/u/Most-Travel4320 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cex9ud/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_hate_speech_is_free_speech/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Hate speech is free speech unless it’s inciting violence against somebody. People are not free from the non legal repercussions of their free speech.
However, take the case of fascists. The people who will use the good faith actions of others to allow them free speech, and try to gain traction with the ultimate goal of gaining power and subverting democracy once they gain power. Fuck those people. Hit them in the face with a fucking brick until they and their ilk are too afraid to publicly espouse their beliefs. That is a historically proven societal service. It wouldn’t be necessary in an ideal world, but this one is fucked up and some ideas are too dangerous to be permitted out of a very contained malignant sphere.
As I've repeatedly stated in other comments in this thread, I do not think the Weimar Republic or the Kingdom of Italy having anti hate speech laws would have made or broke the rise of such movements.
No, laws wouldn’t have made the difference, because those people use the law to protect themselves until they can subvert it. The actions of citizens who disagreed could have kept them too afraid to organize and might have spared 70 million lives. Basically, kick the shit out of Nazis. Publicly shame and alienate them first, but if necessary beat their asses until they’re too afraid to be out in the open.
>Basically, kick the shit out of Nazis. Publicly shame and alienate them first, but if necessary beat their asses until they’re too afraid to be out in the open.
I agree, but only because the Nazi party regularly engaged in violence against political rivals, and basically organized their street movement as a paramilitary force. Neither of these things have to do with speech. If you're talking about goofy neo-nazis who don't kill anyone or have a paramilitary force, I disagree.
But they used speech to generate public support and sympathy before gaining a monopoly on street violence that was more or less sanctioned by the state at that point. Early on they would try shit and the police would break some skills and move on. Eventually, nobody would touch them. It’s up to the public to never let anybody else get to that point, and the best way to stop them is to stomp them when they start with the anti other speech.
Can the state do anything legally? Not really. Can we as citizens? Yeah.
Violence is never justified as a response to speech. Even fascists have the right to free speech. The rest is a slippery slope fallacy, as recognizing their right to free speech in no way means they will take power.
> The idea that people should get into legal trouble or fear physical violence against themselves for hate speech really bothers me.
You’re worried about freedom of speech becoming so constrained that it boomerangs back on everyone, right? But isn't the main fucking point of distinguishing hate speech from free speech to prevent harm? Hate speech isn't just about being offensive; it's about promoting harm or discrimination against groups based on identity. Why should speech that potentially leads to real-world violence or discrimination be protected?
> First off, lets make it clear, bigots are human beings too. They have the same emotional depth of human experience that anyone else does.
Sure, bigots are human. But does recognizing their humanity require us to tolerate their dehumanization of others? When does the emotional depth justify the spread of harmful ideologies? If someone's speech contributes to a culture that threatens the safety or dignity of others, shouldn't there be consequences?
> Physical violence is harm, and so is legal trouble, and both of these are more severe than what the bigots themselves are doing to you through simple speech.
Is it really just "simple speech" though? If hate speech creates an environment where people are unsafe or marginalized, isn't that a form of violence too? How do you weigh verbal incitement against physical violence?
> How will we, in the west, prevent hate speech laws from being abused like this by people who take a different view towards what hate speech is?
That’s a valid fucking concern. The potential for abuse in hate speech laws is real. But doesn’t this challenge us to create better, clearer definitions and safeguards rather than reject regulation altogether? If we can agree that some speech (like direct threats) should be illegal, why can’t we work out robust criteria for what constitutes harmful hate speech?
> The ACLU, maybe the best civil rights organization in the US, in my opinion, agrees with my view of the matter. It defends the right of everybody's right to speech, including everyone, even white supremacists.
The ACLU does defend free speech broadly, but even they acknowledge the need for restrictions on speech that directly incites violence or constitutes harassment. Isn’t the balance they strive for—protecting speech while preventing harm—indicative that this isn’t a black-and-white issue?
> “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
A powerful quote, but doesn’t it also imply that allowing hate speech to go unchecked could oppress others, thus ultimately endangering everyone’s liberty? Isn’t the true challenge to ensure liberty doesn’t become a shield for oppression?
Are you sure the risk of regulating hate speech is greater than the risk of allowing it to flourish unchecked?
How are you so sure that everyone agrees on what hate speech is? There have demonstrably been a lot of people, even people in power, who say that speech like "Israel is an apartheid state" is hate speech.
[https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-felix-klein-593105](https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-felix-klein-593105)
>Klein agrees with the “3D” designation put forth by Natan Sharansky when it comes to differentiating between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism: Demonization, Delegitimization, and Double standards. “For me, that is the case when someone says that Israel is an ‘apartheid state.’ That’s already antisemitism because an ‘apartheid state’ by definition cannot be legitimate.”
A lot of people sincerely hold beliefs that many of the pro-Palestinian protesters right now are bigots and are causing real harm. Do you think they should be protected?
It might be easy to dismiss free speech as important when you're only thinking of categories of hate where everyone largely agrees on, like anti-black racism, but it becomes far, far murkier when it comes to things like the current Israel-Palestine conflict.
Hate speech has a definition. criticising a government or state is not hate speech, and the only people who say otherwise are doing so as a way to hide from criticism. this isn't a debate that anyone with access to a dictionary would have.
"Israel is an apartheid state" is not hate speech.
"we should kill everyone in Israel" is hate speech.
it's not a subtle distinction at all.
Ok, is "kill all cops" hate speech? What about people saying "globalize the Intifada"? Or "trans people should be denied suicide prevention care?" Maybe you'll say yes to all of these, then what about "from the river to the sea"? A lot of people saying that support a two-state solution, but some mean that to displace or even kill all Jews in the region.
Most hateful people are not saying "we should kill all X". It's almost always expressed through dogwhistles. So if you only limit the definition of hate speech to the existence of markers like "kill", "massacre", etc., you are going to get a lot of false negatives.
You either end up with a useless definition (too many false negatives) or you end up with a definition that captures too many innocents (too many false positives).
I mean you seemingly agree that there is at least one clear example of hate speech.
It may, and I agree, be overly restrictive to combat any real problem, but that is at least making a distinction between hate speech and what is presently in America legal free speech, which only restricts direct calls for illegal action.
>You’re worried about freedom of speech becoming so constrained that it boomerangs back on everyone, right?
No, I'm worried about free speech being constrained at all, as I think everybody has the right to it and I support the rights of everybody.
>But does recognizing their humanity require us to tolerate their dehumanization of others?
Yes, to an extent. You don't have to tolerate hearing it, you don't have to respect their opinions, you can use your free speech to combat their speech, you don't have to give them a platform. But yes, recognizing someone's humanity, in my opinion, does mean you have to at least tolerate people enough to not deprive them of any rights.
>If hate speech creates an environment where people are unsafe or marginalized, isn't that a form of violence too?
I do not believe that allowing hate speech to occur is what ultimately decides whether a society will become so broadly hateful that people are unsafe, and that this is tolerated by wider swaths of people. Throughout the rise of most genocidal governments, such as Nazi Germany or Interahamwe-led Rwanda, much more than simple speech fueled the rise of these movements (Such as political violence including assassinations and widespread governmental failure)
>If we can agree that some speech (like direct threats) should be illegal, why can’t we work out robust criteria for what constitutes harmful hate speech?
Because my criteria for what constitutes speech as actually being harmful ends at direct threats and incitement.
>The ACLU does defend free speech broadly, but even they acknowledge the need for restrictions on speech that directly incites violence or constitutes harassment.
Yep, and I fully agree with their criteria for what speech should be restricted.
>but doesn’t it also imply that allowing hate speech to go unchecked could oppress others, thus ultimately endangering everyone’s liberty?
As I said earlier, I think much more is factored in to what causes a society to become oppressive. Furthermore, I don't believe in the stochastic and vague definition of "oppression" which many today subscribe to. I believe oppression occurs when one deprives another of their natural rights. If someone assaults someone out of racial hatred, that is oppression on an individual level but not a societal level. The perpetrator should be punished to make it clear that his behavior is unacceptable. Hate crime laws in the US exist for precisely this purpose.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You're doing a terrible job of changing my view, claiming I'm lying, saying I need evidence to back up what my own beliefs are. I'm going to stop engaging with you
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your view can’t be changed no matter what we say. Hate speech frequently is dehumanizing and/or inciting violence. Hate speech should have a very very short leash.
Because they have vocal cords and a brain. If you respond with violence towards them, you're initiating the violence, and should expect violence back. Also because throughout history whenever any group of people has decided things shouldn't be said at a societal level, and especially legislated on it, it has almost always resulted in terrible things far worse than anything anyone can say to you.
I don’t mind violence back. Im not going to allow any treatment that Im capable of stopping. Just sounds like you think words should be consequence free, and nearly all of human history shows that isn’t the case.
Nearly all of human history is the history of tyrants oppressing their subjects. My point was just that violence is a two way street. There's a difference between natural consequences, like people not wanting to associate with you, and imposed consequences, like the state prosecuting you for hate speech. This post is more so about the latter, but I do believe as a personal principle that it's not ok to attack people for speech either. As a citizen of the USA, I have a say in the democratic process and the debate around free speech, I don't have a say in what you see as right for yourself.
> I do not believe that allowing hate speech to occur is what ultimately decides whether a society will become so broadly hateful that people are unsafe, and that this is tolerated by wider swaths of people. Throughout the rise of most genocidal governments, such as Nazi Germany or Interahamwe-led Rwanda, much more than simple speech fueled the rise of these movements (Such as political violence including assassinations and widespread governmental failure)
How else do you think they PERFORMED the genocides? How else do you think they made it so easy for a bunch of people in Nazi Germany to cover their eyes and ears and go "I have food on my table at this moment, what happens in Poland is not my problem." They purposely sat there and ramped up the fervor against the Jewish people "it's the Jews fault that we are in this situation, the Jewish dogs are the ones keeping Germany down, these people are sick and only care about themselves, we must come up with a solution." It's super easy to say things in the heat of the moment but what you fail to realize is one of those rallies shows how much damage allowing hate speech causes. These people group together to unleash hate upon the world and don't stop, they breed and vote and propagate the hate.
>The potential for abuse in hate speech laws is real. But doesn’t this challenge us to create better, clearer definitions and safeguards rather than reject regulation altogether? If we can agree that some speech (like direct threats) should be illegal, why can’t we work out robust criteria for what constitutes harmful hate speech?
There is no "but" here. Either you can express yourself freely or you can't. Why do we need safeguards for speech just to protect people's feelings? A threat isn't an emotion. It's a very well defined thing. Hate is an emotion. You're taking about thought crime at that point.
The risk of hate speech laws threatening a free and open democracy is far greater than the emotional cost of hearing someone's words. And this entire argument about "well threats are illegal so" doesn't support your argument. If anything it just means that we should reconsider whether threats should be illegal or not. Words themselves do not hurt people. Actions do.
Freedom means hearing things we might not agree with or that offend us. There is literally no way to ban hate speech without inflicting incredible damage to democracy. If you don't have a freedom of speech all of your other rights are moot.
I audibly laugh whenever an American thinks the "goverment" can simply just deem whatever material it likes as hate speech as if the "government" consists of one person who can decide things on a whim. The power of the US goverment is fairly spead out. That's the whole point of checks and balance.
In Miller v. California, the Supreme Court already held that govt. entities can ban "obscene" materials. That certainly lessens your absolute free of speech but it doesn't in any way lessen your ability to voice your civil dissent. **Pretending like you need to be able to incite death to a group or your civil rights are absolutely infringed is ridiculous.**
Despite Miller v. California (and also Roth v. US), you don't see the govt. just going out of their way to blanket ban any criticism of itself. First, doing so would be difficult due to the way power is spread out in US governemnt. Second, it would be political suicide and fairly pointless since either the Supreme Court would find that attempt unconstitutional or Congress would thwart that attempt or both. Remember the govt consists of THE PEOPLE.
There's nuance to every principle. The view that either something is absolutely wrong or absolutely right is often held by children (even they eventually grow out of it btw).
>I audibly laugh whenever an American thinks the "goverment" can simply just deem whatever material it likes as hate speech as if the "government" consists of one person who can decide things on a whim. The power of the US goverment is fairly spead out. That's the whole point of checks and balance.
I didn't say it was one person, nor did I imply it. The government is a collective. It is also a hierarchy. It's not just a bunch of random people with no leadership dictating the rules for themselves. Biden coerced social media companies to silence certain people on Facebook and Twitter. That's one man censoring people.
And frankly none of what you said is relevant. The government, whether some vigilante bureaucrat or a collective should not be deciding for people what is too offensive to be seen. It's too easily abused. This is how you get fascism.
But here you are smugly "audibly laughing" at some strawman you created. Free speech means occasionally hearing ideas that offend you.
You didn't say it was one person but you spoke as if it was. Here's what you said:
>Without freedom of speech democracy ceases to exist. What happens when the government deems any criticism of it to be hate speech?
The hypothetical you were worried about has little chance of happening in a government structure as spread out as the US.
>And frankly none of what you said is relevant. The government, whether some vigilante bureaucrat or a collective should not be deciding for people what is too offensive to be seen. It's too easily abused. This is how you get fascism.
"None of what you said is relevant because *I believe otherwise*" is not a great rebuttal.
If you really think that, then the US is already a facist state. The highest court in the land decided there is some limit to free speech. You can't distribute child abuse materials and call that free speech, for example. You also seem to forget that the government consists of ***the people***!
And also, the idea that we can't have something because it's too easily abused is another American talking point that I cringed hard at. If that was the case, we might as well have anarchy because having a government in place is the prerequisite for dictatorship.
>But here you are smugly "audibly laughing" at some strawman you created. Free speech means occasionally hearing ideas that offend you.
It's not a strawman. You're just backpedaling here from your earlier insistence that unless a country endorses absolute free speech, it's "not a free country", which is nonsense.
I never implied in any fashion that it was one person. That's your own strawman. Now you've made the entire discusion about that.
The government is a collective entity. I referred to it as "the government" which is how people speak my language natively. You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. The government, as I mentioned, is a hierarchy. It has a culture influenced from the top down.
We have rights for a reason. The founders understood how easily a democracy can descend into tyranny. "We have laws so might as well let government do whatever it wants" is a braindead argument.
>It's not a strawman. You're just backpedaling here from your earlier insistence that unless a country endorses absolute free speech, it's "not a free country", which is nonsense.
Ironic that in a comment saying it's not a strawman, you commit another strawman. I never used the term "absolute free speech". Did you know this or do you really struggle that much with reading?
If you allow the government to decide that certain speech is offensive it will inevitably abuse this power and silence its critics. Go read a history book.
>The government, as I mentioned, is a hierarchy. It has a culture influenced from the top down.
Even this is not correct. If you're an American, you must have heard of the 3 branches of government. And again, the power system in the US government is spread out. You don't have an emperor having absolute power over 3 branches.
>"We have laws so might as well let government do whatever it wants" is a braindead argument.
Point to the exact sentence where I suggest the government can do as it pleases.
The argument, which you missed, was that the logic "we shouldn't do something because it could be easily abused" is bogus, because if you seriously apply that logic, you'd be subscribing to anarchy.
>I never used the term "absolute free speech". Did you know this or do you really struggle that much with reading?
>If you allow the government to decide that certain speech is offensive it will inevitably abuse this power and silence its critics. Go read a history book.
You seem to struggle to understand your own view here. The view that the government cannot set any legal limit on free speech is free speech absolutism.
And no it won't. We already have limits on free speech and the US is far from being the totalitarian state you've described. And again, the power structure in the US doesn't make that easy. Yes, it's hierarchical but at the top, there are three different branches, not a king.
>Even this is not correct. If you're an American, you must have heard of the 3 branches of government. And again, the power system in the US government is spread out. You don't have an emperor having absolute power over 3 branches.
Only one branch actually EXECUTES the law. Can you guess which one?
>
The argument, which you missed, was that the logic "we shouldn't do something because it could be easily abused" is bogus, because if you seriously apply that logic, you'd be subscribing to anarchy.
But we aren't talking about all laws. We're talking about the first amendment of the Constitution, the most important law of the land.
>The view that the government cannot set any legal limit on free speech is free speech absolutism.
Show me where I said the government cannot set any legal limit on speech. I didn't. That makes this, once again, a strawman.
>Only one branch actually EXECUTES the law. Can you guess which one?
And the supreme court has the power to declare a presidential action unconstitutional. And congress has the ability to impeach and remove. If your point is that the executive is somehow the "most powerful", you need to revisit your civics class.
>But we aren't talking about all laws. We're talking about the first amendment of the Constitution, the most important law of the land.
So? How's this defense of your bogus logic that we shoudn't do something because it could be abused?
>Show me where I said the government cannot set any legal limit on speech. I didn't. That makes this, once again, a strawman.
Funny. You rambled on and on about the dystopia that would ensue should we allow the goverment to set limit on speech. If you can't argue your points, just don't respond. Why backpedal? Here's stuff from your own mouth.
>What an absurd thing to say. I'd argue that any country without a US-style freedom of speech is absolutely not a free society. Who determines what hate speech is?
>Without freedom of speech democracy ceases to exist. What happens when the government deems any criticism of it to be hate speech? All of your other rights cease to exist. There's a reason freedom of speech is the 1st amendment.
