Hate Speech

[BigRed]

Should "hate speech" be regulated?

What is "hate speech"?

 

[Tombs]

Hate speech is a term applied to criticism of those that control your life.

Advocating regulation of "Hate Speech" is tying your own noose and jumping from a tree.

 

[wtburnette]

Actual freedom of speech precludes such a thing IMO

 

[Mgderf]

No speech should be regulated.
I abhor the ideology of the Ku Klux Klan, but I would much rather have them spewing their garbage in public.
This way we know who they are.
If the speech is effectively banned, it stews unnoticed until it boils over.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but will defend with my life, your right to say it."

 

[bobzilla]

No speech should be regulated.
I abhor the ideology of the Ku Klux Klan, but I would much rather have them spewing their garbage in public.
This way we know who they are.
If the speech is effectively banned, it stews unnoticed until it boils over.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but will defend with my life, your right to say it."

this.

 

[DadSmith]

No speech should be regulated.
I abhor the ideology of the Ku Klux Klan, but I would much rather have them spewing their garbage in public.
This way we know who they are.
If the speech is effectively banned, it stews unnoticed until it boils over.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but will defend with my life, your right to say it."

This I agree with.
What some here call free speech in the case of threatening Jewish students with murder, and rape just like Hamas has done in Israel and many Jewish students stop going to college is not protected.
I'm not talking about the river to the sea chants I'm talking about the actual threatening that has been going on and law enforcement has done nothing. Or if they have its not been reported.

 

[Judamonster]

This I agree with.
What some here call free speech in the case of threatening Jewish students with murder, and rape just like Hamas has done in Israel and many Jewish students stop going to college is not protected.
I'm not talking about the river to the sea chants I'm talking about the actual threatening that has been going on and law enforcement has done nothing. Or if they have its not been reported.

I have been threatened with my own death a few times in my life. I am still here. I do not think any regulation or law against the threats would have stopped anything, nor do I think my life would have been any different if it never happened.

 

[DadSmith]

I have been threatened with my own death a few times in my life. I am still here. I do not think any regulation or law against the threats would have stopped anything, nor do I think my life would have been any different if it never happened.

There is already laws against threatening people. It isn't protecting speech like some think it is.

 

[klausm]

so does this cover the "pineapple on pizza debate?"

 

[daddyusmaximus]

"Hate speech" is full of hatred... and it's something we should rightfully... hate... but to be a free society, it's something that we just have to deal with.

It should not be regulated. No speech should.

The only reason this is a thing now is because some people are trying to redefine exactly what hate speech is...
This is because people want to take anything you say that they don't like... be they weak, and twisted idiots, (you calling somebody by the wrong pronoun) or power hungry elites, (let's go Brandon) and label it as "hate speech", so you can be punished for it.

IMHO... not only should hate speech not be regulated... but neither should the reaction to it.
The world was a more polite place back when you knew you could get punched in the nose for running your mouth.

 

[NHT3]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder just as hate speech is in the ear of the beholder. Ambiguous terms like "hate speech" will never have a definition that is accepted by the masses.

"Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds."

The accepted definition is full of ambiguous terms. Just another word salad to keep us at each other's throats while the powerful amass more money.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Should "hate speech" be regulated?

What is "hate speech"?

No.

It’s a tool to control the dialog. It has no objective standard. It can be anything and it can change from time to time depending on who the people that promote it decide the enemy is.

As was said above, we should encourage people to say what’s on their minds so we can figure out who to associate with and who to avoid.

 

[jwamplerusa]

so does this cover the "pineapple on pizza debate?"

No "those people" still need to be silenced!














Add purple per your taste.

 

[greg]

No.

It’s a tool to control the dialog. It has no objective standard. It can be anything and it can change from time to time depending on who the people that promote it decide the enemy is.

As was said above, we should encourage people to say what’s on their minds so we can figure out who to associate with and who to avoid.

Exactly…, censoring is never good it is a tool the Democrats use regularly!

 

[AndreusMaximus]

No speech should be regulated.
I abhor the ideology of the Ku Klux Klan, but I would much rather have them spewing their garbage in public.
This way we know who they are.
If the speech is effectively banned, it stews unnoticed until it boils over.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but will defend with my life, your right to say it."

Do you, truly, literally mean that no speech whatsoever should be regulated?

If someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater?

If someone public announces that they plan to shoot up a school next week?

If someone tells you, with apparent serious intent, that they're going to come to your house tonight and murder your then rape your wife?

Should all those things be perfectly legal, or are any of them different in your eyes? Where does the line lie between speech vs. threats? Is there such a line, in your opinion?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

This I agree with.
What some here call free speech in the case of threatening Jewish students with murder, and rape just like Hamas has done in Israel and many Jewish students stop going to college is not protected.
I'm not talking about the river to the sea chants I'm talking about the actual threatening that has been going on and law enforcement has done nothing. Or if they have its not been reported.

Where exactly do you draw the line between threats vs. free speech?

I've seen some suggesting that anyone who expresses support for Hamas should be arrested as a terrorist. Do you believe that? If yes, how far down that road should we go?

The Nazi's all mass-murdered tons of people. Should anyone who espouses neo-Nazi ideas be arrested? What about the KKK?

Should someone who argues in support of a nation we are at odds with, like say, Russia, be arrested?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater?

The easiest way to address this type of questioning is by asking: What if there’s actually a fire in the crowded theater?

This question is a category error.

What is being discussed by most if not all is the kind of speech that is a result of expressing throught. Actions that result in harm are in a different category.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The easiest way to address this type of questioning is by asking: What if there’s actually a fire in the crowded theater?

This question is a category error.

What is being discussed by most if not all is the kind of speech that is a result of expressing throught. Actions that result in harm are in a different category.

I admit I have lots of questions and not many answers.

I've always kind of vaguely considered myself to lean more heavily towards censorship and less heavily towards freedom that the typical "right-wing." But I was greatly surprised to see the number of folks on this board who seem to be in favor of criminalizing speech that supports Hamas. Even I wouldn't have ever thought of going that far. But they seem to be arguing that speech in support of Hamas causes harm, because Hamas murders people. I don't think that's the right way to think about it at all. But it's led me to ask myself if I can clearly define where the line is, and I'm not sure that I can. So I'm wondering how others define it?

 

[blain]

Should "hate speech" be regulated?

What is "hate speech"?

Absolutely! How else am I not going to be offended?
Hate speech is whatever gets my panties in a bunch. That may vary from day to day.

 

[wtburnette]

I admit I have lots of questions and not many answers.

I've always kind of vaguely considered myself to lean more heavily towards censorship and less heavily towards freedom that the typical "right-wing." But I was greatly surprised to see the number of folks on this board who seem to be in favor of criminalizing speech that supports Hamas. Even I wouldn't have ever thought of going that far. But they seem to be arguing that speech in support of Hamas causes harm, because Hamas murders people. I don't think that's the right way to think about it at all. But it's led me to ask myself if I can clearly define where the line is, and I'm not sure that I can. So I'm wondering how others define it?

They should be allowed to say whatever they want. They just don't have the right to lock down a campus, threaten people and things like that in furtherance with their stupidity. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want.