Hate Speech #2

[ElectionsGuy]

Pretty much everybody agrees that outlawing hate speech alone is a bad idea. Lets take it one step further, should hate speech that possibly incites violence be against the law?

I'm going to hold out and still say no.

[user12345]

I would only support banning it if was very direct in encouraging violence.

[Boston Bread]

Yes, like I said in thread #1

[Türkisblau]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

[Türkisblau]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

There is such thing as concern for public safety and the higher courts of the U.S. agree with me on this interpretation. It's like saying that the 2nd amendment allows us to own tanks and rocket propelled grenades.

To borrow from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.

[RR1997]

I lean towards no, but there are a few exceptions (R)

[Mr. Smith]

I said Yes the first time and I say it again

[Deus Naturae]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

There is such thing as concern for public safety and the higher courts of the U.S. agree with me on this interpretation. It's like saying that the 2nd amendment allows us to own tanks and rocket propelled grenades.

To borrow from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.

Again, if you think that there ought to be limits on what people can say, then by definition you oppose free speech. That doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, just that the idea of "non-absolute free speech" is nonsensical.

The reason you can't yell fire is because the theater will kick you out. The government won't do anything to you.

[Murica!]

No(sane, would get arrested for inciting violence against the Capitalist class)

[Türkisblau]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

There is such thing as concern for public safety and the higher courts of the U.S. agree with me on this interpretation. It's like saying that the 2nd amendment allows us to own tanks and rocket propelled grenades.

To borrow from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.

Again, if you think that there ought to be limits on what people can say, then by definition you oppose free speech. That doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, just that the idea of "non-absolute free speech" is nonsensical.

The reason you can't yell fire is because the theater will kick you out. The government won't do anything to you.

No, I'm not going to say that I support limited speech. Free speech is a cherished ideal and something that should be held up. I don't see speech inciting public harm (what yelling fire in a theatre symbolizes...) as included in the right of free speech because it abridges the basic rights of fellow citizens. This is why this is such a complex issue and is not as clear cut as you'd like.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, because "might" incite violent hatred is very vague. Anything might incite violent hatred in somebody towards something, should you be dealing with someone who is less than tightly wound.

[Intell]

Yes (D), Hate Speech should not be counted as Free Speech. Being allowed to be discriminatory is not in our constitution.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes (D), Hate Speech should not be counted as Free Speech. Being allowed to be discriminatory is not in our constitution.

Being allowed to be a Democrat isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution either. Therefore, it would be perfectly Constitutional to jail all Democrats.

[Deus Naturae]

No, I'm not going to say that I support limited speech. Free speech is a cherished ideal and something that should be held up. I don't see speech inciting public harm (what yelling fire in a theatre symbolizes...) as included in the right of free speech because it abridges the basic rights of fellow citizens. This is why this is such a complex issue and is not as clear cut as you'd like.

Do you or do you not want to limit speech inciting violence? You can't just define speech you want to ban as non-speech. The fact that you don't "see it" as speech doesn't change the fact that that's what it is. That would be like me saying I oppose government programs but support Social Security because I don't see it as a government program.

Your position amounts to doublethink. "I don't believe that speech should be limited, but this type of speech does need to be limited."

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Hate speech that incites violence against other people based on their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation should not be tolerated, no. Criminal penalties should definitely be considered in such cases.

[Intell]

Yes (D), Hate Speech should not be counted as Free Speech. Being allowed to be discriminatory is not in our constitution.

Being allowed to be a Democrat isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution either. Therefore, it would be perfectly Constitutional to jail all Democrats.

No, being a Democrat is not mentioned in the constitution, but that does not give the government the right to put me in jail, unless I have committed a legitimate crime and to my knowledge, I have not.

Freedom of Speech, was not intended for bigots, to justify the inexcusable behavior. That is not what Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech, gives a person a right to criticize the government, criticize another group, criticize a religion, criticize another race without being put in jail. IT DOES NOT give a person an excuse for a bigot, to say Racist slurs, that may cause motivation for violent behavior against, that specific group. Hate Speech, is not included in Freedom of Speech. Hate Speech, is anything but free.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes (D), Hate Speech should not be counted as Free Speech. Being allowed to be discriminatory is not in our constitution.

Being allowed to be a Democrat isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution either. Therefore, it would be perfectly Constitutional to jail all Democrats.

No, being a Democrat is not mentioned in the constitution, but that does not give the government the right to put me in jail, unless I have committed a legitimate crime and to my knowledge, I have not.

And if the government were to pass a law against being a Democrat?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hate speech is speech. If you support restricting speech, then by definition you don't believe that speech should be free.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Well, if it has already been established that speech that might incite violence or chaos is not considered free speech, why would we need a law to restate that?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

"if you don't support the legality of human sacrifice then you don't truly support free religion"

[politicus]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

"if you don't support the legality of human sacrifice then you don't truly support free religion"

False analogy. Religious practices can include elements (like murder), that is already a crime in itself. General hate speech would not be a crime unless specifically criminalized.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

"if you don't support the legality of human sacrifice then you don't truly support free religion"

False analogy. Religious practices can include elements (like murder), that is already a crime in itself. General hate speech would not be a crime unless specifically criminalized.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

this is already a crime in most civilised countries as well

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

"if you don't support the legality of human sacrifice then you don't truly support free religion"

False analogy. Religious practices can include elements (like murder), that is already a crime in itself. General hate speech would not be a crime unless specifically criminalized.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

this is already a crime in most civilised countries as well

Racist much?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

@Deus, do you think advertisers should be able to lie about their products? Do you think people should be able to commit perjury? Should you be able to slander people and make up falsehoods in the media?

[TNF]

Obviously, context matters.

In a socialist society? Absolutely.

In a capitalist society? No, because such laws would inevitably be interpreted in such a way as to provide a pretext for going after the left, as has been the case in many of the post-Stalinist states in Eastern Europe, where verbal invectives against the parasitic bourgeoisie has been made into 'hate speech,' when it is clearly not.