Should hate speech be legal?

[WaffleSingSong]

Hiyas.

Is hate speech something that should be legal? Even if you don't agree with it? If someone calls someone else a discriminatory name should that be allowed?

Personally, I'm strongly against any form of discriminatory hate of any kind, and I do wish it to one day be eradicated from the minds of humanity. But lets face it, this type of thinking will be around forever, and it is technically a form of opinion, and any form opinion, medieval or not, should be at least taken an ear to. Besides, the louder there allowed to bark, the more likely people can say "Oh look over there at that man talking negatively to homosexuals, the mentally disabled and Africans. What a stupid faggot-ass retardnigger."

What's your guy's opinion on the issue?

[Gamma Male]

YES!!! I'm a civil libertarian first and a liberal second. The day the government starts regulating what people can say in private conversions is the day I show up at the capital with torch and pitch fork in hand. This shouldn't even need to be a question.

[Blood]

As long as we have freedom of speech, I believe hate speech should be legal.

[Vlerchan]

I don't believe I should be allowed to censor someone because I disagree with them.

[Gigablue]

Yes and no. If someone is simply voicing an opinion, they have the right to do so, regardless of how distasteful and bigoted they may be. However, if someone begins advocating for illegal action against a specific group, be it violence or some type of illegal discrimination, they should be stopped. Their right to free speech can be abridged once it begins to infringe on other people's right to safety.

[Bmble_B]

Yes, isn't speaking a part of our free will? Of course we should be allowed to hate speech, as you said it's a type of opinion, and everyone should be allowed to voice their opinion.

[Camazotz]

"In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Supreme_Court_case_law), which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence."

The WBC also has to stand a certain distance away from the funerals they're picketing to prevent emotional distress on the family, so there should probably be something similar for places like abortion clinics, where hate speech can cause severe psychological pain. Obviously the government shouldn't tap your private property and punish you for what you say there, but it should be illegal to shout racial slurs in your local Chuck E Cheese's if they've asked you to leave. Don't know what this kind of laws this scenario would violate, but businesses have every right to "limit" what you say in their establishment.

[Gamma Male]

"In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Supreme_Court_case_law), which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence."

.

And this homosexual atheist stands by that ruling.

Voltaire didn't actually say that one quote that's always attributed to him , the one about freedom of speech, but it's still a good quote.

[Caligari]

I'm for free speech and against censorship.

[Stronk Serb]

Yeah. As long as it does not promote violent action. I am sick of people blocking countryball pages for holocaust jokes. They clearly say satire in their page description and they don't mean anything seriously.

[Microcosm]

People are like that. There's a point where people don't care if it's legal or not. Large masses of people will still do it. For instance, back when the government made the selling of alcohol illegal way back with the eighteenth amendment. You aren't just going to stop people from doing something by making it illegal. And something like hate speech is just human nature and is protected by our freedom of speech.

[Kurgg]

I don't support the legality. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of commit hate speech. Yes, it is OK to disagree with someone, but it does not give right to intentionally offend someone.

I know a guy who tried suicide 7 times because he was verbally bullied (he's an autist). Luckily he did not succeeded. Because of this, I don't support completely free speech or complete legality of hate speech.

[Karagor]

How do you know what they are saying is hate speech?

[Miserabilia]

Well I'm not an expert on law and I don't know all the laws and specific laws in the usa, where I'm assuming you live.

Where I live, using freedom of speech to spread or encourage hate and/or violence is illegal, even in indirect cases.
For example, holocaust denial is illegal.

In the USA, people are too obsessed with their so called freedom, freedom of speech this, freedom that, guns n explosions, etc etc etc.
Sorry, generalizations but you get the point I think.

This freedom allows for more racism and things like holocaust denial to be practiced normaly.

[CosmicNoodle]

Alow me to answer thusly:

"I may hate what you say, but I will die for your right to say it, as the day your speach is restriced, as will be mine"

[WaffleSingSong]

Well I'm not an expert on law and I don't know all the laws and specific laws in the usa, where I'm assuming you live.

Where I live, using freedom of speech to spread or encourage hate and/or violence is illegal, even in indirect cases.
For example, holocaust denial is illegal.

In the USA, people are too obsessed with their so called freedom, freedom of speech this, freedom that, guns n explosions, etc etc etc.
Sorry, generalizations but you get the point I think.

This freedom allows for more racism and things like holocaust denial to be practiced normaly.

Actually, it decreases it. When people start sprouting discriminatory rhetoric, it shows who and where discrimination is at, at it only makes such discrimination seem stupid when its at a open field.