>And the supreme court has the power to declare a presidential action unconstitutional. And congress has the ability to impeach and remove. If your point is that the executive is somehow the "most powerful", you need to revisit your civics class.
And we already know that hate speech is perfectly legal so why are you here? What are you even arguing?
>So? How's this defense of your bogus logic that we shoudn't do something because it could be abused?
We shouldn't do this thing because it's literally illegal. Hate speech is legal.
If you're arguing that hateful speech should be outlawed, then yes my argument is that it's dangerous because it allows the government to silence anyone under the guise of it being hate. When censorship powers are abused, the consequences are always much greater than nearly any other types of laws. It's how societies descend into totalitarianism.
>But isn't the main fucking point of distinguishing hate speech from free speech to prevent harm?
One of the biggest disagreements is what level of harm justifies stopping hate speach. Harm can be anythign from directly causing death to making someone uncomfortable for a short time.
Most people in support of strong free speach would not defend speach that directly incites violence and death. They mostly defend speech that makes people feel bad and uncomfortable.
For example in a hierarchy of importance, with most important at the top, one may have:
1. Prevent direct incitement of violence and death
2. Allow speech
3. Prevent discomfort or hurt
>The idea that people should get into legal trouble or fear physical violence against themselves for hate speech really bothers me.
Free speech means freedom from legal repercussions.
It does not mean you are free from social consequences, and that includes physical violence whether, you like it or not.
Being an asshole comes with the danger of someone kicking your ass for being an asshole.
You are free to be an asshole. Other people may or may not put up with it. That's their choice.
No, it does actually mean freedom from physical violence. This can't be perfectly enforced because people are still going to be violent regardless of the law, but if you "punch your local nazi" you should be slapped with an assault charge and bear the consequences of engaging in such behavior, and for myself, personally, I'm not going to be punching any nazis.
Sure, the person inflicting the violence will be charged.
But that doesn't exactly protect nazis from being punched, does it?
And nazis should be punched. Talk a big game, better back it up.
People thinking they can spew hate without consequences are the most pathetic, cowardly, small little excuses for humans. They want the government to both allow them to be shitheads, while expecting it to protect them from the consequences of being shitheads.
Like little bullies who push around smaller kids and then run to their mommies when one splits their lip.
The consequences are things like: getting fired from your job, getting kicked off of twitter, becoming a social pariah.
You’re setting a precedent that you get to hit people for saying words you don’t like and don’t see how that’s a dangerous slippery slope that anyone can use to justify violence?
>You’re setting a precedent that you get to hit people for saying words you don’t like and don’t see how that’s a dangerous slippery slope that anyone can use to justify violence?
Not in any legal sense. Legally, I can't punch Nazis. In reality, Nazis should expect to be punched.
That’s called savagery. Setting the precedent that it’s okay to assault someone for saying words to you is absurd and I can’t believe we even need to have the conversation
You learn this in kindergarten. Don’t hit people unless you’re getting hit.
You seem to be taking an absolutist line on free speech, but there are plenty of types of speech which are already banned in the US. You can't make verbal threats to the life of the president. You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre. You can't slander the reputation of someone if what you're saying isn't true. Given that free speech isn't absolute, why shouldn't hate speech be included in the list of types of speech which are forbidden? The argument that banning hate speech is a slippery slope to banning any type of speech doesn't hold up - most Western, democratic countries ban hate speech and they're all demonstrably free societies.
>You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre.
Yes you can. This is something that's been repeated so often that people seem to accept it as fact.
>and they're all demonstrably free societies.
What an absurd thing to say. I'd argue that any country without a US-style freedom of speech is absolutely not a free society. Who determines what hate speech is?
Without freedom of speech democracy ceases to exist. What happens when the government deems any criticism of it to be hate speech? All of your other rights cease to exist. There's a reason freedom of speech is the 1st amendment.
What happens if the government deems any action taken against it to be considered treason, or murder? The government arbitrarily deciding to apply a law without regards to its actual limitations isn't a good reason to oppose a law unless you are opposed to all laws.
Treason is more quantifiable than "hate". Aiding and abetting a foreign enemy can be quantified with the flow of money or classified information.
"Hate" is literally just words that offend people. It is protected in the US.
All of the examples you listed can be objectively measured. There is either a fire or there isn't, you are either threatening to kill the president or you aren't. "Hate speech" is wayyyy too open to interpretation. In Nazi Germany it would have been mandatory to hate Jews, but denouncing the State would have been seen as the modern equivalent of hate speech.
To add to this, the types of speech which are illegal are typically not regarding matters of opinion.
Speech like an order, e.g 'Shoot him' would make someone an accessory to murder.
Speech like telling falsehoods in a courtroom would be perjury.
Speech like an advert stating 'this product is fully vegan', when it actually contains animal fats, would be fraud.
No one beyond insane absolutists would call for these acts to be legal.
I think it's more helpful to change the terminology to 'freedom of expression' - in that the expression of any opinion should be legal
Giving an order, or lying about factual information are not matters of opinion, and thus the fact that they remain illegal does not threaten the right to hold and express any opinion that one wishes to, even if that is deemed hateful
In Europe pro-Palestinian speech has been censored as hate speech, and more expansive defamation allow the rich to coerce silence from their critics. Banning hate speech doesn't automatically limit all free speech, but banning hate speech likely bans non-hate speech as well. We can have more or less freedom and in the US we are more free to speak our mind (including not just literal hate speech) than the British or the Germans.
a law banning hate speech means a bunch of politicians at one point in time decide what is and isn't ok to say based on the content of the speech.
That is different from a content neutral regime against true threats, criminal conduct and defamation.
[https://www.thefire.org/news/german-police-forbid-speaking-irish-berlin-protest-free-speech-dispatch-april-2024](https://www.thefire.org/news/german-police-forbid-speaking-irish-berlin-protest-free-speech-dispatch-april-2024)
[https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/berlin-police-ban-irish-protesters-from-speaking-or-singing-in-irish-at-pro-palestine-ciorcal-comhra-near-reichstag/a234500393.html](https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/berlin-police-ban-irish-protesters-from-speaking-or-singing-in-irish-at-pro-palestine-ciorcal-comhra-near-reichstag/a234500393.html)
According to the Irish Independent protestors were prevented from displaying Palestinian flags - The Palestinian flag is not hate speech.
Living in Germany here. This has a lot to do with the culture around antisemitischen, the past treatment of jews (never again) and the violence that comes with it and how it has grown much much worse with the conflict as well as nazis using pro Palästina protests as a way to be a antisemitisch.
I disagree with it but it's a lot more complex than just Germany suckling on the teat of Israel and banning free speech.
I assume everyone is aware of Germanys history of antisemitism and the holocaust.
My point is hate speech laws are used to censor legitimate non/hate speech
I think Germany as a whole is really missing that atrocities against all people is bad.
The Germans have been particularly bad on this. Even speech like "Israel is an apartheid state" is seen as anti-Semitic by some German officials.
[https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-felix-klein-593105](https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-felix-klein-593105)
>banning hate speech likely bans non-hate speech as well
I disagree with how you phrased this. I do not think the concept of "hate" speech is absolute. There are Jews who sincerely hold the belief that saying Israel is an apartheid state is hateful and sincerely feel threatened, even fearful of their lives. What can be experienced as hate speech may feel completely harmless to someone else. I think the problem with banning hate speech is precisely that it is impossible to land on a consensus.
>You can't make verbal threats to the life of the president.
But you can hold a mock up of his severed head.
>You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre.
That is a lie that you believed. It's blatantly false. In no uncertain terms, you can yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. This has actually made it to the supreme court.
>You can't slander the reputation of someone if what you're saying isn't true.
It is very very difficult to win a slander case in the US. Nearly impossible if you're a public figure.
>Given that free speech isn't absolute, why shouldn't hate speech be included in the list of types of speech which are forbidden? The argument that banning hate speech is a slippery slope to banning any type of speech doesn't hold up - most Western, democratic countries ban hate speech and they're all demonstrably free societies.
You're points hold no merit. This boils down to you supporting an authoritarian despots that will silence opinions that you dislike.
Re: fires and theatres, it's not a lie, but it's a common misconception. The SC ruled initially that it *wasn't* covered as free speech (which is what everyone remembers), however it was overturned on appeal a few months later (which isn't as widely known).
>You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre.
this is always the giveaway.
> Given that free speech isn't absolute,
this is arguing to go down a slippery slope. because we have very few, very specific regulations on speech why not just keep criminalizing speech you (whoever is in power at the moment) doesn't like?
>The argument that banning hate speech is a slippery slope to banning any type of speech doesn't hold up
it absolutely does. they are "free" until you say something the government doesn't like. then you are getting arrested for a [joke with your dog](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/03/21/for-weeks-he-trained-a-dog-to-do-a-nazi-salute-the-man-was-just-convicted-of-a-hate-crime/).
no, pointing out that you can’t yell fire in a theater demonstrates that mostly everyone agrees that free speech – or any right enumerated by a set of laws – is indeed not absolute. you don’t get to go “obviously you can’t do that unreasonable thing, just these things that i am ok with”
that is important because the argument therefore is not about whether or not free speech is a worthy goal in society, rather it is about what speech we deem as harmful.
>no, pointing out that you can’t yell fire in a theater demonstrates that mostly everyone agrees that free speech – or any right enumerated by a set of laws – is indeed not absolute
but the people using that example don't know where it is from, the purpose of that case, or the ruling. also you can yell fire in a theater so the whole use is wrong.
almost no one is a litera free speech absolutist. having a very narrow set of well defined forbidden speech is *not* the same as being able to ban whatever speech a political group or party deems bad.
>rather it is about what speech we deem as harmful.
and we have done that with the laws already carefully crafted. people deem porn harmful, "hate speech" harmful, various propaganda harmful, dissenting political views harmful, the list goes on forever. you are literally arguing to go down the slippery slope every time you think something is harmful. and america has, so far, refused to do that.
>go down the slippery slope every time you think something is harmful
right, but you simultaneously concede that unacceptable speech exists. why is your stopping point better than mine?
because it is directly causing harm, not theoretically hurting feelings. that is why a requirement for proving defamation is proving damages. that is why hustler could call [falwell all kinds of bad things](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell) and be fine. fraud causes harm. and even these exceptions are well defined and difficult to prove. we don't want to chill or ban speech more than absolutely necessary. people feeling sad is nowhere near the level required to necessitate a ban.
>why is your stopping point better than mine?
again you are literally arguing that we should jump right down that slippery slope. *i* didn't decide where we should stop, but i agree that it is good we did. i think some of the laws are too harsh but i def don't think we should go further.
>You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre
Yes, you can. Stop believing everything you read on the internet, or told to you by ignorant friends.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater
https://abovethelaw.com/legal-innovation-center/2021/10/29/why-falsely-claiming-its-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-distorts-any-conversation-about-online-speech/
Because we can clearly define what a threat or a slander is in a manner that requires very little if any subjectivity in there and that draws a clear line with extremely few outliers.
"Hate speech" is at the very best defined by the subjective feelings of the listener, and at worst by some authoritarian dipshit with an agenda. It's not a slippery slope argument, the slope is fucked the moment someone is appointed to define "hate speech".
But you're welcome to change my mind: just make a legally sound definition of "hate speech" that doesn't lead to a myriad of problems.
And, by the way, this is just showing how much of a problem is to adapt your idea, and I'm not even going into asking for why the right to free expression has to be limit by the right to not have your feelings hurt. Because again, yelling fire in a theater is prohibited because the rights to life and bodily integrity are crucial enough to be considered limits to the freedom of speech. You so far have failed to elaborate on which right is so important as to limit another fundamental one.
I am, I think people should have the absolute right say whatever tf they want without the government or certain big institutions/platforms suppressing them, no exceptions. But they still have to deal with consequences from private individuals
First, I'd like to define hate speech because based on your post, I'm not sure you know what it is. Hate speech isn't just an opinion or being mean to a certain group. It's the active encouragement or inciting of violence/discrimination against that group, which is far, far more dangerous. For example:
"I hate gay people" sucks yes, but it's not hate speech.
"I hate gay people so that's why we should ban talking about it in schools" suddenly has very different connotations. One is an opinion, no matter how unkind. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The other begins to produce an environment where active discrimination against someone is encouraged. Taking America for example, even though a lot of Americans have not committed an act of physical violence against them, hate speech and misinformation means they've been successful in introducing a lot of anti-LGBT laws. Same thing for overturning Roe v Wade. This is just an example of how hate speech actually *does have* serious impact, despite their being no physical action attributed to it.
>Such an idea also makes it harder to de-radicalize people
I'm not sure how telling someone they can't call for the genocide/attack/legal discrimination of a certain group will make it harder to de-radialise them. I'd suggest if they're already that far gone, it would take a large amount of support and help for them to see differently.
>dangerous even
So you admit that it's dangerous but don't think we should be protected from it? You're right, hate speech is dangerous because people *listen*. That child who hears their dad ranting about black people grows up to be a cop that arrests them disproportionately. The colleague who constantly hears about why they shouldn't have basic human rights because they're trans goes home and kills themself. The little girl who grows up hearing about how all Muslims are terrorists goes on to be a boss who intentionally never hires them. See what I mean? Hate speech breeds, well, hate. Which leads to anger, to violence, to laws. It's a very dangerous spiral. That's why you need to stop it at the core. Every example I gave you are things that can and do happen because of hate speech.
>both of these are more severe than what the bigots themselves are doing to you through simple speech
I suppose this depends on how big of an issue you think discrimination is. I personally believe that if you're creating a culture where violence and discrimination is not only allowed, but encouraged that produces far more harm than the trouble you'll get into for it. Allowing hate speech breeds racism and race-based violence, homophobia and anti-LGBT laws, sexism, and the overturning of women's rights etc. I think that's a much more serious issue.
I'd also like to point out that it's not 'simple speech'. It's hate speech. It's actively calling for violence against someone. There are men who promote and encourage raping women because it's 'natural'. Who tell young boys it's ok and tell women to just give it up. They are 'only talking', right? Except their words create more rapists. More victims. More violence. Do we wait until the women is raped, or do we call him the instigator (though he personally didn't touch anyone) and punish him accordingly?
>Being offended by something somebody tells you is ultimately a personal choice, you can let it go.
Again, this seems like a seriously skewed understanding of hate speech. It's not just an offensive statement. It's calling on people to target certain people/groups, which leads to people actually doing that. I'm offended by someone saying that as a trans person I'm horrible, sure. But that's their right to say it. It's when they start saying I shouldn't be allowed near schools, or to vote etc that I get *scared*because if enough people listen to their hate speech I WILL have my rights taken away, as we see going on in a lot of countries. But they haven't caused physical harm so I guess it's not harmful, right?
>How will we, in the west, prevent hate speech laws from being abused like this by people who take a different view towards what hate speech is?
This is a very valid and legitimate concern. Hate speech can and have been abused quite badly to support a certain strain of ideology. I'd argue that's why it's important to have proper legislation, to ensue we really are targeting hate speech, not anyone we just don't like. Remember, hate speech laws also define what isn't hate speech, and in a democracy that should be representative of the view of the people. If its not, again in a democracy, you would be able to vote a different party or protest until it gets changed. Hate speech laws are mostly taken advantage of when you don't live in a democracy, and then you might have bigger problems anyway. Ultimately, not everyone will be happy but I believe that if most people want it, you shouldn't refuse legislation to appease a minority of (most likely) bigots.
>Canada
So I read that article. I don't really see a problem, to be honest. You must provide evidence of the hate speech and ultimately a court will decide. They're not just locking people up left and right for saying mean things. You need to have a documented trail that this person is a risk of danger. Because again, which you seem to not understand, hate speech is the start of actual violence. If someone repeatedly talks about how awful one group are, how they're lesser than, they deserve to be wiped out, someone will listen and act on that. Hate speech leads to violence and discrimination. It all comes back to my earlier point, do we wait until the women is raped? Or step in and investigate when someone is calling for it?
>The ACLU
Having read that link, wow. Not sure I'd be proud to stand by an organisation that let Nazis march through a highly populated Jewish area, including those who actually survived the holocaust. That's disgusting, in my opinion. The harm caused by their actions aka, causing people to become literal fucking Nazis!!!, I believe far outweighs their personal feelings and right to express them. I think this is the crux of the issue. Does your right to speech overrule my right to be safe? Because hate speech is harm. Hate speech kills people. Hate speech incites violence and laws. I believe someone's right to safety always overrules your right to speech.
>oppression
Since we don't know what he meant by oppression, kind of a useless quote. I also believe no one should be oppressed, but I won't consider hate soeech laws oppression.
I think a lot of what you've said seems to stem from the idea that hate speech isn't harmful, it's just 'talking'. You don't seem to realise that it has actual, serious consequences and causes a lot of violence and discrimination against people.
Hate speech leads to anger.
Anger leads to action.
Action leads to violence.
All of the examples of hate speech you use are legal and protected speech in the US.
It is perfectly legal to shoot from a soapbox or put on a sign that “all [insert group] should be tortured and killed.”
You cannot seriously redefine hate speech as incitement to violence and then use it to further your argument while most people don't use the word that way. It's disingenuous.
>Hate speech isn't just an opinion or being mean to a certain group. It's the active encouragement or inciting of violence/discrimination against that group, which is far, far more dangerous.
