't allowed to edit or restrict other things and retain the protections of section 230.

Answer 57

Barbaric

That's the point. That's everyone's definition of hate speech.

Answer 58

Opinion Owner

@Barbaric Not really. Genuine hate speech can incite violence and discrimination.

Answer 59

crmoore

But hate speech is subjective. I've been told I'm employing haye speech for saying that I dont believe in certain notions.

Answer 60

Opinion Owner

Trump wants something added to a defense bill that would remove a law known as section 230. That law protects social media companies (like gag) from liability for the actions and statement of their members.

He's mentioned revising liable laws in the past so he can sue anyone who hurts his feelings in the past. So why do you think trump wants to abolish section 230? So he can sue twitter, facebook, etc, for all the people who hurt his wittle feewings there.

That has nothing to do with hate speech, and everything to do with trump being a childish, narcissist.

Answer 61

crmoore

Actually, I've been following this section 230 thing for a long time. I, for one, love section 230. We need it or something similar to it. And if you want my honest opinion, I think Twitter, etc, should be able to do whatever they want on their private platform, that's what the Libertarian in me thinks. But you're either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting this ordeal.

Section 230's application is being called into question because normally they benefit from such a policy because they do not publish or edit the content they host, thus, rendering them unable to be sued, or otherwise punished, for something someone else says on their platform.

The problem is that they're acting less like a free and open platform, and more like a publisher. Take the New York Times, for example. They aren't a free and open platform. They hire specific people to say specific things. They do not host their platform for otherz to use; they're a publisher. The New York Times can and is held accountable for what they say on their platform. But if Jimmy goes on Facebook and says "I hate n*****s," then it's silly to punish Facebook for what Jimmy said, even though it's on Facebook's platform and technically they own that content.

However, as I stated earlier, these companies are starting to edit and modify the content on their platforms in ways that are not applied equally on each side of politics (again, which I think they should have the right to do, it's their private business/platform), so they're now acting less like a free and open platform, and more like a publisher, where only things they agree with are allowed to flow freely, of which section 230 indicates they're not allowed to do in order to recieve section 230 benefits. They're allowed to ban indisputably objectionable things (such as videos of murder), but they aren't allowed to edit or restrict other things and retain the protections of section 230.

To the people who want to ban the use of hate speech, would you still feel that way if it was Trump who could determine what hate speech is?

AI Bot Choice

Most Helpful Guy

Most Helpful Girl

Related Questions

What Girls & Guys Said

Related myTakes