I think our genuine love of freedom is what makes this country great, that we can do mostly whatever we want and say whatever we want to say as long as we are not actively promoting violence. It's kinda strange for you to say that cheesee, arn't you Dutch? I thought the Netherlands had a libertarian-minded streak in them too. They were a Republic before the Thirteen Colonies really formulated, and they also had to fight an oppressive government from another land like us, which for you guys was Spain, and us Britain.

[Miserabilia]

Actually, it decreases it. When people start sprouting discriminatory rhetoric, it shows who and where discrimination is at, at it only makes such discrimination seem stupid when its at a open field.

I think our genuine love of freedom is what makes this country great, that we can do mostly whatever we want and say whatever we want to say as long as we are not actively promoting violence. It's kinda strange for you to say that cheesee, arn't you Dutch? I thought the Netherlands had a libertarian-minded streak in them too. They were a Republic before the Thirteen Colonies really formulated, and they also had to fight an oppressive government from another land like us, which for you guys was Spain, and us Britain.

See, what that entire post comes down to is a very different interpetation of freedom.
I am dutch, and I am free. I am free to state my opinion and state my mind, I am free to get up and order a pizza.
I am not free to get up and stab someone.
Americans are also not free to get up and stab someone.
That's a part of "freedom" gone already;
no country knows true freedom, that would be anarchy.
What we concider freedom is freedom that fits within the boundaries of what makes our society work and doesn't harm others.
That's what law is.
The american definition of freedom is a little strange to me;
to most cultures, causing physical hate is just as bad as doing it.

Using freedom of speech to encourage violence and hate is, atleast where I live, a crime; for example, holocaust denial, which is legal in the USA.

As for the last part, I know all the history, but that's freedom, not what alot of americans seem to concider as freedom.

Also, kind of unrelated, but the spain-brittain comparison is not really the same story, not at all; the usa (ofcourse not all of it, but mostly) was brittish colonial. Brittish people became american people.
The netherlands were never a colony of spain, and dutch people generaly aren't related to the spanish.

[Jean Poutine]

Hate speech that is little more than inciting violence should be illegal. It rightly is in Canada.

I'd also ban hate speech based on religious dogma like this "God Hates Fags" WBC nonsense just to spite religious people and keep them from hiding behind their delusion of choice to avoid prosecution for their retarded "beliefs", since it almost always involves inciting violence anyway.

[britishboy]

No hate speech should be illegal! You can express any opinion without using hate speech.

[thatcountrykid]

a quote from a military friend. " i may hate what you say about what i do and what i beleive but i will fight to the death so you can say it."

[OrKing]

a quote from a military friend. " i may hate what you say about what i do and what i beleive but i will fight to the death so you can say it."

That was (roughly) Evelyn Hall, who was ironically English, where today hate speech is illegal. :lol:

[thatcountrykid]

That was (roughly) Evelyn Hall, who was ironically English, where today hate speech is illegal. :lol:

No that was my friend exactly.

[Vlerchan]

a quote from a military friend. " i may hate what you say about what i do and what i beleive but i will fight to the death so you can say it."
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire.

Well, he didn't say exactly that, it's a mistranslation, but I presume that's where your friend got it from.

[Gamma Male]

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire.

Well, he didn't say exactly that, it's a mistranslation, but I presume that's where your friend got it from.

Actually, Voltaire never said that at all. It was said in a book about Voltaire written after his death that if he could be summed up in one sentence, it would be that sentence. I forget who wrote the book, but it was some kind of biography.

-----


I'm honestly perplexed by some people's opinions on this. Making "hate speech" illegal is just ridiculous. It is not the job of the government to regulate what private citizens can and can't say in conversations. This borders on being a thought crime. If someone is actually repeatedly harassing someone else then of course that should be illegal, like it already is in America. But unless you do anything to seriously suggest you're going to hurt someone,it should be none of the governments business. The thought of making hate speech illegal makes me sick, and for all of America's manyfaults I'm glad that we have a 1st amendments warding off these silly, abhorrent, ridiculous antihate speech laws.

[Harry Smith]

I honestly think there are cases why it is needed, for example I'd argue that they've been successful in post ww2 germany-in regards to Anti-Semetism I honestly think that certain limits on speech (holocaust denial, Hitler Worship) in Germany has actually been successful.

The government has responsibility to protect it's citizens, and I think that hate speech as such should be illegal especially when it's harnessed to commit crime

[Gamma Male]

I honestly think there are cases why it is needed, for example I'd argue that they've been successful in post ww2 germany-in regards to Anti-Semetism I honestly think that certain limits on speech (holocaust denial, Hitler Worship) in Germany has actually been successful.