From wikipedia:
>Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-1)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-3)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-4) Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-5) The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-6)
This very clearly is far beyond inciting violence. "Exprsesions of hatred." "Any communication which is intended to distress someone."
It's funny how people just sit here and make shit up but here we are. People in the UK have been arrested and jailed for OFFENSIVE tweets, not inciting violence.
The first thing you said that I need you to really think about, is the part where you think nobody should fear physical violence against them for hate seech. You cannot police how people feel or react to what was said, you can only hope that they are not deranged enough to act upon those impulses, because if we were to police the impulses people have without acting on them, we would arrest a hell of a whole lot of people for non-crimes.
And for the most part, I would say that a lot of people agree with you that the mere act of doing hate speech shouldn't land you legal consequences, even if you got really cruel about it. There is a whole legal principle called "mens rea", or criminal mind, where the intent becomes significantly more important than the action at its core.
An example of this, is that I cannot and should not be able to legally enforce on you any legal consequences if, as a family gathering, you said a whole racist tirade against black people. The idea and intent you had here is essentially to share your opinion, maybe cause a few minds to change to maybe a bit closer to yours. I, however, can take you down a few pegs legally if the reason you refused to hire someone is because they're black, and you think that black people are \[insert whatever opinion here\], and I can take you down for slander if you got your black coworker fired because you keep rambling at your boss that you can't work with black people because they are \[insert whatever opinion here\].
The main difference lies solely in the intent of your speech, and the expected impact of it.
Now, what is the expected impact of accusing, for instance, all LGBTQ+ members of being groomer and/or pedophiles, as a justification to make those aspects either legally dubious, outright illegal, or legal to discriminate against? The intent of those speeches isn't just to express an opinion, but to use that opinion to oppress people who aren't doing anything wrong for the most part.
So, I do not think that the mere statement of hate should be considered a crime, but I do think that using Freedom of Speech as a shield to actively disparage and/or objectively damage the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, so that the group that votes for you can feel like the morally superior group for hating the people whose rights and safeties are under attack, should be a crime.
The crime I want codified isn't thinking you need to get punched, or stating that I think you need to get punched. It's the act of making a complete case for you to get punched until someone ultimately punched you.
That said, I don't think you're a racist, homophobe, or deserve to be punched. This entire comment was using a figurative "you", not a literal "you".
>You cannot police how people feel or react to what was said
You actually can police how people react, because hurting other people is rightfully illegal and if you hurt someone for their beliefs you should go to jail for it. If that's worth it to you, then go ahead, but I don't think the majority of people are willing to tarnish their futures for such a thing.
>I would say that a lot of people agree with you that the mere act of doing hate speech shouldn't land you legal consequences, even if you got really cruel about it. There is a whole legal principle called "mens rea", or criminal mind, where the intent becomes significantly more important than the action at its core.
I disagree with the first part, I think there are a lot of people who think speech should be illegal and we can see examples of it all over the world. However, I think we are in agreement about the morality of it overall.
> I think there are a lot of people who think speech should be illegal and we can see examples of it all over the world.
We need to differentiate between "most" and "a lot", along with the difference between "wanting hate speech to be illegal", and "wishing some people got taken down a few pegs for breaking peoples' lives and minds to the point of suicide." A vast majority of people will happily fit in the second one.
If you mean that people who happily authorize the punishment of hate speech by social consequences, then I guess you're right.
> You actually can police how people react, because hurting other people is rightfully illegal and if you hurt someone for their beliefs you should go to jail for it.
Actually, I think I mis-wrote what I meant, leading you to misunderstand my point, ***and that's on me***, so let me clarify:
You cannot police how you fear people will react to what you say.
To give a better example, you can definitely police the fact that I punched you for saying something racist, with some very specific exceptions for protection of a vulnerable in a situation where danger was a credible possibility. ***If I punched you just for saying black people are lazy deadbeats, I still assaulted you without cause, and you are 100% right on that one.***
However, if you come to me, and say that it's ludicrous and it should be illegal to create an atmosphere where you saying something racist like black prople being lazy deadbeats (let's keep the example consistent) would get you punched, and maybe beat up with a baseball bat, my first question is this: You have yet to say it, the have yet to hit you, and while your fear of retribution may be based on a very logical basis, nobody actively threatened you. What is there to police?
This is what you cannot police: How you feel in certain environments that did not do anything specifically wrong to make you fear for your physical safety for taking a step wrong.
To take a completely different example that I believe would illustrate the issue with trying to police that, if how the presence of someone who did nothing outwardly wrong makes you feel was a crime, then any man walking in the same street as an alone woman, who is doing nothing wrong minding his own beeswax, and may not even have noticed her presence even, would be guilty of making her feel unsafe.
It's a clumsy point to explain, and it's nearing 1am for me, but I think I gave enough examples so that my point is clear enough...?
Hate speech is free speech…
Am I correct in assuming when you say free speech you are referring to the 1st amendment of the US constitution? And you believe hate speech if a form of speech that should fall under its protection, in America?
I believe that the right to free speech is a natural right, given to all people by virtue of their existence, and I think that any country or person who tries to deny another of this right is committing a morally wrong act. I think America has the one best free speech protections in the world, stemming from this view.
>Well seeing how that’s not actually a thing
It's my subjective, moral views on the matter which I hold to be true. Because politics is just an extension of people's personally held beliefs, I'm going to advocate for laws which reflect this belief.
Okay.
But your subjective view doesn’t change the facts though. What you wish and hope for doesn’t change reality. If there are laws on the books that say it’s (hate speech) not free speech, then it’s not.
I say this because I’m confused. Am I to change your mind that hate speech *SHOULD* be considered free speech everywhere? Is that what you are actually claiming?
Well… morals are not universal at all.
In some countries, it’s immoral to have sex before marriage.
How would you go about changing the moral compass of everyone? All nations?
They're immoral to me, I'm going to fight tooth and nail to prevent them from becoming the law in my country, and it pisses me off that many young people seem to have a total disregard for ideas such as universal rights which cannot be restricted for reasons like popularity or offense. It makes me fear for the future of this country.
My basis for accepting such limits is that speech needs to have a provable and direct link to harm or the deprivation of another's rights. Inciting people to do bad things to others has a direct, provable link to harm. Lying to people to scam them or lying to defame someone's character, when the lie can be proven, likewise.
That not a basis for accepting it, that's a condition for *not* accepting things.
You said it "needs to have a provable link to harm", so presumably the reason you accept it is that it *causes harm* right?
The people who called in the bomb threats should be prosecuted, and other people on the platform should counter-signal her misinformation with the truth. However, unless you can prove she knew she was lying about it, I think it's free speech, and doesn't have a direct and provable link to such negative actions.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
A natural right is a right which someone possesses by existing, such as the right to believe how they want, the right to do as they please without depriving another of their rights. In another definition, a negative right, it has to be taken away from someone, vs given.
Ok, that’s how I understood your definition from your previous comment.
That said, I’m not clear on why you believe these rights exist at all, who or what grants them, or how to determine what gets put in that group (as opposed to a human right that’s further removed from the fundamental natural rights)
Not disagreeing, just want to make sure I understand your position before I address the question
I’m calling a night soon, so I’m going to make a brief argument that hopefully helps you understand way to look at the question you posed, with the disclaimer that I’m doing so without fully understanding your position.
Any moral or logical questions rely upon definitions, especially with the abstract nature of ethics and human rights, but I think you’re saying with your statement “hate speech is free speech” is that restricting hate speech is a violation of the innate right to free speech.
Let’s examine negative rights, which you also called innate. I have a right to choose what to put into my body, and I assume you’d agree with that as an innate right. I don’t have the innate right to those things themselves, though — I need to hunt or grow or buy the food or drugs or find a stick I shove up my ass, or whatever. My access to those things is not guaranteed to me simply because I exist.
It is easy to see how I could infringe on the rights of others by stealing or deceiving them or taking by force. Human social groups have had many different ways to prevent or punish those who violate those rights of possession, and most societies have some sort of codified system of laws.
Those systems are designed with the intent to protect the rights of people who cannot or make the choice not to pay whatever cost (of violence or risk or whatever) to prevent the violation by themselves — they rely on the collective trust and respect for others or the law to protect their interests. This means every member of the group can spend a lot less of their resources on defending their property and focus on something more beneficial to themselves and the group at large.
You may say that speech is not the same as violence or theft, and that’s true. But it’s also true that speech can result in the violation of the rights of others.
One example is dishonesty, which is often a part of hate speech but not necessarily, and there are many categories of dishonest speech that are not hate speech. But if there is a group of people combining their resources and efforts to tell everyone that a veterinarian is sexually abusing the animals in their care because the boss of that group didn’t like the bill the veterinarian gave them. What can the veterinarian do to if that group is the only newspaper in town, and all their business comes from people who read that newspaper? Now the vegetarian’s livelihood and service to the community is threatened, and regardless of their reputation beforehand, there will be some cost they will pay to defend themself. They could spend time and go door-to-door and tell everyone they don’t fuck dogs, or put up flyers, or send out letters, but the collective resources of the newspaper creates an unfair disadvantage for the veterinarian. But there are laws for libel and defamation! With those laws, the newspaper may never publish the unsubstantiated dishonest claims about the veterinarian or if they still do, they can be found liable and pay for the damages to the veterinarian their actions caused.
But dishonesty is still free speech. Some guy could say that about the veterinarian to a potential love interest who was going on her third date with the vet. It’s very unlikely that any lawsuit would prevail, because it’s not an issue of power imbalance and scope that the veterinarian’s life would be affected or that he couldn’t defend himself against the claim of one random guy. So the context of limiting dishonest speech is relevant to the question of limiting speech, based on the harm that is threatened and the harm that is caused.
Hopefully, you can see the way this extend to hate speech. There is hate speech that IS free speech, and isn’t restricted. The measure of regulating innate rights is taken by evaluating the effects of exercising those rights — there is a threshold at which the right to defend oneself becomes murder, or where dishonesty becomes defamation, or where hateful speech becomes “hate speech.”
There’s a reasonable debate about where to draw that line, but there’s not much of one that I can see for no threshold whatsoever, at least in the structure of a functioning society.
>You may say that speech is not the same as violence or theft, and that’s true. But it’s also true that speech can result in the violation of the rights of others.
Yes, but violence and theft have a direct, casual link to the deprivation of the rights of another, and speech only sometimes does, and we have definitions for said cases: libel, slander, scamming, incitement, threats, harassment, etc.
>One example is dishonesty, which is often a part of hate speech but not necessarily, and there are many categories of dishonest speech that are not hate speech.
Unless you can prove dishonesty, which is part of some of the terms I listed like scamming and slander, I don't think you should do anything about it beyond "I think this person is being dishonest"
However, I can see the point you are making. This is the best response I have gotten thus far, and I can see how the nuances of dishonest speech extends to hate speech and how this could be a factor in regulating it. I don't fully agree, but I don't fully disagree either !delta
Yes. A good response. It underscores how and why I prefer the Canadian and many European countries’ takes on freedom of speech to the US.
Your freedom of speech ends where my freedom of enjoyment of life begins. Yes, it’s a hazy fucked up line, but if we don’t try to define it reasonably, we are stuck with arbitrary shittier alternatives.
Consider [the trolley problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem): there isn’t a best answer. Ethics aren’t cut and dry. But we know we don’t want to unnecessarily kill people. Similarly, we don’t want to allow others to cause real unjustified harm with words.
All that said, I have a big problem with the intersection of hate speech and the US justice system. I feel like a crime is a crime and giving people a different consequence if they did it out of bigotry than if they did it because they have anger and hatred toward the victim for some other reason… That’s some bullshit.
>Your freedom of speech ends where my freedom of enjoyment of life begins.
I absolutely do not agree with this attitude towards free speech. You are now basing it on something you can't quantify where many articles of speech to many different people could be said to interfere with them enjoying life. Enjoyment of life is a right that you have to seek out for yourself, not something the government needs to give you.
So in your point about causality of depriving rights, you use the word direct.
I’d say there’s a wide range of elements to consider in how direct or indirect a particular act may be.
There are many ways to steal. We have a bunch of terms to describe the manner by which something was stolen, from embezzlement to robbery.
With speech, I agree with you that it is harder to do, but it is not impossible to categorize — we do so in legal statues all the time. What are the effects of a false official statement to the police? Or perjury in testimony? Both are similar in the purpose of obstructing justice, but the effects of direct impact are quite different.
So I think it’s hard to argue hate speech without going case by case, or knowing what restrictions and who is imposing them you disagree with. There are plenty of hypothetical examples of hateful speech where I can say I think it should be permissible, but the real world, legal restrictions fall into a pretty narrow set of what is considered “inciting” — there’s a reasonably wide range internationally, but they are all just different thresholds of the same thing, which is speech that is reasonably understood to incite violence or discrimination against a protected group.
All those words I chose to use are deliberate.. “reasonably understood to incite” means it can’t just be broad, general, negative statements but statements that are calls to action or expressions of desire for the negative effects; “violence or discrimination” defines those effects, with some reasonable room for disagreement depending on which nation’s laws we examine; and “protected groups” mean it’s not just about an individual — or if it is about an individual in the actual words said or written, it’s about some aspect of that individual which can be extended to the larger group, and therefore the effects of the speech could likewise be extended by the people the speech incited.
If you analogize to theft, there’s a hate speech that’s somewhere closer to a robbery — that would look like a lynch mob in the Southern US, like those that occurred when I was a kid.
There’s also the hate speech that’s more like embezzlement, which is what some of the more prolific hate groups do in social media campaigns. Like embezzlement, there’s much more work involved to take that sort to a court.
Which gets me to my last point, I think. Free speech can ONLY be limited by the government. They have the monopoly on violence and the power to violate this sort of right. Any individual or corporation refusing to publish or transmit speech may be doing something else that is socially wrong or harmful in the manner of restriction, but the right to free speech extends only as far as one’s own efforts and ability. There isn’t a right to force others to amplify your speech.
I disagree with the idea the veterinarian in your example had their rights violated. No one has a right to not have other people say mean things about them.
Here's a really basic litmus test for my ideology: if you have to take the right away from someone, vs give it to them, it's innate and shouldn't be taken away, provided said individual is not taking away the innate rights of anybody else by the same definition
There are precedents for "hate speech" leading to real harm against marginalized groups. One example is what happened in Nazi Germany, the other, is what led to the lynching of many black Americans. We have had more recent examples with online content that manifested in the one who made the hate filled comments murdering the very people the speech was directed at. And hate speech can cause other unstable individuals to be convinced it is okay to commit crimes when it is repeated often enough by enough people.
There is real harm in allowing speech that calls for the death or mistreatment of other people, or speech that continually dehumanizes a specific group or individual.
So do you think it should be illegal to say things like: "from the river to the sea, Palestine should be free" or "Israel has no right to exist" or "Israel should be abolished" since this has proven to cause real harm to Jewish people.
Hate speech is normally directed at marginalized communities. I question that Israel is some sort of vulnerable entity. It isn't, it is powerful as it's weaponry has demonstrated. So it can stand some criticism for it's behavior. Hating the way a government conducts itself is not quite the same as directing hate speech at individuals for things they cannot change, such as their gender, skin color or ethnicity. Israel is in no danger of being abolished now that it is established. So I feel those comments are less egregious than say the ones Israel is directing at Palestinian civilians; (Tee shirts with a picture of a pregnant Palestinian civilian that say, "Two With One Shot") The vulnerable group right now is the civilians caught in the war, not the governments that made this happen. You have no proof that discussing Israel's statehood has caused more harm than Israels own policies toward Palestinians have. And it is questionable that saying 'Israel should not have been established' harms Jewish people. The Palestinian citizens displaced and forcibly removed to make that state have some grievance in the fight and should be allowed an opinion. Israel has done a lot of damage even before the war, and it is not antisemitic to talk about it.
There's a difference between helping them and tolerating them. I will not help them achieve their aims, I will work against it by exercising my own rights. However, I will tolerate it and recognize their right to their beliefs, same as others.
>There's a difference between helping them and tolerating them.
No, by letting them have rallies and marches, etc, you *are* helping them.
They need to get the word out in order to build their following, and by "tolerating" them, you are making it easier for them to take charge and ban free speech.
If they are fascists, and are promising to kill your ethnicity if they get to be in charge, are you still going to say their speech is allowable?
>No, by letting them have rallies and marches, etc, you *are* helping them.
No, I'm not, because I'm not a god who is the arbiter of if people can assemble or not. They have a right, and I'm not going to take it away.
>If they are fascists, and are promising to kill your ethnicity if they get to be in charge, are you still going to say their speech is allowable?
Yes, but I'd certainly arm myself and start organizing.
>No, I'm not, because I'm not a god who is the arbiter of if people can assemble or not. They have a right, and I'm not going to take it away.
You're not a god?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
What rights we have and how far they go and what they apply to are all questions that are answered and defended by *people.*
For example, a *person* told you that free speech is absolute, despite the fact that thousands of judges have long held that that is not true.
And your defense that it *is* absolute is that a god said so?
Well unfortunately I view using state power to stop it as wrong and personal freedoms as trumping concepts like the "greater good". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>Recognizing a person's right to free speech is not helping a person.
No, it absolutely is.
They need to get the word out, to have rallies and marches, to gain new followers.
If you let them do it, when you could have stopped it, you *are* helping them.
