Hate Speech #2

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes (D). Encouraging lawless action against members of a particular demographic should obviously be illegal.

[Türkisblau]

Deus, it is incredibly naive and idiotic to think of rights like "free speech" as completely absolute. People can want the ideal of free speech while at the same time considering things such as public safety and how it interferes with other granted rights. I believe in the right to bear arms but I think that you can both believe in that while thinking that there should be background checks for gun purchasers. Issues like these aren't black or white.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

An analogy he made in a despicable decision justifying the arrest of those who spoke out against the draft.

[TTS1996]

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.

Is this meant to be a joke? Freedom of speech was indeed intended for bigots, non-bigots, and everyone. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean freedom for everyone to say anything you don't mind saying yourself, but denying it to things you deem nasty.

To answer the question, I am not a free speech absolutist. "Hey, you - go and kick Joe on the corner there to death" is not free speech I would support. It is incitement to violence. Similarly I would ban "Hey, you - go and kick that filthy queer/n****r/k*ke Joe on the corner there to death", but on the same basis of incitement to violence, not the hate speech.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Only if it encourages an individual act, ie "burn down this exact synagogue", etc. Otherwise, no.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Only if it encourages an individual act, ie "burn down this exact synagogue", etc. Otherwise, no.

What about more general calls for violence, ie "burn down all synagogues"? Wouldn't your definition technically protect people trying to organize Kristallnacht-like attacks?

[Deus Naturae]

@Deus, do you think advertisers should be able to lie about their products? Do you think people should be able to commit perjury?

No, just because I oppose censorship doesn't mean I support anything as long as it involves speech. My position is that the only situations in which somebody should be arrested as a result of their speech are those where the speech is evidence of actual wrongdoing. For example, like Sanchez I wouldn't have a problem with arrested someone who literally wrote something like "attack this guy at this time" or "bomb this church on this date" since that's evidence that they're planning/facilitating a crime. They should be arrested not because of the speech, but simply because the speech provides evidence of actual criminal activity, just like someone who was seen leaving a murder scene with a bloody knife should be arrested not because it's illegal to carry a bloody knife, but because that knife constitutes evidence of murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's already common practice.

[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

Racist much?

i mean, this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

has been ratified by these countries:



but if you want to yell "racism" go right ahead

[Dereich]

As far as I can tell, current US law is based on the Brandenburg standard. That's where I'd put the line myself; if the speech is likely to produce imminent violence it shouldn't be legal, but otherwise it shouldn't be banned.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Countries routinely declare reservations to international conventions, saying basically "we reserve the right not to implement this part."  US and a few others have that for Article 20.2 of the ICCPR.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No (R).  While I do not believe violence against people based on those things should be legal, I also believe in protecting free speech.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

But defining what would constitute "hate" speech must then be absolutely left up to the individual(s) being protected since it would be them being impacted and targeted by the nebulous nature of the definition of "hate speech". At that point they (everyone in fact, since everyone has a gender) would be motivated to threaten to engage in violence anytime they wanted to restrict any criticism or opposition to any general point of view held by anyone of any of the "protected classes", and as a result all speech would be threatened.

I am highly offended by Andrew Serrano's "Piss Christ". At first glance one would think that his right to free speech/expression displaces my right to not be offended by his exercise of those rights, but in fact the truth is that there is no right to not be offended, Constitutional or other. Under the protection of "hate speech" laws, Christians could threaten to riot and cause violence as a reaction to Serrano's work, thus setting a standard where the substance of all art could be controlled by any  race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation group.

There are plenty of laws against engaging in violent acts and laws against "hate speech" that are based on the possibility of people engaging in some level of violence based on their reaction to speech are basically excuses and reasons for people to engage in violent acts by shifting the responsibility for their actions to others.  

Laws against "hate speech" are basically blackmail supported by force of government.

The remedy for "hate speech" is more speech, not less.

P.S. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo was an extreme examples of what happens when law (Sharia law) excuses violent behavior as a result of being offended and redirects the blame for the violent acts to those who engaged in the offensive speech while indemnifying those who engaged in the violent behavior.