The government has responsibility to protect it's citizens, and I think that hate speech as such should be illegal especially when it's harnessed to commit crime

If somebody says something that suggests they're planning to commit a crime or harm someone then that's a threat and should be illegal. But holocaust denial and hitler worship, as much as I despise those things, should be legal. As long as they're not hurting anyone, who they praise and what events they deny happened are not the governments business.

Of course I don't condone any of those things, but it isn't the governments place to regulate them. As long as they don't pose a danger to anyone their opinions and and beliefs and activities should not be subject to government approval and censorship.

[phuckphace]

I don't get why Holocaust denial should be illegal. if the evidence for the Holocaust is unequivocal then we shouldn't worry about a few kooks who believe in a conspiracy theory. it's no different than believing the NASA moon landings didn't happen or that the Earth is flat...it may be entirely contrary to the evidence but we're not locking those people up and/or fining them, are we?

[Pulp501]

Yes, obviously I don't think people should say things that are hurtful to others, but people can't be so sensitive. Now, there's a time when it's said so much that it becomes harassment, but that's not usually the case. You shouldn't get arrested for calling someone the n word, or f word, or other slur or insult. People are rude, and you have to get over it. It's dangerous when the government gets to control what we say.

[Karagor]

I don't get why Holocaust denial should be illegal. if the evidence for the Holocaust is unequivocal then we shouldn't worry about a few kooks who believe in a conspiracy theory. it's no different than believing the NASA moon landings didn't happen or that the Earth is flat...it may be entirely contrary to the evidence but we're not locking those people up and/or fining them, are we?

It's no different to believing in young earth creationism, or that Vaccines cause ADHD (Or whatever other nonsense is the current travesty).

These people affect the lives of others in negative ways. To say it doesn't is revealing ignorance.

That said, it's impossible to enforce a law against it without aboloshing free speech. I am against the idea for this reason.

[clay morrow]

Hiyas.

Is hate speech something that should be legal? Even if you don't agree with it? If someone calls someone else a discriminatory name should that be allowed?

Personally, I'm strongly against any form of discriminatory hate of any kind, and I do wish it to one day be eradicated from the minds of humanity. But lets face it, this type of thinking will be around forever, and it is technically a form of opinion, and any form opinion, medieval or not, should be at least taken an ear to. Besides, the louder there allowed to bark, the more likely people can say "Oh look over there at that man talking negatively to homosexuals, the mentally disabled and Africans. What a stupid faggot-ass retardnigger."

What's your guy's opinion on the issue?

i agree no form of dicrimination should ever be legel

[kryptonite]

Hiyas.

Is hate speech something that should be legal? Even if you don't agree with it? If someone calls someone else a discriminatory name should that be allowed?

Personally, I'm strongly against any form of discriminatory hate of any kind, and I do wish it to one day be eradicated from the minds of humanity. But lets face it, this type of thinking will be around forever, and it is technically a form of opinion, and any form opinion, medieval or not, should be at least taken an ear to. Besides, the louder there allowed to bark, the more likely people can say "Oh look over there at that man talking negatively to homosexuals, the mentally disabled and Africans. What a stupid faggot-ass retardnigger."

What's your guy's opinion on the issue?



In my quick opinion:

You can say what you want to. However, some words occasionally go out of style. How we described various races or ethnicities of people back in the 1880s or 1930s may not be a smart word to use today. If someone goes into a black neighborhood and starts yelling the "n word", then yeah, there may be some negative feedback.

If you have something to say and it isn't nice, you should probably think twice.

Freedom of speech does not protect the person from negative feedback. Say what you want, but think twice before you say it.

[thatcountrykid]

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire.

Well, he didn't say exactly that, it's a mistranslation, but I presume that's where your friend got it from.

instead of trying to assume or twist things maybe ask.

[Miserabilia]

I'm honestly perplexed by some people's opinions on this. Making "hate speech" illegal is just ridiculous. It is not the job of the government to regulate what private citizens can and can't say in conversations. This borders on being a thought crime. If someone is actually repeatedly harassing someone else then of course that should be illegal, like it already is in America. But unless you do anything to seriously suggest you're going to hurt someone,it should be none of the governments business. The thought of making hate speech illegal makes me sick, and for all of America's manyfaults I'm glad that we have a 1st amendments warding off these silly, abhorrent, ridiculous antihate speech laws.