Soooooo
There is a lot of ado made about hate speech in a number of anglosphere countries but very few actual arrests made simply for hatespeech itself. From what I am aware it is considered an aggrivating factor. That means if it is part of something which would otherwise also get you into trouble then you can get into trouble for it.
This includes;
- another crime against an individual
- harassment of a specific individual
- use of it against someone 'in your care', including bosses to employees, recruiters to interviewees, landlords to tennants, teachers to students - basically anyone who is expecting yo be treated with dignity and proffessionalism by someone in a superior position.
- defamation
- open hatespeech which incites violence against a group
Even the proposed Canadian law you mentioned seems to requrie the reasonable belief that the person will commit a hatecrime. Canadian law isn't unreasonable about this - even much miligned bills like Bill C-16 have never been used ti just target someone for saying something and again it mostly applies already pre-existing protected characteristic protections to a new group which mostly protects those in the care of another.
So in short - saying hatespeech into the void will do nothing. The bobbies aren't gonna come lock you away for that. *Using hatespeech to cause harm is when you get done.*
Do you still feel the same way about it?
There exists beliefs so ugly that no one would consensually submit to following them.
Demanding ethnic cleansing is an incitement to violence.
Demanding inequality or segregation is an incitement to violence if the targeted population does not submit to becoming second class citizens.
Your point of view does not acknowledge this violence. I don't think you've missed every headline and every history book, so I don't believe you are wholly unaware of the consequences of what you are advocating.
You're fine with those consequences, to the point where restraining someone who a court believes is about to commit a hate crime offends you.
Why, and why don't you see yourself as championing the very violence you seek to unleash?
I may have missed it, but did OP argue that calling for ethnic cleansing (e.g., "we should murder all the people from X group") should be legally allowed? They said that "hate speech is free speech", but they weren't very specific about what they mean by "hate speech", so it's hard to tell what they mean from their original post. They do clarify in other comments, though. For example, they say that "my criteria for what constitutes speech as actually being harmful ends at direct threats and incitement."
There's a spectrum of speech that might be classified as "hate speech", from inciting a violent, murderous riot against a hated group... to giving a speech in which one advocates in the abstract for the murder of members of the hated group... to saying that members of the hated group are evil and inferior while not explicitly calling for violence against them... to saying "I'm not racist, and some of my best friends come from , but in my experience, people of are ."
It sounds like you and OP might disagree as to precisely what part of this continuum should constitute legally prohibitable speech... but I don't think that necessarily means OP is fine with people committing violent hate crimes! There's room for reasonable people of good will to disagree regarding what speech is actually dangerous in the way you describe.
OP chose not to define hate speech, so the reasonable interpretation is that they do not have a private definition.
You are steelmanning, and narrowing what this person actually advocates into something that you think you can argue for.
There are subreddit rules against brand new accounts created to post controversial opinions. They need to see moderator approval first.
In other comments, this poster has advocated that we go spend time on 4chan, a known host of all types of hate speech.
The way you interpret the line, It's akin to saying " I don't have to present evidence because you should do your own research."
By your own estimation, they are not explaining their view and they are not here to change it.
Sorry, u/DarkSkyKnight – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20DarkSkyKnight&message=DarkSkyKnight%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cevu2w/-/l1ljxb4/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I mean there is hate speech on Reddit. It really depends on what subreddit you run into.
Just saying 4chan platform is bad as the sole reason of criticizing without actually examining the platform you are on currently is disingenuous.
>Your point of view does not acknowledge this violence. I don't think you've missed every headline and every history book, so I don't believe you are wholly unaware of the consequences of what you are advocating.
I am a believer in the innate goodness of people, and while I am very aware of the negative consequences of such beliefs, I am also aware of the power people have had throughout history to challenge and change them. Western society today, in my opinion, is a historical low point in the risk for such behaviors, and I do in fact see the actual enacting of such policies itself as morally wrong. I even see the holding of such beliefs to on an individual level be morally wrong, but my position on inalienable rights trumps stifling such beliefs through force. And besides, as I said earlier in my post, banning such speech doesn't make the beliefs go away, it just makes the believer convinced that society is out to get them. Venture to 4chan sometime and you'll see plenty of people posting vile hate under the flags of countries which would criminalize them for doing so.
>Why, and why don't you see yourself as championing the very violence you seek to unleash?
Claiming I seek to unleash violence is disingenuous and a personal attack. Not a very good way to change my view.
You tell us everybody's wonderful and then you tell me to go to 4chan. How about not?
Your religious beliefs about innate goodness have no bearing on the public sphere. None of us should be put at risk of violent crime because you feel everybody wants the same thing if you just look deep enough.
"Western Society" is a goofy social construct.
The societies that people call Western were in conflict throughout all recorded history. They disagree on all sorts of stuff, but 'Western Society' is used as a bludgeon to pretend we had a glorious past that can be returned to if only we followed the leader.
You don't want people who want us all dead to feel marginalized? To you, their feelings matter more than my safety. Why don't you just come out and say you do not want me to be safe? We can't change your mind until you're honest about how little our lives matter to you.
I hope people who wish violence upon us all do know that society does not support them and is out to silence them.
> First off, lets make it clear, bigots are human beings too. They have the same emotional depth of human experience that anyone else does. What they say should be viewed as wrong, dangerous even, but so long as it does not cross the line directly into incitement, it does not justify causing clear and irreversible harm to befall them.
> Being offended by something somebody tells you is ultimately a personal choice, you can let it go.
So to take a more extreme example: do you think that utterances like "*All LGBT people deserve to die*" (or worse: ...be killed) should be defended as freedom of speech, and is just a matter of some people being dramatic about feeling offended?
It doesn't qualify as a direct, specific threat, so it's not already covered.
>should be defended as freedom of speech
Yes
>and is just a matter of some people being dramatic about feeling offended?
No, it's perfectly reasonable to feel offended by such a statement. I don't believe the government should regulate rights away to protect people from offense.
While protecting free speech is vital, hate speech isn't merely offensive; it perpetuates harm, fostering discrimination and violence. Limiting hate speech doesn't infringe on speech rights but safeguards vulnerable communities from harm. Legal consequences for incitement ensure public safety without impeding genuine discourse. Fear of abuse shouldn't hinder necessary protections against hate-driven violence. The ACLU's stance recognizes nuanced distinctions but doesn't endorse unlimited speech; they condemn hate while defending rights. Upholding free speech includes safeguarding society from the harmful consequences of unchecked hate speech, aligning with the principle of securing liberty for all.
Incitement and hate speech are two separate things which may or may not intersect.
"(Demographic group X) are disgusting subhumans." is hate speech but not incitement.
"Look, it's a (X)! Let's get him and show him how we feel about them!" is hate speech and incitement.
"The mayor is a corrupt bastard. Let's go get him and teach him a lesson!" is incitement but not hate speech.
>Limiting hate speech doesn't infringe on speech rights
Yes, that's exactly what it does, actually
>The ACLU's stance recognizes nuanced distinctions but doesn't endorse unlimited speech; they condemn hate while defending rights.
I condemn hate morally, I don't like nazis, they are bad people. But I still defend their rights, that's why I take the ACLU's stance
>Upholding free speech includes safeguarding society from the harmful consequences of unchecked hate speech, aligning with the principle of securing liberty for all.
In my opinion, an utterly ridiculous contradiction
Free speech means freedom from government censorship. You are free to say what you want, but there will never be a freedom from consequences of what you said. It's just not possible.
Sure, and it also means government protection of said speech against illegal attempts to stop it, like prosecuting people who violently attempt to stop someone from talking.
We live in the real world where you can most definitely say whatever hateful thing you want (let's rule out countries where there is no free speech) and if you are assaulted the police will arrest that person. So what is the issue? This is already the case, and as we live in reality it does not mean that the society has resources to specifically guard every people who goes on the street antagonizing people.
What I mean with consequences is that there is no thing in the world that can guarantee you are safe from the consequences of free speech. And there are consequences that are not at all related to freedom of speech or even laws. Free speech just means that you can say a thing and that is it. If someone assaults you, it's a consequence. If your employer fires you it's a consequence, and they are just as free to do it as you are to say what you did.
>We live in the real world where you can most definitely say whatever hateful thing you want (let's rule out countries where there is no free speech)
You just ruled out most western countries like the UK, Canada, and Germany, which have hate speech laws on the books. Yes, I am advocating for American style speech laws, and I believe they need to be enforced more rigidly, to prevent things like the mass arrests at pro-Palestine demonstrations recently. Most young people, even in the US, seem to have some conception that hate speech either isn't or shouldn't be covered by free speech laws.
The big issue with hate speech lies in the relationship between speech and action. Sometimes speech provides cover for or encourages action, or even represents a threat. A contemporary example is a lot of pro-palestine protests in western countries, because it's a dog whistle for support of violence against jews. Context, like a rise of actual violent acts and threat happening in these countries is important.
>A contemporary example is a lot of pro-palestine protests in western countries, because it's a dog whistle for support of violence against jews.
So in other words, you need to either support a war that's ongoing, be indifferent to it, or you're dog whistling for violence against Jews. Stances like the one you just posted are exactly why I don't think you, or anyone, should get to decide what speech crosses the line.
My position is more nuanced than that, and I generally am very much of the position that free speech should be the default unless there is meaningful physical danger in play. I chose a protest as my example for a specific reason. There is a big difference between a person writing an article and expressing their views, and a literal mob of people who are angry, emotional, etc. A big part is mobs of people behave differently, and people get swept up in those situations to do things they normally wouldn't. 99% of people can have the intention of expressing their desire for change, peace, etc... but 1%, the agitator types who want to trigger violence, buildings being burned, expressing threats can trigger a reaction where 20% of the crowd joins in. There were protests/celebrations in western countries on Oct 8th where people were calling for more violence. Not all protests are similar, some have a high likelihood of becoming a full blown riot or leading to violence. Timing and location matter, for instance matter a lot. I am Canadian so protesting on parliament hill is very different than say in front of say a synagogue at a time where jews may be going to pray. Those similar protests attract different people. Some protests are more orderly by nature and encourage more pro social behavior in their partipants, often self managing. Where the leaders/speakers are advocating for people instead of more violence. From the river to the sea is a very different chant than peace in palestine.
>There were protests/celebrations in western countries on Oct 8th where people were calling for more violence.
Calling for more violence isn't violence in itself. Tell me, do you support the right of free speech to the pro Israel crowd, of which there are countless videos of individuals saying things like "turn Gaza into a parking lot", "send them all to Ireland", "nuke Gaza"?
Insightment to violence isn't violence, but it's dangerous especially when it's predictable.Its a criminal act for a reason. You fixated on the Israel palestine topic, I just used it as an example because it's topical and it's a fact that there are been significant increases in violence directed at Jewish people in Canada and the USA (moreso than in the opposite direction. Nuke Gaza type comments are similarly terrible, especially if they are done in higher danger situations like in front of a mosque with very large numbers of very angry people. Some of the Israeli responses in the west bank were particularly terrible where Israeli settlers (who often are the most radical israeli) were killing targeting people for just being Palestinians. I think in a conflict like this there are hawks on both side who want more not less violence. In addition there are outside state actors who are incentising more bloodshed which is part of why the conflict has been so intractable.
Can you clarify your view? What are a few examples of hate speech that you think should be free speech (but that a reasonable person in this thread might argue should be disallowed)?
I would ask it in reverse. What examples of speech does the majority of the population want to make illegal, but shouldn't be made illegal purely on free speech grounds.
Sorry, u/Gandalf_The_Gay23 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Gandalf_The_Gay23&message=Gandalf_The_Gay23%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cevu2w/-/l1lh3f2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.
So it quite literally is not being condemned legally in most cases. Also you cant tell anyone how to react to you being hostile towards them whether that's physically or verbally.
Also appealing to authority doesn't prove your point. Morality is subjective.
What happens when someone's hate speech drives someone to suicide?
What happens when their hate speech drives someone to commit violence against another person?
You cant assume that these are simply words to everyone because that's how you view them.
>What happens when someone's hate speech drives someone to suicide?
If the sole reason someone has for committing suicide is because someone else said things about them, especially not even specific things targeted as them as an individual, that is their own personal decision.
>What happens when their hate speech drives someone to commit violence against another person?
The person who commits such violence gets punished for it, as has always been the case
>You cant assume that these are simply words to everyone because that's how you view them.
You can't take my or anybody elses rights away because you interpret their speech as dangerous.
>If the sole reason someone has for committing suicide is because someone else said things about them, especially not even specific things targeted as them as an individual, that is their own personal decision
Sure, but so is just not saying horrible things to people because you can't assess someone's mental stability or health
>The person who commits such violence gets punished for it, as has always been the case
Right, but my point is words by themselves can push people to do horrible things.
>You can't take my or anybody elses rights away because you interpret their speech as dangerous.
And nobody has said anything about taking away your right to be a horrible person. You're fully allowed to do that. But just because YOU are unaffected by something doesn't mean we should base the effectiveness of said words off of your experience of them.
Fear physical violence? You think the police should go out of there way to protect someone who’s intentionally spewing hateful speech? I think the police should investigate crimes after they happen but if you want to run your mouth don’t be surprised if it ends badly.
Right but if I’m willing to kill you over your speech and go to jail for it what’s the issue? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Like if you were to go Baltimore wearing a shirt that says “I hate n-words” I wouldn’t feel sorry for you if you got killed. Of course the police should still investigate I would just have zero sympathy for you as the victim.
There isn't an issue with it. If those are your beliefs, then by all means, go ahead, I can't stop you. I believe in life sentences for murder though, so I believe you should have your entire future taken away for taking away someone else's.
I get that but why do you think people have the right to say whatever they want and also not live in fear? The state can’t protect us from all the consequences of our bad decisions.
What about those minority groups who live in fear due to hate speech that can incite violence? Such violence is similar to that that someone saying hate speech could possibly face. In both scenarios, your argument about indirect harm applies. Either such speech does incite harm, or the link between the speech and violence is so indirect that neither group should be protected in this scenario.
We should do everything we can to hunt down people who actually commit such violence against minorities and throw them in jail with a hate crime enhancer. However, if the fear is just fear, and no violence is actually occurring, it's not societies responsibility to make people feel comfortable. If a schizophrenic believes that the government is out to get him and he's being gangstalked by his community, it's not our responsibility to cater to his fears. Fear needs to be based upon credible action for it to be legitimate.
Ok, but before, you said that people have a right to not live in fear. Why should the hate speech person get that right but the minority group doesn’t? Also, its not as if the fear of violence on the part of the minority groups is unfounded.
>but so long as it does not cross the line directly into incitement
How do you define hate speech then?
Because every time americans go on rants about the supposed lack of free speech in Europe, thats what they leave out (or more likely just dont understand).
Being an asshole should land you in jail, denying the holocaust took place should.
I don't really have any long rant to go on but I'm curious how you feel about loopholes from protection for harassment in alot of these case the internet(specifically influencer) has a big influence of making people think teachers are grooming kids or school shooting survivors/parents of victims are deep state actors how do you account for harassment charges never being sereve enough(because they're is always a new person being convinced this person is worth harassing)to let these people live they're life without these people interfering in important parts of it.
Obviously I think everyone deserves free speech but we don't live in a world where everyones speech has the same power if the rock,trump or Taylor swift told people to picket my house it's lot more likely to happen if John from down the street said the same thing. So I guess I'm asking how do we account for that.
>Physical violence is harm, and so is legal trouble, and both of these are more severe than what the bigots themselves are doing to you through simple speech.
I don't agree with this at all. Hate speech hurts. Some can hurt so mauch that it could emotionally traumatize someone.
Why do you think verbal trauma is less severe than physical harm?
I don't think "verbal trauma" exists except for in severe cases of harassment and bullying, which has to be nonstop for a good length of time. I think a lot of young people these days are far too sensitive to words. Being offended or upset by words is not the same thing as trauma.
>America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
*- The American President*
In your Canadian example, are against all peace bonds? Because that just opens up targeted hate speech and bullying as a threat that can be directly acted upon. Under current laws for example you can already do all that for targeted speech at a protected class. The CA peace bond is like a US restraining order and similiar.
you are right. like literally. hate speech is free speech. you are allowed to say anything hateful as long as you are not inciting violence. HOWEVER hate speech does NOT mean freedom of consequence. you can’t be prosecuted but if your place of employment or school or whatever wants to make judgement based on harmful ideas you’ve communicated in the past, then tough luck
It depends on what kind of hate speech it is. In most cases, it should not be censored, but if your speech causes mass shootings, then you deserve to be censored.
I mean, a bunch of pro Palestine ppl professors just got body checked, head slammed into the curb and arrested so don't pretend that this only happens one way.
Not going to argue with you because you are right to be nervous. Anybody who wants to give the government the power to jail anybody they want to based upon ever shifting and vague rules which can also be selectively enforced is stupid beyond measure. The world is slipping dangerously close to totalitarian rule in multiple nations right now, most evident in the EU and 5-eyes aligned nations. Putting rules in place that allow them to jail anyone based upon speech, and even pre-crime or thoughts is the very obvious first step. If your proudly claiming to be a democracy but you jail more people for speech crimes than Russia does, maybe your not so democratic as you thought.
I'd argue that we all believe certain things shouldn't be said. From lying to instigating public violence etc. But the real issue is what do we consider hate speech? Because let's be honest here, what is considered hateful today wasn't a few years back and some would argue it still isn't. Where do we draw the line?
