Should we outlaw "hate speech"?

[msc545]

Should whatever anyone considers "hate speech" be outlawed? What about the First Amendment - do we just ignore that or make an exception for "hate speech"? Who decides what is hate speech and what is not?

Outlaw hate speech!

Keep free speech and forget about outlawing hate speech!

[jshm2]

You must have been raised in a basement, and homeschooled, only to discover the internet yesterday.

The US constitution doesn't allow for "hate speech" or "libel" - the first amendment isn't the "catch all" you wrongly think it is. The law loosely runs on the constitution - it doesn't rigidly adhere to it.

The constitution was written by quills by small minded, slave owning White men and holding candle lamps. It's not the modern "yard stick" you believe it to be.

[msc545]

Good reminder

[Juxtapose]

[Smashingdoozy]

Firstly there are exceptions already to the first amendment.

Secondly when many countries have hate speech laws none of them are really enforceable, the ones that are, are usually more pertaining to other laws more such as discrimination, and threats.

[goaded]

That's a tricky question. What should happen is that people who make hateful statements that get people killed are shunned, or at least taken off their prime time opinion shows on TV. When society has broken down to the extent that Tucker Carlson is not taken off the air is a problem. I'm not sure stopping him speaking is the solution, but targeting his advertisers might work.

[StevieNix]

Absolutely not. I watched a TV show, where England was letting in Muslims.
The Muslims would stand on a wooden crate (perhaps a soap box) and tell the English how stupid they were for allowing this to happen. It was a thing of beauty. Be careful what you wish for.

[TrueConfection]

Who decides? Anyone whose feelings are hurt or anyone who thinks someone else's feelings might be, could be, should be, or could have been hurt.

[purplepoppy]

You have to strike a balance between expressing legitimate concerns and criticism with speech that is designed to inflame violence and discrimination. The simple question to ask is what outcome does the speaker want from their speech.

[romquill]

If a speech influences people, inspires or motivates them to hurt others or infringe on their rights for being different. Then I do believe that's hate speech. And yes people should be held responsible for spreading hate against any group. Disagreement is okay though, we are supposed to be a civil society with different understandings and its okay if one group does not agree with or want to live the way another group chooses to live. It's okay to disapprove and agree to disagree.

[SlothySlob]

That's awfully dystopian.
The problem is defining what hate is.

[Jamie05rhs]

I don't think you should be allowed to threaten anyone, or even imply threats. But insulting someone should not be illegal.

[exitseven]

I thought hate speech was already outlawed. It is only enforced on white people however.

[msc545]

Hate speech is outlawed by the Court of Public Opinion, not by US law.

[Anonymous]

It’s far too subjective to outlaw.

[Fuentes]

Lol no