If somebody says something that suggests they're planning to commit a crime or harm someone then that's a threat and should be illegal. But holocaust denial and hitler worship, as much as I despise those things, should be legal. As long as they're not hurting anyone, who they praise and what events they deny happened are not the governments business.

Of course I don't condone any of those things, but it isn't the governments place to regulate them. As long as they don't pose a danger to anyone their opinions and and beliefs and activities should not be subject to government approval and censorship.



Kinda changed mah opinion on this

[Vlerchan]

why would it not be the goverments job to regulate hate speech, but it would be for physical violence and crime.
You'll find that inflicting physical harm against someone is always harmful.

You'll find that using hate speech around someone isn't always harmful. It depends on the person what is and is not offensive.

---

I also don't see a basis to legislate against something because the majority are offended by it.

It seems immoral to me to threaten someone with violent force because you disagree with them

See, a crows like that, of a packed up group of people rytmicaly shouting the same hateful thing with a single leader in front of them, is dangerous.
Did the crowd continue to burn down a building or something afterwards?

With legal hatespeech an angry mob is more dangerous.
You'll have to explain this.

I can guarantee you though that regardless of whether or whether not a group is allowed to say something, you can't stop them thinking it.

If hatespeech is legeal, it is also legal to politcal leaders and important figures, and we all know what can come from that.
You'll have to expand on what happens when political leaders voice opinions that you disagree with.

I'm not quite catching the implications here.

---

instead of trying to assume or twist things maybe ask.
I don't know your friend to ask him.

I'm just pointing out what what he said was roughly similar to a famous quote about free speech.

---

That said, it's impossible to enforce a law against it without aboloshing free speech. I am against the idea for this reason.
You'll find that absolute free speech already doesn't exist (and I believe this is a good thing), so opposing legislation against hate speech on the grounds that you feel free speech is sacred - unless you don't support laws against: fraud, libel, revealing classified information, violating copyright, incitement [of violence] amongst other things; in which case ignore this post - isn't a particularly strong, let's not mention coherent, position to take.

[Babs]

While I strongly discourage hate speech, it shouldn't be illegal. Freedom of expression is important.
I think I saw a comparison between hate speech and physical violence, and while hate speech is very hurtful and really shitty of people to do, it doesn't put anyone's health or life in immediate danger, so verbal violence is very different from physical violence.

[Miserabilia]

Yeah I meant that if a political leader speeches hate towards a group of people their power can pretty much guarantee more violence and hate towards that group.

Meh I don't really know anymore.
I'm kind of undecided on this now, good replies everyone :)
I'm neutral on this now xD

[Karagor]

You'll find that absolute free speech already doesn't exist (and I believe this is a good thing), so opposing legislation against hate speech on the grounds that you feel free speech is sacred - unless you don't support laws against: fraud, libel, revealing classified information, violating copyright, incitement [of violence] amongst other things; in which case ignore this post - isn't a particularly strong, let's not mention coherent, position to take.

Free Speech, in my understanding, is the right to state your opinion.

An insult should be allowed under free speech. Falsely accusing someone of something should not be allowed.

Claiming that God hates Gays should be legal. Claiming that Homosexuality marriage leads to violent crime should not be legal because it is a statement that can be dis/proven.

Hate speech is saying that a person or concept is wrong, because of XYZ (Without evidence to back up your claim).

Hate speech is saying that certain people should not be given the same rights as others because they do XYZ.

This is all essentially in agreement with your point.

So assuming we have likewise views of a distinction between free speech and hate speech:

Hate speech is already outlawed, and it is clear how effective the outlawing is. This, I feel, makes evident my point that Hate speech should not be outlawed.

Assuming we go off of the definition outlined by the original poster, that hate speech is akin to name calling:

A teenager is at risk of jail time for being angsty.
A drunk man is at risk of jail time for a slurred curse word.
A racist is at risk of jail time for having an (albeit misinformed) opinion about a classification of person. (That is, just stating an opinion, in the way an old man might.)
A atheist is at risk of Jail time for calling someone an extremist.
A woman is at risk of jail time for calling a man a prick.
A man is at risk of jail time for calling a woman a cunt.

To name a few.

There are just too many varying levels of "Hate speech", enforcing it would take too much effort, so a line would have to be drawn, and where that line is, there would be more problems... It's a waste of time and effort. It's much better to just better educate people to not be dicks.

[Vlerchan]

Free Speech, in my understanding, is the right to state your opinion.
I tend to refer back to Wiki's definition:

"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them."

I don't consider an opinion or idea being 'correct' or 'incorrect', 'true' or 'false' to have any bearing on it being an opinion.