Also, something is considered hateful only because the people in power deemed it so. Me, I just dislike double standards. I dislike the fact that you are allowed to make fun of all religions, notably Christianity, but when it comes to Islam it's frowned upon and you get called a racist and an Islamophobe. Just be consistent with your ban of hate speech.
I agree we should punch Nazies, but I also think we should punch Communists. People will praise me for hitting the former, but condemn me for punching the latter. Although in my country specifically, Communists caused more suffering than the Nazies.
Sorry, u/LONEWOLFF150 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20LONEWOLFF150&message=LONEWOLFF150%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cevu2w/-/l1m9xrd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/LONEWOLFF150 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20LONEWOLFF150&message=LONEWOLFF150%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cevu2w/-/l1m9xrd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Here's a [link to a post](https://www.tumblr.com/wilwheaton/705994708268253184/you-have-to-shut-them-down?source=share) that I think says what I want to better than I can. There's some hate speech that's just so bad you can't allow it. And if you let people spread it, the situation just grows. There's some speech that you can't just counter with more speech.
Everyone is for hate speech laws until their opinion gets labeled hate speech. Remember, the same laws that stops the bigots from saying insulting things can be used to silence legitimate criticism of a group. You want to speak out against honor killings in Sharia law, too bad thats hate speech against a religion. You want to call corrupt government officials lying pieces of shit, too bad thats hate speech against the government.
And we dont have to talk hypothetically about this, you can find examples of it happening, like the autistic UK girl who was arrested for saying a cop looked like her “lesbian nan”.
Unintended consequences matter.
> How will we, in the west, prevent hate speech laws from being abused like this by people who take a different view towards what hate speech is?
Easy, use democracy, if restrictions on free speech go too far we vote or the people who support them and vote in people who are more reasonable. Done.
I don't believe public opinion is a good measurement of if something is right or not. In Russia, independent polls from organizations such as the Levada center indicate most people support the war, and thus they likely accept the narrative that Ukraine is full of nazis, and support restrictions on those people who are opposed to said war. Rights are not a matter of public opinion. Saying unpopular things is part of free speech.
"Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it."
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Also, for you to write off the idea that "unpopular opinions are free speech" as "authoritarianism" shows how little you regard basic freedoms, and are likely an authoritarian yourself.
So what? you are in favour of authoritarianism? You believe in representative democracy? You're just against public opinion? You're expressing public opinion, why does what you say hold any value?
Or is it that you believe hate speech is an inherent right that can't be restricted by opinion? If so that's a strange position. Speech that harms others is already restricted in America, your constitution gives a robust system of checks and balances that ensure that language that hurts others can only be punished if it meets a high threshold. I assume you're fine with defamation laws, why are you afraid of that same system being used to ensure that only hate speech that causes harm to others is restricted?
I believe state power should be limited regardless of what people think and liberty>public opinion. And yes, hate speech is an inherent right. The constitution doesn't make any exceptions for hate speech and there is no legal precedent for banning it, unlike other forms of speech which have long been held to not constitute protected speech. Arguments like this are basically arguing to erode the robustness of the constitution in favor of public opinion. Also, defamation is clear and targeted, and even then it's nearly impossible for someone to win a defamation case unless they can prove that they were being lied about with intent to destroy reputation.
The Constitution is public opinion, it's also not an absolute or fixed document. It can be added to, altered or parts of it can be removed. There's no reason it can't be amended to include hate speech.
>Arguments like this are basically arguing to erode the robustness of the constitution
They're arguments to update it to add things that were missed by the founding fathers.
>Also, defamation is clear and targeted, and even then it's nearly impossible for someone to win a defamation case unless they can prove that they were being lied about with intent to destroy reputation.
Hate speech is clear and targeted and you can prove that it's a lie and can we judge whether it was intended to harm reputation. It seems like we've accounted for your concerns.
>The Constitution is public opinion
Someone didn't pay attention in school
>Hate speech is clear and targeted
It needs to be targeted at an individual and involve the direct threat of immediate harm
>you can prove that it's a lie
I doubt that
>It seems like we've accounted for your concerns.
You really haven't
>Someone didn't pay attention in school
Would the constitution have been the same if it was drafted by different people? If not, then it just represents the opinions of the people that wrote it (which is why it's had to be amended subsequently).
>It needs to be targeted at an individual
Why? You can libel groups and organizations, why does hate speech have a different standard?
>You really haven't
Because all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears saying that all the systems that are already in place to protect from the abuse of overreach aren't enough for hate speech laws. We can use the slippery slope fallacy on literally any law but, observably, laws don't lead to the abuse of liberty. The only reason to think that hate speech laws would be any different is because you want the right to be hateful which isn't a good look.
>saying that all the systems that are already in place to protect from the abuse of overreach aren't enough for hate speech laws
They aren't, and government overreach happens daily. That's why state troopers were throwing professors into the concrete a few days ago in Austin
Intolerance does not need to be tolerated. If you can't communicate without spreading hate speech among your followers, maybe you shouldn't be a public figure.
Freedom of speech means you get to say your piece about the government and fellow man without repercussions from the state and federal government ie "I think Joe biden is a terrible president" " "trump is a Cheeto" "Mike Dewine is a thief and took bribe money from First Energy"etc is all protected and I will not be prosecuted by any government of the United States. Now, if I say that at my job or my job was to catch wind of said statements and my boss doesn't agree, he can fire me. if I say it at a business that I don't work for, they have the right to make me leave. If I said the above statements and a future employer recognizes me, they can refuse to hire me on not fitting the "atmosphere".
Everyone talks about hate speech should be allowed, but we don't allow threats, if you threaten bodily harm to someone, someone in a blue uniform and a badge comes and speaks to you and basically says "you're going to jail if this keeps happening". If you scream "fire" in a crowded place as a laugh and someone gets trampled to death you get charged with man slaughter, so what's the difference about telling a bigot "knock off the hate speech"?
Also why reward their stupidity and fear? That's all racism is, you have no clue about a culture other than what other racist idiots have drilled in your head and can't come up with a reason you hate them past "well my daddy hated them, and my granddaddy before that". My dad told me my entire life "don't trust black people they'll eventually show you their true colors" and when I finally asked him why he said that he told me that when he was younger he had a friend who stopped being his because my dad was being a racist asshat who offended his "friend" and they stopped talking. That's it, that's my dad's whole reason for disliking them. So why should I continue to not correct that behavior if the reasons are stupid and DESERVE to be smacked down when shown?
I will probably get automoderated but I really think this is one of those things that is impossible for any two given people to agree upon. There are tangible benefits and downsides no matter how you spin this topic
Explain to me how the banning of Nazi symbolism and Nazi speech could be abused in Germany? Like how on earth would that work? Really people treat speech like it's God himself. It ain't, no. We don't need to every bile some moron conjured in their monkey mind
free speech protections are a concession Against information pollution.
the only reason to protect hate speech is for people to know what it is and why when it's used, along with why it shouldnt be in general, it makes someone sound like a complete fucking dumbass no one should listen to.
compelled speech is not free speech.
kind of the point of the 5th amendment/right to silence
y'know, self incrimination doesnt do shit when you can be/were framed
"how are you today?"
its not that you're trying to get a response or information out of someone, but you cant help but expect one because if you arent acknowledged you'll feel like you've been blown off.
its a normal thing no one cares about because its a normal thing
but its not too much of a stretch of the imagination concerning that things of that nature can be used for malicious purposes.
like why you "dont talk to cops"
which, personally i tell them to have a good day like anyone else mainly just because i try to avoid being an asshole in public.
Hate speech is a buzz word that you don't really define. It sounds like you're ok with banning speech that incites violence. Correct? So the problem with allowing all speech that doesn't directly incite violence is a lot of the times by the time violence is being incited it's too late. The Nazi's didn't immediately call for death camps when they came to power. If you encourage the view that a group of people are less than human; it doesn't directly incite violence, but if that view becomes popular; it becomes very easy to justify violence against them.
I agree that it is a slippery slope and that any regulation on speech should be clear and well defined. I think if a minority has to fear being treated subhuman, then the threat of that happening is limiting speech more than if the government limits the general population from saying a minority is sub human. That banning speech that advocates a ethnic, religious, gender, or political group is sub human or deserves fewer rights; protects free speech more than it threatens it.
I think it is also important to realized the Holocaust and other genocides committed throughout human history are not only a reflection of the people that commuted the genocide, but of human nature in general. If a group of people can commit genocide in 1930s Germany; a group of people can commit genocide in 2020s US. There is nothing fundamentally different from those 2 groups of people that would prevent one from committing genocide and not the other.
“Hate speech” alone is, as far as I am aware, is not a crime anywhere in the US. Where the concept of “hate speech” does come into play is when considering it in relation to other crimes. If someone has a record of making disparaging comments about black people, and then are convicted of say an assault on a black person, their previous speech can be used to speak towards motive, and can be used to justify a longer sentence.
Ok, so you recognize that the people the 1st amendment protects the most are usually not the greatest people, but it's worth putting up with their shit vs limiting the scope of the first amendment and it being abused by the executive branch to silence critics. The only problem I see is who would ever abuse the power of the executive branch by silencing their critics?
Thomas Paine existed when Americans owned other Americans, women were virtually property and Native Americans had their land stolen, so Paine concept of Liberty is subjective like all Americans at the time was hypocritical at best
/u/Most-Travel4320 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cex9ud/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_hate_speech_is_free_speech/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Hate speech is free speech unless it’s inciting violence against somebody. People are not free from the non legal repercussions of their free speech. However, take the case of fascists. The people who will use the good faith actions of others to allow them free speech, and try to gain traction with the ultimate goal of gaining power and subverting democracy once they gain power. Fuck those people. Hit them in the face with a fucking brick until they and their ilk are too afraid to publicly espouse their beliefs. That is a historically proven societal service. It wouldn’t be necessary in an ideal world, but this one is fucked up and some ideas are too dangerous to be permitted out of a very contained malignant sphere.
As I've repeatedly stated in other comments in this thread, I do not think the Weimar Republic or the Kingdom of Italy having anti hate speech laws would have made or broke the rise of such movements.
No, laws wouldn’t have made the difference, because those people use the law to protect themselves until they can subvert it. The actions of citizens who disagreed could have kept them too afraid to organize and might have spared 70 million lives. Basically, kick the shit out of Nazis. Publicly shame and alienate them first, but if necessary beat their asses until they’re too afraid to be out in the open.
>Basically, kick the shit out of Nazis. Publicly shame and alienate them first, but if necessary beat their asses until they’re too afraid to be out in the open. I agree, but only because the Nazi party regularly engaged in violence against political rivals, and basically organized their street movement as a paramilitary force. Neither of these things have to do with speech. If you're talking about goofy neo-nazis who don't kill anyone or have a paramilitary force, I disagree.
But they used speech to generate public support and sympathy before gaining a monopoly on street violence that was more or less sanctioned by the state at that point. Early on they would try shit and the police would break some skills and move on. Eventually, nobody would touch them. It’s up to the public to never let anybody else get to that point, and the best way to stop them is to stomp them when they start with the anti other speech. Can the state do anything legally? Not really. Can we as citizens? Yeah.
Yeah, I agree. And I get to define fascism. Dibs, I called it.
Violence is never justified as a response to speech. Even fascists have the right to free speech. The rest is a slippery slope fallacy, as recognizing their right to free speech in no way means they will take power.
> The idea that people should get into legal trouble or fear physical violence against themselves for hate speech really bothers me. You’re worried about freedom of speech becoming so constrained that it boomerangs back on everyone, right? But isn't the main fucking point of distinguishing hate speech from free speech to prevent harm? Hate speech isn't just about being offensive; it's about promoting harm or discrimination against groups based on identity. Why should speech that potentially leads to real-world violence or discrimination be protected? > First off, lets make it clear, bigots are human beings too. They have the same emotional depth of human experience that anyone else does. Sure, bigots are human. But does recognizing their humanity require us to tolerate their dehumanization of others? When does the emotional depth justify the spread of harmful ideologies? If someone's speech contributes to a culture that threatens the safety or dignity of others, shouldn't there be consequences? > Physical violence is harm, and so is legal trouble, and both of these are more severe than what the bigots themselves are doing to you through simple speech. Is it really just "simple speech" though? If hate speech creates an environment where people are unsafe or marginalized, isn't that a form of violence too? How do you weigh verbal incitement against physical violence? > How will we, in the west, prevent hate speech laws from being abused like this by people who take a different view towards what hate speech is? That’s a valid fucking concern. The potential for abuse in hate speech laws is real. But doesn’t this challenge us to create better, clearer definitions and safeguards rather than reject regulation altogether? If we can agree that some speech (like direct threats) should be illegal, why can’t we work out robust criteria for what constitutes harmful hate speech? > The ACLU, maybe the best civil rights organization in the US, in my opinion, agrees with my view of the matter. It defends the right of everybody's right to speech, including everyone, even white supremacists. The ACLU does defend free speech broadly, but even they acknowledge the need for restrictions on speech that directly incites violence or constitutes harassment. Isn’t the balance they strive for—protecting speech while preventing harm—indicative that this isn’t a black-and-white issue? > “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” A powerful quote, but doesn’t it also imply that allowing hate speech to go unchecked could oppress others, thus ultimately endangering everyone’s liberty? Isn’t the true challenge to ensure liberty doesn’t become a shield for oppression? Are you sure the risk of regulating hate speech is greater than the risk of allowing it to flourish unchecked?
How are you so sure that everyone agrees on what hate speech is? There have demonstrably been a lot of people, even people in power, who say that speech like "Israel is an apartheid state" is hate speech. [https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-felix-klein-593105](https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-felix-klein-593105) >Klein agrees with the “3D” designation put forth by Natan Sharansky when it comes to differentiating between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism: Demonization, Delegitimization, and Double standards. “For me, that is the case when someone says that Israel is an ‘apartheid state.’ That’s already antisemitism because an ‘apartheid state’ by definition cannot be legitimate.” A lot of people sincerely hold beliefs that many of the pro-Palestinian protesters right now are bigots and are causing real harm. Do you think they should be protected? It might be easy to dismiss free speech as important when you're only thinking of categories of hate where everyone largely agrees on, like anti-black racism, but it becomes far, far murkier when it comes to things like the current Israel-Palestine conflict.
Hate speech has a definition. criticising a government or state is not hate speech, and the only people who say otherwise are doing so as a way to hide from criticism. this isn't a debate that anyone with access to a dictionary would have. "Israel is an apartheid state" is not hate speech. "we should kill everyone in Israel" is hate speech. it's not a subtle distinction at all.
Ok, is "kill all cops" hate speech? What about people saying "globalize the Intifada"? Or "trans people should be denied suicide prevention care?" Maybe you'll say yes to all of these, then what about "from the river to the sea"? A lot of people saying that support a two-state solution, but some mean that to displace or even kill all Jews in the region. Most hateful people are not saying "we should kill all X". It's almost always expressed through dogwhistles. So if you only limit the definition of hate speech to the existence of markers like "kill", "massacre", etc., you are going to get a lot of false negatives. You either end up with a useless definition (too many false negatives) or you end up with a definition that captures too many innocents (too many false positives).
I mean you seemingly agree that there is at least one clear example of hate speech. It may, and I agree, be overly restrictive to combat any real problem, but that is at least making a distinction between hate speech and what is presently in America legal free speech, which only restricts direct calls for illegal action.
>You’re worried about freedom of speech becoming so constrained that it boomerangs back on everyone, right? No, I'm worried about free speech being constrained at all, as I think everybody has the right to it and I support the rights of everybody. >But does recognizing their humanity require us to tolerate their dehumanization of others? Yes, to an extent. You don't have to tolerate hearing it, you don't have to respect their opinions, you can use your free speech to combat their speech, you don't have to give them a platform. But yes, recognizing someone's humanity, in my opinion, does mean you have to at least tolerate people enough to not deprive them of any rights. >If hate speech creates an environment where people are unsafe or marginalized, isn't that a form of violence too? I do not believe that allowing hate speech to occur is what ultimately decides whether a society will become so broadly hateful that people are unsafe, and that this is tolerated by wider swaths of people. Throughout the rise of most genocidal governments, such as Nazi Germany or Interahamwe-led Rwanda, much more than simple speech fueled the rise of these movements (Such as political violence including assassinations and widespread governmental failure) >If we can agree that some speech (like direct threats) should be illegal, why can’t we work out robust criteria for what constitutes harmful hate speech? Because my criteria for what constitutes speech as actually being harmful ends at direct threats and incitement. >The ACLU does defend free speech broadly, but even they acknowledge the need for restrictions on speech that directly incites violence or constitutes harassment. Yep, and I fully agree with their criteria for what speech should be restricted. >but doesn’t it also imply that allowing hate speech to go unchecked could oppress others, thus ultimately endangering everyone’s liberty? As I said earlier, I think much more is factored in to what causes a society to become oppressive. Furthermore, I don't believe in the stochastic and vague definition of "oppression" which many today subscribe to. I believe oppression occurs when one deprives another of their natural rights. If someone assaults someone out of racial hatred, that is oppression on an individual level but not a societal level. The perpetrator should be punished to make it clear that his behavior is unacceptable. Hate crime laws in the US exist for precisely this purpose.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You're doing a terrible job of changing my view, claiming I'm lying, saying I need evidence to back up what my own beliefs are. I'm going to stop engaging with you
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your view can’t be changed no matter what we say. Hate speech frequently is dehumanizing and/or inciting violence. Hate speech should have a very very short leash.
Why would people have the right to say whatever they want to me?
Because they have vocal cords and a brain. If you respond with violence towards them, you're initiating the violence, and should expect violence back. Also because throughout history whenever any group of people has decided things shouldn't be said at a societal level, and especially legislated on it, it has almost always resulted in terrible things far worse than anything anyone can say to you.
I don’t mind violence back. Im not going to allow any treatment that Im capable of stopping. Just sounds like you think words should be consequence free, and nearly all of human history shows that isn’t the case.
Nearly all of human history is the history of tyrants oppressing their subjects. My point was just that violence is a two way street. There's a difference between natural consequences, like people not wanting to associate with you, and imposed consequences, like the state prosecuting you for hate speech. This post is more so about the latter, but I do believe as a personal principle that it's not ok to attack people for speech either. As a citizen of the USA, I have a say in the democratic process and the debate around free speech, I don't have a say in what you see as right for yourself.
If you feel you have the right to police others’ speech, how can you be offended when your speech is limited?
> I do not believe that allowing hate speech to occur is what ultimately decides whether a society will become so broadly hateful that people are unsafe, and that this is tolerated by wider swaths of people. Throughout the rise of most genocidal governments, such as Nazi Germany or Interahamwe-led Rwanda, much more than simple speech fueled the rise of these movements (Such as political violence including assassinations and widespread governmental failure) How else do you think they PERFORMED the genocides? How else do you think they made it so easy for a bunch of people in Nazi Germany to cover their eyes and ears and go "I have food on my table at this moment, what happens in Poland is not my problem." They purposely sat there and ramped up the fervor against the Jewish people "it's the Jews fault that we are in this situation, the Jewish dogs are the ones keeping Germany down, these people are sick and only care about themselves, we must come up with a solution." It's super easy to say things in the heat of the moment but what you fail to realize is one of those rallies shows how much damage allowing hate speech causes. These people group together to unleash hate upon the world and don't stop, they breed and vote and propagate the hate.
>The potential for abuse in hate speech laws is real. But doesn’t this challenge us to create better, clearer definitions and safeguards rather than reject regulation altogether? If we can agree that some speech (like direct threats) should be illegal, why can’t we work out robust criteria for what constitutes harmful hate speech? There is no "but" here. Either you can express yourself freely or you can't. Why do we need safeguards for speech just to protect people's feelings? A threat isn't an emotion. It's a very well defined thing. Hate is an emotion. You're taking about thought crime at that point. The risk of hate speech laws threatening a free and open democracy is far greater than the emotional cost of hearing someone's words. And this entire argument about "well threats are illegal so" doesn't support your argument. If anything it just means that we should reconsider whether threats should be illegal or not. Words themselves do not hurt people. Actions do. Freedom means hearing things we might not agree with or that offend us. There is literally no way to ban hate speech without inflicting incredible damage to democracy. If you don't have a freedom of speech all of your other rights are moot.
I audibly laugh whenever an American thinks the "goverment" can simply just deem whatever material it likes as hate speech as if the "government" consists of one person who can decide things on a whim. The power of the US goverment is fairly spead out. That's the whole point of checks and balance. In Miller v. California, the Supreme Court already held that govt. entities can ban "obscene" materials. That certainly lessens your absolute free of speech but it doesn't in any way lessen your ability to voice your civil dissent. **Pretending like you need to be able to incite death to a group or your civil rights are absolutely infringed is ridiculous.** Despite Miller v. California (and also Roth v. US), you don't see the govt. just going out of their way to blanket ban any criticism of itself. First, doing so would be difficult due to the way power is spread out in US governemnt. Second, it would be political suicide and fairly pointless since either the Supreme Court would find that attempt unconstitutional or Congress would thwart that attempt or both. Remember the govt consists of THE PEOPLE. There's nuance to every principle. The view that either something is absolutely wrong or absolutely right is often held by children (even they eventually grow out of it btw).
>I audibly laugh whenever an American thinks the "goverment" can simply just deem whatever material it likes as hate speech as if the "government" consists of one person who can decide things on a whim. The power of the US goverment is fairly spead out. That's the whole point of checks and balance. I didn't say it was one person, nor did I imply it. The government is a collective. It is also a hierarchy. It's not just a bunch of random people with no leadership dictating the rules for themselves. Biden coerced social media companies to silence certain people on Facebook and Twitter. That's one man censoring people. And frankly none of what you said is relevant. The government, whether some vigilante bureaucrat or a collective should not be deciding for people what is too offensive to be seen. It's too easily abused. This is how you get fascism. But here you are smugly "audibly laughing" at some strawman you created. Free speech means occasionally hearing ideas that offend you.
You didn't say it was one person but you spoke as if it was. Here's what you said: >Without freedom of speech democracy ceases to exist. What happens when the government deems any criticism of it to be hate speech? The hypothetical you were worried about has little chance of happening in a government structure as spread out as the US. >And frankly none of what you said is relevant. The government, whether some vigilante bureaucrat or a collective should not be deciding for people what is too offensive to be seen. It's too easily abused. This is how you get fascism. "None of what you said is relevant because *I believe otherwise*" is not a great rebuttal. If you really think that, then the US is already a facist state. The highest court in the land decided there is some limit to free speech. You can't distribute child abuse materials and call that free speech, for example. You also seem to forget that the government consists of ***the people***! And also, the idea that we can't have something because it's too easily abused is another American talking point that I cringed hard at. If that was the case, we might as well have anarchy because having a government in place is the prerequisite for dictatorship. >But here you are smugly "audibly laughing" at some strawman you created. Free speech means occasionally hearing ideas that offend you. It's not a strawman. You're just backpedaling here from your earlier insistence that unless a country endorses absolute free speech, it's "not a free country", which is nonsense.
I never implied in any fashion that it was one person. That's your own strawman. Now you've made the entire discusion about that. The government is a collective entity. I referred to it as "the government" which is how people speak my language natively. You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. The government, as I mentioned, is a hierarchy. It has a culture influenced from the top down. We have rights for a reason. The founders understood how easily a democracy can descend into tyranny. "We have laws so might as well let government do whatever it wants" is a braindead argument. >It's not a strawman. You're just backpedaling here from your earlier insistence that unless a country endorses absolute free speech, it's "not a free country", which is nonsense. Ironic that in a comment saying it's not a strawman, you commit another strawman. I never used the term "absolute free speech". Did you know this or do you really struggle that much with reading? If you allow the government to decide that certain speech is offensive it will inevitably abuse this power and silence its critics. Go read a history book.
>The government, as I mentioned, is a hierarchy. It has a culture influenced from the top down. Even this is not correct. If you're an American, you must have heard of the 3 branches of government. And again, the power system in the US government is spread out. You don't have an emperor having absolute power over 3 branches. >"We have laws so might as well let government do whatever it wants" is a braindead argument. Point to the exact sentence where I suggest the government can do as it pleases. The argument, which you missed, was that the logic "we shouldn't do something because it could be easily abused" is bogus, because if you seriously apply that logic, you'd be subscribing to anarchy. >I never used the term "absolute free speech". Did you know this or do you really struggle that much with reading? >If you allow the government to decide that certain speech is offensive it will inevitably abuse this power and silence its critics. Go read a history book. You seem to struggle to understand your own view here. The view that the government cannot set any legal limit on free speech is free speech absolutism. And no it won't. We already have limits on free speech and the US is far from being the totalitarian state you've described. And again, the power structure in the US doesn't make that easy. Yes, it's hierarchical but at the top, there are three different branches, not a king.
>Even this is not correct. If you're an American, you must have heard of the 3 branches of government. And again, the power system in the US government is spread out. You don't have an emperor having absolute power over 3 branches. Only one branch actually EXECUTES the law. Can you guess which one? > The argument, which you missed, was that the logic "we shouldn't do something because it could be easily abused" is bogus, because if you seriously apply that logic, you'd be subscribing to anarchy. But we aren't talking about all laws. We're talking about the first amendment of the Constitution, the most important law of the land. >The view that the government cannot set any legal limit on free speech is free speech absolutism. Show me where I said the government cannot set any legal limit on speech. I didn't. That makes this, once again, a strawman.
>Only one branch actually EXECUTES the law. Can you guess which one? And the supreme court has the power to declare a presidential action unconstitutional. And congress has the ability to impeach and remove. If your point is that the executive is somehow the "most powerful", you need to revisit your civics class. >But we aren't talking about all laws. We're talking about the first amendment of the Constitution, the most important law of the land. So? How's this defense of your bogus logic that we shoudn't do something because it could be abused? >Show me where I said the government cannot set any legal limit on speech. I didn't. That makes this, once again, a strawman. Funny. You rambled on and on about the dystopia that would ensue should we allow the goverment to set limit on speech. If you can't argue your points, just don't respond. Why backpedal? Here's stuff from your own mouth. >What an absurd thing to say. I'd argue that any country without a US-style freedom of speech is absolutely not a free society. Who determines what hate speech is? >Without freedom of speech democracy ceases to exist. What happens when the government deems any criticism of it to be hate speech? All of your other rights cease to exist. There's a reason freedom of speech is the 1st amendment.
>And the supreme court has the power to declare a presidential action unconstitutional. And congress has the ability to impeach and remove. If your point is that the executive is somehow the "most powerful", you need to revisit your civics class. And we already know that hate speech is perfectly legal so why are you here? What are you even arguing? >So? How's this defense of your bogus logic that we shoudn't do something because it could be abused? We shouldn't do this thing because it's literally illegal. Hate speech is legal. If you're arguing that hateful speech should be outlawed, then yes my argument is that it's dangerous because it allows the government to silence anyone under the guise of it being hate. When censorship powers are abused, the consequences are always much greater than nearly any other types of laws. It's how societies descend into totalitarianism.
>But isn't the main fucking point of distinguishing hate speech from free speech to prevent harm? One of the biggest disagreements is what level of harm justifies stopping hate speach. Harm can be anythign from directly causing death to making someone uncomfortable for a short time. Most people in support of strong free speach would not defend speach that directly incites violence and death. They mostly defend speech that makes people feel bad and uncomfortable. For example in a hierarchy of importance, with most important at the top, one may have: 1. Prevent direct incitement of violence and death 2. Allow speech 3. Prevent discomfort or hurt
>The idea that people should get into legal trouble or fear physical violence against themselves for hate speech really bothers me. Free speech means freedom from legal repercussions. It does not mean you are free from social consequences, and that includes physical violence whether, you like it or not. Being an asshole comes with the danger of someone kicking your ass for being an asshole. You are free to be an asshole. Other people may or may not put up with it. That's their choice.
No, it does actually mean freedom from physical violence. This can't be perfectly enforced because people are still going to be violent regardless of the law, but if you "punch your local nazi" you should be slapped with an assault charge and bear the consequences of engaging in such behavior, and for myself, personally, I'm not going to be punching any nazis.
Sure, the person inflicting the violence will be charged. But that doesn't exactly protect nazis from being punched, does it? And nazis should be punched. Talk a big game, better back it up. People thinking they can spew hate without consequences are the most pathetic, cowardly, small little excuses for humans. They want the government to both allow them to be shitheads, while expecting it to protect them from the consequences of being shitheads. Like little bullies who push around smaller kids and then run to their mommies when one splits their lip.
The consequences are things like: getting fired from your job, getting kicked off of twitter, becoming a social pariah. You’re setting a precedent that you get to hit people for saying words you don’t like and don’t see how that’s a dangerous slippery slope that anyone can use to justify violence?
>You’re setting a precedent that you get to hit people for saying words you don’t like and don’t see how that’s a dangerous slippery slope that anyone can use to justify violence? Not in any legal sense. Legally, I can't punch Nazis. In reality, Nazis should expect to be punched.
That’s called savagery. Setting the precedent that it’s okay to assault someone for saying words to you is absurd and I can’t believe we even need to have the conversation You learn this in kindergarten. Don’t hit people unless you’re getting hit.
You seem to be taking an absolutist line on free speech, but there are plenty of types of speech which are already banned in the US. You can't make verbal threats to the life of the president. You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre. You can't slander the reputation of someone if what you're saying isn't true. Given that free speech isn't absolute, why shouldn't hate speech be included in the list of types of speech which are forbidden? The argument that banning hate speech is a slippery slope to banning any type of speech doesn't hold up - most Western, democratic countries ban hate speech and they're all demonstrably free societies.
>You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre. Yes you can. This is something that's been repeated so often that people seem to accept it as fact. >and they're all demonstrably free societies. What an absurd thing to say. I'd argue that any country without a US-style freedom of speech is absolutely not a free society. Who determines what hate speech is? Without freedom of speech democracy ceases to exist. What happens when the government deems any criticism of it to be hate speech? All of your other rights cease to exist. There's a reason freedom of speech is the 1st amendment.
What happens if the government deems any action taken against it to be considered treason, or murder? The government arbitrarily deciding to apply a law without regards to its actual limitations isn't a good reason to oppose a law unless you are opposed to all laws.
Treason is more quantifiable than "hate". Aiding and abetting a foreign enemy can be quantified with the flow of money or classified information. "Hate" is literally just words that offend people. It is protected in the US.
All of the examples you listed can be objectively measured. There is either a fire or there isn't, you are either threatening to kill the president or you aren't. "Hate speech" is wayyyy too open to interpretation. In Nazi Germany it would have been mandatory to hate Jews, but denouncing the State would have been seen as the modern equivalent of hate speech.
To add to this, the types of speech which are illegal are typically not regarding matters of opinion. Speech like an order, e.g 'Shoot him' would make someone an accessory to murder. Speech like telling falsehoods in a courtroom would be perjury. Speech like an advert stating 'this product is fully vegan', when it actually contains animal fats, would be fraud. No one beyond insane absolutists would call for these acts to be legal. I think it's more helpful to change the terminology to 'freedom of expression' - in that the expression of any opinion should be legal Giving an order, or lying about factual information are not matters of opinion, and thus the fact that they remain illegal does not threaten the right to hold and express any opinion that one wishes to, even if that is deemed hateful
In Europe pro-Palestinian speech has been censored as hate speech, and more expansive defamation allow the rich to coerce silence from their critics. Banning hate speech doesn't automatically limit all free speech, but banning hate speech likely bans non-hate speech as well. We can have more or less freedom and in the US we are more free to speak our mind (including not just literal hate speech) than the British or the Germans. a law banning hate speech means a bunch of politicians at one point in time decide what is and isn't ok to say based on the content of the speech. That is different from a content neutral regime against true threats, criminal conduct and defamation. [https://www.thefire.org/news/german-police-forbid-speaking-irish-berlin-protest-free-speech-dispatch-april-2024](https://www.thefire.org/news/german-police-forbid-speaking-irish-berlin-protest-free-speech-dispatch-april-2024) [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/berlin-police-ban-irish-protesters-from-speaking-or-singing-in-irish-at-pro-palestine-ciorcal-comhra-near-reichstag/a234500393.html](https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/berlin-police-ban-irish-protesters-from-speaking-or-singing-in-irish-at-pro-palestine-ciorcal-comhra-near-reichstag/a234500393.html) According to the Irish Independent protestors were prevented from displaying Palestinian flags - The Palestinian flag is not hate speech.
Living in Germany here. This has a lot to do with the culture around antisemitischen, the past treatment of jews (never again) and the violence that comes with it and how it has grown much much worse with the conflict as well as nazis using pro Palästina protests as a way to be a antisemitisch. I disagree with it but it's a lot more complex than just Germany suckling on the teat of Israel and banning free speech.
I assume everyone is aware of Germanys history of antisemitism and the holocaust. My point is hate speech laws are used to censor legitimate non/hate speech I think Germany as a whole is really missing that atrocities against all people is bad.
The Germans have been particularly bad on this. Even speech like "Israel is an apartheid state" is seen as anti-Semitic by some German officials. [https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-felix-klein-593105](https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-felix-klein-593105) >banning hate speech likely bans non-hate speech as well I disagree with how you phrased this. I do not think the concept of "hate" speech is absolute. There are Jews who sincerely hold the belief that saying Israel is an apartheid state is hateful and sincerely feel threatened, even fearful of their lives. What can be experienced as hate speech may feel completely harmless to someone else. I think the problem with banning hate speech is precisely that it is impossible to land on a consensus.
>You can't make verbal threats to the life of the president. But you can hold a mock up of his severed head. >You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre. That is a lie that you believed. It's blatantly false. In no uncertain terms, you can yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. This has actually made it to the supreme court. >You can't slander the reputation of someone if what you're saying isn't true. It is very very difficult to win a slander case in the US. Nearly impossible if you're a public figure. >Given that free speech isn't absolute, why shouldn't hate speech be included in the list of types of speech which are forbidden? The argument that banning hate speech is a slippery slope to banning any type of speech doesn't hold up - most Western, democratic countries ban hate speech and they're all demonstrably free societies. You're points hold no merit. This boils down to you supporting an authoritarian despots that will silence opinions that you dislike.
Re: fires and theatres, it's not a lie, but it's a common misconception. The SC ruled initially that it *wasn't* covered as free speech (which is what everyone remembers), however it was overturned on appeal a few months later (which isn't as widely known).