Claiming that Homosexuality marriage leads to violent crime should not be legal because it is a statement that can be dis/proven.
It's impossible to prove anything to a level in which doubt doesn't exist (i.e., nothing can be proven in an absolute sense). It would also be especially hard to prove/disprove that claim to any reasonable level of doubt given the number of lurking factors that might effect crime levels.

You've also just outlawed hypothesis' and most pondering about reality besides that.

Falsely accusing someone of something should not be allowed.
This falls under the idea of the 'harm principal', where your speech actually does cause a specified individual harm, always. It could also be argued that it falls under libel or slander as opposed to hate speech. Regardless it's notable how specified this is as opposed to proposed blanket-bans on hate speech.

[phuckphace]

hate speech laws as they are currently implemented are a tool that progressives can use to harass and censor their enemies while staying legally legitimate. invariably, the victims of their definition of "hate speech" are members of an eternally-oppressed minority group and the perpetrators are either white or said to be white by the media.

the reason hate speech laws make no distinction between "I don't like X group. they commit more crimes and take our jobs" and "the X group should be rounded up and killed" is intentional: it isn't just "extremists" that progressives wish to target. they'll happily target regular citizens who, in addition to believing Wrongthink, still cling to outdated middle-class morals (the real target). it's becoming increasingly more difficult to be anything other than a Trotskyist SJW or Randroid in today's political climate. over the next two decades, look out for an increasing number of hate speech laws that target Christians/Whites and anyone else who doesn't consult the Progressive Style Guide before submitting his forum posts.

Yeah I meant that if a political leader speeches hate towards a group of people their power can pretty much guarantee more violence and hate towards that group.

this sounds like another one of those measures that's supposed to prevent Hitler 2.0. if any gentile politician said something violent and hitlery toward Jews nowadays, he'd be assassinated by the Mossad within 48 hours just FYI

[Karagor]

I tend to refer back to Wiki's definition:

"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them."

I don't consider an opinion or idea being 'correct' or 'incorrect', 'true' or 'false' to have any bearing on it being an opinion.

This completely agrees with what I said, so thanks.



It's impossible to prove anything to a level in which doubt doesn't exist (i.e., nothing can be proven in an absolute sense). It would also be especially hard to prove/disprove that claim to any reasonable level of doubt given the number of lurking factors that might effect crime levels.

You've also just outlawed hypothesis' and most pondering about reality besides that.


You're applying my argument to a situation that is irrelevant.

A hypothesis (Or 'opinion') and a claim are not the same thing, and implying that if we made the claim illegal, then the hypothesis would be illegal is an "If...Then..." fallacy.

A hypothesis that homosexuality causes violent crime is completely valid, but taking action based on the hypothesis should be illegal.

This falls under the idea of the 'harm principal', where your speech actually does cause a specified individual harm, always. It could also be argued that it falls under libel or slander as opposed to hate speech. Regardless it's notable how specified this is as opposed to proposed blanket-bans on hate speech.

I don't see a point here that goes against anything I've been saying? If you are saying how my example of slander as hate speech is too specific, I'm not sure what you want from me? How can an example not be specific?

[Vlerchan]

This completely agrees with what I said, so thanks.
Eh, no it doesn't.

It clearly leaves room for potentially incorrect opinions - which you don't believe should be legal to state/claim.

A hypothesis that homosexuality causes violent crime is completely valid, but taking action based on the hypothesis should be illegal.
Define: "taking action".

I'll also repeat my earlier point that it is impossible to prove anything correct or incorrect, only determine levels of probability for its likelihood.

I'll also add that "[same-sex] marriage leads to violent crime" is a hypothesis - a claim unsupported by fact either way - but you earlier said it should be illegal to claim that.

f you are saying how my example of slander as hate speech is too specific, I'm not sure what you want from me?
'Slander' and 'Hate Speech' are seen as two distinct things under the law, was my point.

I agree with outlawing Slander: known-to-be-incorrect claims against an individual with the intent of doing harm to that individual.

[Abyssal Echo]

I believe in freedom of speech but, lets face it somethings shouldn't be said. It's just my opinion..... Westboro Baptist church and their hatefull protests is one prime example of things that shouldn't be said or done.

[Dennis98]

Yes , everyone should have right to have and to express their opinion , and sometimes it is only way to express you opinion or dissatisfaction about something ...

[nikkissippi121]

Yes. As long as they aren't causing physical harm to anyone, it should be allowed. It's called Freedom of Speech and it's a fundamental human right.