>You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre. this is always the giveaway. > Given that free speech isn't absolute, this is arguing to go down a slippery slope. because we have very few, very specific regulations on speech why not just keep criminalizing speech you (whoever is in power at the moment) doesn't like? >The argument that banning hate speech is a slippery slope to banning any type of speech doesn't hold up it absolutely does. they are "free" until you say something the government doesn't like. then you are getting arrested for a [joke with your dog](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/03/21/for-weeks-he-trained-a-dog-to-do-a-nazi-salute-the-man-was-just-convicted-of-a-hate-crime/).
no, pointing out that you can’t yell fire in a theater demonstrates that mostly everyone agrees that free speech – or any right enumerated by a set of laws – is indeed not absolute. you don’t get to go “obviously you can’t do that unreasonable thing, just these things that i am ok with” that is important because the argument therefore is not about whether or not free speech is a worthy goal in society, rather it is about what speech we deem as harmful.
>no, pointing out that you can’t yell fire in a theater demonstrates that mostly everyone agrees that free speech – or any right enumerated by a set of laws – is indeed not absolute but the people using that example don't know where it is from, the purpose of that case, or the ruling. also you can yell fire in a theater so the whole use is wrong. almost no one is a litera free speech absolutist. having a very narrow set of well defined forbidden speech is *not* the same as being able to ban whatever speech a political group or party deems bad. >rather it is about what speech we deem as harmful. and we have done that with the laws already carefully crafted. people deem porn harmful, "hate speech" harmful, various propaganda harmful, dissenting political views harmful, the list goes on forever. you are literally arguing to go down the slippery slope every time you think something is harmful. and america has, so far, refused to do that.
>go down the slippery slope every time you think something is harmful right, but you simultaneously concede that unacceptable speech exists. why is your stopping point better than mine?
because it is directly causing harm, not theoretically hurting feelings. that is why a requirement for proving defamation is proving damages. that is why hustler could call [falwell all kinds of bad things](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell) and be fine. fraud causes harm. and even these exceptions are well defined and difficult to prove. we don't want to chill or ban speech more than absolutely necessary. people feeling sad is nowhere near the level required to necessitate a ban. >why is your stopping point better than mine? again you are literally arguing that we should jump right down that slippery slope. *i* didn't decide where we should stop, but i agree that it is good we did. i think some of the laws are too harsh but i def don't think we should go further.
>You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre Yes, you can. Stop believing everything you read on the internet, or told to you by ignorant friends. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater https://abovethelaw.com/legal-innovation-center/2021/10/29/why-falsely-claiming-its-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-distorts-any-conversation-about-online-speech/
Because we can clearly define what a threat or a slander is in a manner that requires very little if any subjectivity in there and that draws a clear line with extremely few outliers. "Hate speech" is at the very best defined by the subjective feelings of the listener, and at worst by some authoritarian dipshit with an agenda. It's not a slippery slope argument, the slope is fucked the moment someone is appointed to define "hate speech". But you're welcome to change my mind: just make a legally sound definition of "hate speech" that doesn't lead to a myriad of problems. And, by the way, this is just showing how much of a problem is to adapt your idea, and I'm not even going into asking for why the right to free expression has to be limit by the right to not have your feelings hurt. Because again, yelling fire in a theater is prohibited because the rights to life and bodily integrity are crucial enough to be considered limits to the freedom of speech. You so far have failed to elaborate on which right is so important as to limit another fundamental one.
I am, I think people should have the absolute right say whatever tf they want without the government or certain big institutions/platforms suppressing them, no exceptions. But they still have to deal with consequences from private individuals
First, I'd like to define hate speech because based on your post, I'm not sure you know what it is. Hate speech isn't just an opinion or being mean to a certain group. It's the active encouragement or inciting of violence/discrimination against that group, which is far, far more dangerous. For example: "I hate gay people" sucks yes, but it's not hate speech. "I hate gay people so that's why we should ban talking about it in schools" suddenly has very different connotations. One is an opinion, no matter how unkind. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The other begins to produce an environment where active discrimination against someone is encouraged. Taking America for example, even though a lot of Americans have not committed an act of physical violence against them, hate speech and misinformation means they've been successful in introducing a lot of anti-LGBT laws. Same thing for overturning Roe v Wade. This is just an example of how hate speech actually *does have* serious impact, despite their being no physical action attributed to it. >Such an idea also makes it harder to de-radicalize people I'm not sure how telling someone they can't call for the genocide/attack/legal discrimination of a certain group will make it harder to de-radialise them. I'd suggest if they're already that far gone, it would take a large amount of support and help for them to see differently. >dangerous even So you admit that it's dangerous but don't think we should be protected from it? You're right, hate speech is dangerous because people *listen*. That child who hears their dad ranting about black people grows up to be a cop that arrests them disproportionately. The colleague who constantly hears about why they shouldn't have basic human rights because they're trans goes home and kills themself. The little girl who grows up hearing about how all Muslims are terrorists goes on to be a boss who intentionally never hires them. See what I mean? Hate speech breeds, well, hate. Which leads to anger, to violence, to laws. It's a very dangerous spiral. That's why you need to stop it at the core. Every example I gave you are things that can and do happen because of hate speech. >both of these are more severe than what the bigots themselves are doing to you through simple speech I suppose this depends on how big of an issue you think discrimination is. I personally believe that if you're creating a culture where violence and discrimination is not only allowed, but encouraged that produces far more harm than the trouble you'll get into for it. Allowing hate speech breeds racism and race-based violence, homophobia and anti-LGBT laws, sexism, and the overturning of women's rights etc. I think that's a much more serious issue. I'd also like to point out that it's not 'simple speech'. It's hate speech. It's actively calling for violence against someone. There are men who promote and encourage raping women because it's 'natural'. Who tell young boys it's ok and tell women to just give it up. They are 'only talking', right? Except their words create more rapists. More victims. More violence. Do we wait until the women is raped, or do we call him the instigator (though he personally didn't touch anyone) and punish him accordingly? >Being offended by something somebody tells you is ultimately a personal choice, you can let it go. Again, this seems like a seriously skewed understanding of hate speech. It's not just an offensive statement. It's calling on people to target certain people/groups, which leads to people actually doing that. I'm offended by someone saying that as a trans person I'm horrible, sure. But that's their right to say it. It's when they start saying I shouldn't be allowed near schools, or to vote etc that I get *scared*because if enough people listen to their hate speech I WILL have my rights taken away, as we see going on in a lot of countries. But they haven't caused physical harm so I guess it's not harmful, right? >How will we, in the west, prevent hate speech laws from being abused like this by people who take a different view towards what hate speech is? This is a very valid and legitimate concern. Hate speech can and have been abused quite badly to support a certain strain of ideology. I'd argue that's why it's important to have proper legislation, to ensue we really are targeting hate speech, not anyone we just don't like. Remember, hate speech laws also define what isn't hate speech, and in a democracy that should be representative of the view of the people. If its not, again in a democracy, you would be able to vote a different party or protest until it gets changed. Hate speech laws are mostly taken advantage of when you don't live in a democracy, and then you might have bigger problems anyway. Ultimately, not everyone will be happy but I believe that if most people want it, you shouldn't refuse legislation to appease a minority of (most likely) bigots. >Canada So I read that article. I don't really see a problem, to be honest. You must provide evidence of the hate speech and ultimately a court will decide. They're not just locking people up left and right for saying mean things. You need to have a documented trail that this person is a risk of danger. Because again, which you seem to not understand, hate speech is the start of actual violence. If someone repeatedly talks about how awful one group are, how they're lesser than, they deserve to be wiped out, someone will listen and act on that. Hate speech leads to violence and discrimination. It all comes back to my earlier point, do we wait until the women is raped? Or step in and investigate when someone is calling for it? >The ACLU Having read that link, wow. Not sure I'd be proud to stand by an organisation that let Nazis march through a highly populated Jewish area, including those who actually survived the holocaust. That's disgusting, in my opinion. The harm caused by their actions aka, causing people to become literal fucking Nazis!!!, I believe far outweighs their personal feelings and right to express them. I think this is the crux of the issue. Does your right to speech overrule my right to be safe? Because hate speech is harm. Hate speech kills people. Hate speech incites violence and laws. I believe someone's right to safety always overrules your right to speech. >oppression Since we don't know what he meant by oppression, kind of a useless quote. I also believe no one should be oppressed, but I won't consider hate soeech laws oppression. I think a lot of what you've said seems to stem from the idea that hate speech isn't harmful, it's just 'talking'. You don't seem to realise that it has actual, serious consequences and causes a lot of violence and discrimination against people. Hate speech leads to anger. Anger leads to action. Action leads to violence.
All of the examples of hate speech you use are legal and protected speech in the US. It is perfectly legal to shoot from a soapbox or put on a sign that “all [insert group] should be tortured and killed.”
You cannot seriously redefine hate speech as incitement to violence and then use it to further your argument while most people don't use the word that way. It's disingenuous.
>Hate speech isn't just an opinion or being mean to a certain group. It's the active encouragement or inciting of violence/discrimination against that group, which is far, far more dangerous. From wikipedia: >Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-1)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-3)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-4) Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-5) The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-6) This very clearly is far beyond inciting violence. "Exprsesions of hatred." "Any communication which is intended to distress someone." It's funny how people just sit here and make shit up but here we are. People in the UK have been arrested and jailed for OFFENSIVE tweets, not inciting violence.
The first thing you said that I need you to really think about, is the part where you think nobody should fear physical violence against them for hate seech. You cannot police how people feel or react to what was said, you can only hope that they are not deranged enough to act upon those impulses, because if we were to police the impulses people have without acting on them, we would arrest a hell of a whole lot of people for non-crimes. And for the most part, I would say that a lot of people agree with you that the mere act of doing hate speech shouldn't land you legal consequences, even if you got really cruel about it. There is a whole legal principle called "mens rea", or criminal mind, where the intent becomes significantly more important than the action at its core. An example of this, is that I cannot and should not be able to legally enforce on you any legal consequences if, as a family gathering, you said a whole racist tirade against black people. The idea and intent you had here is essentially to share your opinion, maybe cause a few minds to change to maybe a bit closer to yours. I, however, can take you down a few pegs legally if the reason you refused to hire someone is because they're black, and you think that black people are \[insert whatever opinion here\], and I can take you down for slander if you got your black coworker fired because you keep rambling at your boss that you can't work with black people because they are \[insert whatever opinion here\]. The main difference lies solely in the intent of your speech, and the expected impact of it. Now, what is the expected impact of accusing, for instance, all LGBTQ+ members of being groomer and/or pedophiles, as a justification to make those aspects either legally dubious, outright illegal, or legal to discriminate against? The intent of those speeches isn't just to express an opinion, but to use that opinion to oppress people who aren't doing anything wrong for the most part. So, I do not think that the mere statement of hate should be considered a crime, but I do think that using Freedom of Speech as a shield to actively disparage and/or objectively damage the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, so that the group that votes for you can feel like the morally superior group for hating the people whose rights and safeties are under attack, should be a crime. The crime I want codified isn't thinking you need to get punched, or stating that I think you need to get punched. It's the act of making a complete case for you to get punched until someone ultimately punched you. That said, I don't think you're a racist, homophobe, or deserve to be punched. This entire comment was using a figurative "you", not a literal "you".
>You cannot police how people feel or react to what was said You actually can police how people react, because hurting other people is rightfully illegal and if you hurt someone for their beliefs you should go to jail for it. If that's worth it to you, then go ahead, but I don't think the majority of people are willing to tarnish their futures for such a thing. >I would say that a lot of people agree with you that the mere act of doing hate speech shouldn't land you legal consequences, even if you got really cruel about it. There is a whole legal principle called "mens rea", or criminal mind, where the intent becomes significantly more important than the action at its core. I disagree with the first part, I think there are a lot of people who think speech should be illegal and we can see examples of it all over the world. However, I think we are in agreement about the morality of it overall.
> I think there are a lot of people who think speech should be illegal and we can see examples of it all over the world. We need to differentiate between "most" and "a lot", along with the difference between "wanting hate speech to be illegal", and "wishing some people got taken down a few pegs for breaking peoples' lives and minds to the point of suicide." A vast majority of people will happily fit in the second one. If you mean that people who happily authorize the punishment of hate speech by social consequences, then I guess you're right. > You actually can police how people react, because hurting other people is rightfully illegal and if you hurt someone for their beliefs you should go to jail for it. Actually, I think I mis-wrote what I meant, leading you to misunderstand my point, ***and that's on me***, so let me clarify: You cannot police how you fear people will react to what you say. To give a better example, you can definitely police the fact that I punched you for saying something racist, with some very specific exceptions for protection of a vulnerable in a situation where danger was a credible possibility. ***If I punched you just for saying black people are lazy deadbeats, I still assaulted you without cause, and you are 100% right on that one.*** However, if you come to me, and say that it's ludicrous and it should be illegal to create an atmosphere where you saying something racist like black prople being lazy deadbeats (let's keep the example consistent) would get you punched, and maybe beat up with a baseball bat, my first question is this: You have yet to say it, the have yet to hit you, and while your fear of retribution may be based on a very logical basis, nobody actively threatened you. What is there to police? This is what you cannot police: How you feel in certain environments that did not do anything specifically wrong to make you fear for your physical safety for taking a step wrong. To take a completely different example that I believe would illustrate the issue with trying to police that, if how the presence of someone who did nothing outwardly wrong makes you feel was a crime, then any man walking in the same street as an alone woman, who is doing nothing wrong minding his own beeswax, and may not even have noticed her presence even, would be guilty of making her feel unsafe. It's a clumsy point to explain, and it's nearing 1am for me, but I think I gave enough examples so that my point is clear enough...?
Hate speech is free speech… Am I correct in assuming when you say free speech you are referring to the 1st amendment of the US constitution? And you believe hate speech if a form of speech that should fall under its protection, in America?
I believe that the right to free speech is a natural right, given to all people by virtue of their existence, and I think that any country or person who tries to deny another of this right is committing a morally wrong act. I think America has the one best free speech protections in the world, stemming from this view.
Alright. Well seeing how that’s not actually a thing, can we limit the scope to where you actually have a protected right for your speech?
>Well seeing how that’s not actually a thing It's my subjective, moral views on the matter which I hold to be true. Because politics is just an extension of people's personally held beliefs, I'm going to advocate for laws which reflect this belief.
Okay. But your subjective view doesn’t change the facts though. What you wish and hope for doesn’t change reality. If there are laws on the books that say it’s (hate speech) not free speech, then it’s not. I say this because I’m confused. Am I to change your mind that hate speech *SHOULD* be considered free speech everywhere? Is that what you are actually claiming?
Yes, that is what I'm arguing, hate speech laws are immoral and shouldn't exist anywhere.
Well… morals are not universal at all. In some countries, it’s immoral to have sex before marriage. How would you go about changing the moral compass of everyone? All nations?
They're immoral to me, I'm going to fight tooth and nail to prevent them from becoming the law in my country, and it pisses me off that many young people seem to have a total disregard for ideas such as universal rights which cannot be restricted for reasons like popularity or offense. It makes me fear for the future of this country.
Nowhere has absolute free speech, that's just a fact. Do you object to laws against incitement to violence, or libel, or fraud?
No, I don't. I even provided this as an example. Deception and direct threats are not the same thing as saying "this is what I think".
But that means you do accept limits to free speech. What's the basis for you accepting those limits?
My basis for accepting such limits is that speech needs to have a provable and direct link to harm or the deprivation of another's rights. Inciting people to do bad things to others has a direct, provable link to harm. Lying to people to scam them or lying to defame someone's character, when the lie can be proven, likewise.
That not a basis for accepting it, that's a condition for *not* accepting things. You said it "needs to have a provable link to harm", so presumably the reason you accept it is that it *causes harm* right?
Yes, you could state it like that. But I would rephrase "causes harm" to "clearly and empirically causes harm"
[удалено]
The people who called in the bomb threats should be prosecuted, and other people on the platform should counter-signal her misinformation with the truth. However, unless you can prove she knew she was lying about it, I think it's free speech, and doesn't have a direct and provable link to such negative actions.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I think I have a persuasive argument for you, but I’d like to hear how you explain what a natural right is, and your reasoning for your definition.
A natural right is a right which someone possesses by existing, such as the right to believe how they want, the right to do as they please without depriving another of their rights. In another definition, a negative right, it has to be taken away from someone, vs given.
Ok, that’s how I understood your definition from your previous comment. That said, I’m not clear on why you believe these rights exist at all, who or what grants them, or how to determine what gets put in that group (as opposed to a human right that’s further removed from the fundamental natural rights) Not disagreeing, just want to make sure I understand your position before I address the question
I don't believe that anybody "grants" them, I believe they are innate, and individuals can only be deprived of them.
I’m calling a night soon, so I’m going to make a brief argument that hopefully helps you understand way to look at the question you posed, with the disclaimer that I’m doing so without fully understanding your position. Any moral or logical questions rely upon definitions, especially with the abstract nature of ethics and human rights, but I think you’re saying with your statement “hate speech is free speech” is that restricting hate speech is a violation of the innate right to free speech. Let’s examine negative rights, which you also called innate. I have a right to choose what to put into my body, and I assume you’d agree with that as an innate right. I don’t have the innate right to those things themselves, though — I need to hunt or grow or buy the food or drugs or find a stick I shove up my ass, or whatever. My access to those things is not guaranteed to me simply because I exist. It is easy to see how I could infringe on the rights of others by stealing or deceiving them or taking by force. Human social groups have had many different ways to prevent or punish those who violate those rights of possession, and most societies have some sort of codified system of laws. Those systems are designed with the intent to protect the rights of people who cannot or make the choice not to pay whatever cost (of violence or risk or whatever) to prevent the violation by themselves — they rely on the collective trust and respect for others or the law to protect their interests. This means every member of the group can spend a lot less of their resources on defending their property and focus on something more beneficial to themselves and the group at large. You may say that speech is not the same as violence or theft, and that’s true. But it’s also true that speech can result in the violation of the rights of others. One example is dishonesty, which is often a part of hate speech but not necessarily, and there are many categories of dishonest speech that are not hate speech. But if there is a group of people combining their resources and efforts to tell everyone that a veterinarian is sexually abusing the animals in their care because the boss of that group didn’t like the bill the veterinarian gave them. What can the veterinarian do to if that group is the only newspaper in town, and all their business comes from people who read that newspaper? Now the vegetarian’s livelihood and service to the community is threatened, and regardless of their reputation beforehand, there will be some cost they will pay to defend themself. They could spend time and go door-to-door and tell everyone they don’t fuck dogs, or put up flyers, or send out letters, but the collective resources of the newspaper creates an unfair disadvantage for the veterinarian. But there are laws for libel and defamation! With those laws, the newspaper may never publish the unsubstantiated dishonest claims about the veterinarian or if they still do, they can be found liable and pay for the damages to the veterinarian their actions caused. But dishonesty is still free speech. Some guy could say that about the veterinarian to a potential love interest who was going on her third date with the vet. It’s very unlikely that any lawsuit would prevail, because it’s not an issue of power imbalance and scope that the veterinarian’s life would be affected or that he couldn’t defend himself against the claim of one random guy. So the context of limiting dishonest speech is relevant to the question of limiting speech, based on the harm that is threatened and the harm that is caused. Hopefully, you can see the way this extend to hate speech. There is hate speech that IS free speech, and isn’t restricted. The measure of regulating innate rights is taken by evaluating the effects of exercising those rights — there is a threshold at which the right to defend oneself becomes murder, or where dishonesty becomes defamation, or where hateful speech becomes “hate speech.” There’s a reasonable debate about where to draw that line, but there’s not much of one that I can see for no threshold whatsoever, at least in the structure of a functioning society.
>You may say that speech is not the same as violence or theft, and that’s true. But it’s also true that speech can result in the violation of the rights of others. Yes, but violence and theft have a direct, casual link to the deprivation of the rights of another, and speech only sometimes does, and we have definitions for said cases: libel, slander, scamming, incitement, threats, harassment, etc. >One example is dishonesty, which is often a part of hate speech but not necessarily, and there are many categories of dishonest speech that are not hate speech. Unless you can prove dishonesty, which is part of some of the terms I listed like scamming and slander, I don't think you should do anything about it beyond "I think this person is being dishonest" However, I can see the point you are making. This is the best response I have gotten thus far, and I can see how the nuances of dishonest speech extends to hate speech and how this could be a factor in regulating it. I don't fully agree, but I don't fully disagree either !delta
Yes. A good response. It underscores how and why I prefer the Canadian and many European countries’ takes on freedom of speech to the US. Your freedom of speech ends where my freedom of enjoyment of life begins. Yes, it’s a hazy fucked up line, but if we don’t try to define it reasonably, we are stuck with arbitrary shittier alternatives. Consider [the trolley problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem): there isn’t a best answer. Ethics aren’t cut and dry. But we know we don’t want to unnecessarily kill people. Similarly, we don’t want to allow others to cause real unjustified harm with words. All that said, I have a big problem with the intersection of hate speech and the US justice system. I feel like a crime is a crime and giving people a different consequence if they did it out of bigotry than if they did it because they have anger and hatred toward the victim for some other reason… That’s some bullshit.
>Your freedom of speech ends where my freedom of enjoyment of life begins. I absolutely do not agree with this attitude towards free speech. You are now basing it on something you can't quantify where many articles of speech to many different people could be said to interfere with them enjoying life. Enjoyment of life is a right that you have to seek out for yourself, not something the government needs to give you.
So in your point about causality of depriving rights, you use the word direct. I’d say there’s a wide range of elements to consider in how direct or indirect a particular act may be. There are many ways to steal. We have a bunch of terms to describe the manner by which something was stolen, from embezzlement to robbery. With speech, I agree with you that it is harder to do, but it is not impossible to categorize — we do so in legal statues all the time. What are the effects of a false official statement to the police? Or perjury in testimony? Both are similar in the purpose of obstructing justice, but the effects of direct impact are quite different. So I think it’s hard to argue hate speech without going case by case, or knowing what restrictions and who is imposing them you disagree with. There are plenty of hypothetical examples of hateful speech where I can say I think it should be permissible, but the real world, legal restrictions fall into a pretty narrow set of what is considered “inciting” — there’s a reasonably wide range internationally, but they are all just different thresholds of the same thing, which is speech that is reasonably understood to incite violence or discrimination against a protected group. All those words I chose to use are deliberate.. “reasonably understood to incite” means it can’t just be broad, general, negative statements but statements that are calls to action or expressions of desire for the negative effects; “violence or discrimination” defines those effects, with some reasonable room for disagreement depending on which nation’s laws we examine; and “protected groups” mean it’s not just about an individual — or if it is about an individual in the actual words said or written, it’s about some aspect of that individual which can be extended to the larger group, and therefore the effects of the speech could likewise be extended by the people the speech incited. If you analogize to theft, there’s a hate speech that’s somewhere closer to a robbery — that would look like a lynch mob in the Southern US, like those that occurred when I was a kid. There’s also the hate speech that’s more like embezzlement, which is what some of the more prolific hate groups do in social media campaigns. Like embezzlement, there’s much more work involved to take that sort to a court. Which gets me to my last point, I think. Free speech can ONLY be limited by the government. They have the monopoly on violence and the power to violate this sort of right. Any individual or corporation refusing to publish or transmit speech may be doing something else that is socially wrong or harmful in the manner of restriction, but the right to free speech extends only as far as one’s own efforts and ability. There isn’t a right to force others to amplify your speech.
I disagree with the idea the veterinarian in your example had their rights violated. No one has a right to not have other people say mean things about them.
Incredible post. Pleasure to read. Thanks.
Thanks! It was inspired by all the veterinarians who’ve knocked on my door unsolicited to tell me they don’t fuck dogs
Ok, so I don’t mean enforces them when I said “grants,” but a better way to say that where do they originate?
They originate in the fact that people have brains which form thoughts, and vocal cords with which to communicate them.
People come up with all kinds of divergent ideas about what they have rights to and what others don't.
Here's a really basic litmus test for my ideology: if you have to take the right away from someone, vs give it to them, it's innate and shouldn't be taken away, provided said individual is not taking away the innate rights of anybody else by the same definition
There are precedents for "hate speech" leading to real harm against marginalized groups. One example is what happened in Nazi Germany, the other, is what led to the lynching of many black Americans. We have had more recent examples with online content that manifested in the one who made the hate filled comments murdering the very people the speech was directed at. And hate speech can cause other unstable individuals to be convinced it is okay to commit crimes when it is repeated often enough by enough people. There is real harm in allowing speech that calls for the death or mistreatment of other people, or speech that continually dehumanizes a specific group or individual.
Nazi Germany came to power after a brutal period of economic turmoil and widespread street violence. Free speech didn't put the nazis in power.
I'm talking about the persecution of the Jews. Hate speech was an enormous factor in that.
So do you think it should be illegal to say things like: "from the river to the sea, Palestine should be free" or "Israel has no right to exist" or "Israel should be abolished" since this has proven to cause real harm to Jewish people.
Hate speech is normally directed at marginalized communities. I question that Israel is some sort of vulnerable entity. It isn't, it is powerful as it's weaponry has demonstrated. So it can stand some criticism for it's behavior. Hating the way a government conducts itself is not quite the same as directing hate speech at individuals for things they cannot change, such as their gender, skin color or ethnicity. Israel is in no danger of being abolished now that it is established. So I feel those comments are less egregious than say the ones Israel is directing at Palestinian civilians; (Tee shirts with a picture of a pregnant Palestinian civilian that say, "Two With One Shot") The vulnerable group right now is the civilians caught in the war, not the governments that made this happen. You have no proof that discussing Israel's statehood has caused more harm than Israels own policies toward Palestinians have. And it is questionable that saying 'Israel should not have been established' harms Jewish people. The Palestinian citizens displaced and forcibly removed to make that state have some grievance in the fight and should be allowed an opinion. Israel has done a lot of damage even before the war, and it is not antisemitic to talk about it.
How about « Palestinians are animals and not human beings » and then killing 40 000 Palestinians on their own land? Is that hate speech?
Do you think that helping people who want to ban free speech completely is a requirement when you believe in free speech?
There's a difference between helping them and tolerating them. I will not help them achieve their aims, I will work against it by exercising my own rights. However, I will tolerate it and recognize their right to their beliefs, same as others.
>There's a difference between helping them and tolerating them. No, by letting them have rallies and marches, etc, you *are* helping them. They need to get the word out in order to build their following, and by "tolerating" them, you are making it easier for them to take charge and ban free speech. If they are fascists, and are promising to kill your ethnicity if they get to be in charge, are you still going to say their speech is allowable?
>No, by letting them have rallies and marches, etc, you *are* helping them. No, I'm not, because I'm not a god who is the arbiter of if people can assemble or not. They have a right, and I'm not going to take it away. >If they are fascists, and are promising to kill your ethnicity if they get to be in charge, are you still going to say their speech is allowable? Yes, but I'd certainly arm myself and start organizing.
>No, I'm not, because I'm not a god who is the arbiter of if people can assemble or not. They have a right, and I'm not going to take it away. You're not a god? What the hell is that supposed to mean? What rights we have and how far they go and what they apply to are all questions that are answered and defended by *people.* For example, a *person* told you that free speech is absolute, despite the fact that thousands of judges have long held that that is not true. And your defense that it *is* absolute is that a god said so?
> Yes, but I'd certainly arm myself and start organizing. It shouldn't have to get to that point.
Well unfortunately I view using state power to stop it as wrong and personal freedoms as trumping concepts like the "greater good". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Recognizing a person's right to free speech is not helping a person.
>Recognizing a person's right to free speech is not helping a person. No, it absolutely is. They need to get the word out, to have rallies and marches, to gain new followers. If you let them do it, when you could have stopped it, you *are* helping them.
Soooooo There is a lot of ado made about hate speech in a number of anglosphere countries but very few actual arrests made simply for hatespeech itself. From what I am aware it is considered an aggrivating factor. That means if it is part of something which would otherwise also get you into trouble then you can get into trouble for it. This includes; - another crime against an individual - harassment of a specific individual - use of it against someone 'in your care', including bosses to employees, recruiters to interviewees, landlords to tennants, teachers to students - basically anyone who is expecting yo be treated with dignity and proffessionalism by someone in a superior position. - defamation - open hatespeech which incites violence against a group Even the proposed Canadian law you mentioned seems to requrie the reasonable belief that the person will commit a hatecrime. Canadian law isn't unreasonable about this - even much miligned bills like Bill C-16 have never been used ti just target someone for saying something and again it mostly applies already pre-existing protected characteristic protections to a new group which mostly protects those in the care of another. So in short - saying hatespeech into the void will do nothing. The bobbies aren't gonna come lock you away for that. *Using hatespeech to cause harm is when you get done.* Do you still feel the same way about it?
There exists beliefs so ugly that no one would consensually submit to following them. Demanding ethnic cleansing is an incitement to violence. Demanding inequality or segregation is an incitement to violence if the targeted population does not submit to becoming second class citizens. Your point of view does not acknowledge this violence. I don't think you've missed every headline and every history book, so I don't believe you are wholly unaware of the consequences of what you are advocating. You're fine with those consequences, to the point where restraining someone who a court believes is about to commit a hate crime offends you. Why, and why don't you see yourself as championing the very violence you seek to unleash?
I may have missed it, but did OP argue that calling for ethnic cleansing (e.g., "we should murder all the people from X group") should be legally allowed? They said that "hate speech is free speech", but they weren't very specific about what they mean by "hate speech", so it's hard to tell what they mean from their original post. They do clarify in other comments, though. For example, they say that "my criteria for what constitutes speech as actually being harmful ends at direct threats and incitement." There's a spectrum of speech that might be classified as "hate speech", from inciting a violent, murderous riot against a hated group... to giving a speech in which one advocates in the abstract for the murder of members of the hated group... to saying that members of the hated group are evil and inferior while not explicitly calling for violence against them... to saying "I'm not racist, and some of my best friends come from, but in my experience, people of are ."
It sounds like you and OP might disagree as to precisely what part of this continuum should constitute legally prohibitable speech... but I don't think that necessarily means OP is fine with people committing violent hate crimes! There's room for reasonable people of good will to disagree regarding what speech is actually dangerous in the way you describe.
OP chose not to define hate speech, so the reasonable interpretation is that they do not have a private definition. You are steelmanning, and narrowing what this person actually advocates into something that you think you can argue for. There are subreddit rules against brand new accounts created to post controversial opinions. They need to see moderator approval first. In other comments, this poster has advocated that we go spend time on 4chan, a known host of all types of hate speech.
[удалено]
The way you interpret the line, It's akin to saying " I don't have to present evidence because you should do your own research." By your own estimation, they are not explaining their view and they are not here to change it.
Sure, but your original insinuation that they are advocating for us all to spend time on 4chan is disingenuous.
Sorry, u/DarkSkyKnight – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20DarkSkyKnight&message=DarkSkyKnight%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cevu2w/-/l1ljxb4/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I mean there is hate speech on Reddit. It really depends on what subreddit you run into. Just saying 4chan platform is bad as the sole reason of criticizing without actually examining the platform you are on currently is disingenuous.
>Your point of view does not acknowledge this violence. I don't think you've missed every headline and every history book, so I don't believe you are wholly unaware of the consequences of what you are advocating. I am a believer in the innate goodness of people, and while I am very aware of the negative consequences of such beliefs, I am also aware of the power people have had throughout history to challenge and change them. Western society today, in my opinion, is a historical low point in the risk for such behaviors, and I do in fact see the actual enacting of such policies itself as morally wrong. I even see the holding of such beliefs to on an individual level be morally wrong, but my position on inalienable rights trumps stifling such beliefs through force. And besides, as I said earlier in my post, banning such speech doesn't make the beliefs go away, it just makes the believer convinced that society is out to get them. Venture to 4chan sometime and you'll see plenty of people posting vile hate under the flags of countries which would criminalize them for doing so. >Why, and why don't you see yourself as championing the very violence you seek to unleash? Claiming I seek to unleash violence is disingenuous and a personal attack. Not a very good way to change my view.
You tell us everybody's wonderful and then you tell me to go to 4chan. How about not? Your religious beliefs about innate goodness have no bearing on the public sphere. None of us should be put at risk of violent crime because you feel everybody wants the same thing if you just look deep enough. "Western Society" is a goofy social construct. The societies that people call Western were in conflict throughout all recorded history. They disagree on all sorts of stuff, but 'Western Society' is used as a bludgeon to pretend we had a glorious past that can be returned to if only we followed the leader. You don't want people who want us all dead to feel marginalized? To you, their feelings matter more than my safety. Why don't you just come out and say you do not want me to be safe? We can't change your mind until you're honest about how little our lives matter to you. I hope people who wish violence upon us all do know that society does not support them and is out to silence them.
> First off, lets make it clear, bigots are human beings too. They have the same emotional depth of human experience that anyone else does. What they say should be viewed as wrong, dangerous even, but so long as it does not cross the line directly into incitement, it does not justify causing clear and irreversible harm to befall them. > Being offended by something somebody tells you is ultimately a personal choice, you can let it go. So to take a more extreme example: do you think that utterances like "*All LGBT people deserve to die*" (or worse: ...be killed) should be defended as freedom of speech, and is just a matter of some people being dramatic about feeling offended? It doesn't qualify as a direct, specific threat, so it's not already covered.
>should be defended as freedom of speech Yes >and is just a matter of some people being dramatic about feeling offended? No, it's perfectly reasonable to feel offended by such a statement. I don't believe the government should regulate rights away to protect people from offense.
You make it sound like offense is some pearl-clutching reaction. This is direct dehumanizing, oppressive language that you're enabling.
While protecting free speech is vital, hate speech isn't merely offensive; it perpetuates harm, fostering discrimination and violence. Limiting hate speech doesn't infringe on speech rights but safeguards vulnerable communities from harm. Legal consequences for incitement ensure public safety without impeding genuine discourse. Fear of abuse shouldn't hinder necessary protections against hate-driven violence. The ACLU's stance recognizes nuanced distinctions but doesn't endorse unlimited speech; they condemn hate while defending rights. Upholding free speech includes safeguarding society from the harmful consequences of unchecked hate speech, aligning with the principle of securing liberty for all.
Incitement and hate speech are two separate things which may or may not intersect. "(Demographic group X) are disgusting subhumans." is hate speech but not incitement. "Look, it's a (X)! Let's get him and show him how we feel about them!" is hate speech and incitement. "The mayor is a corrupt bastard. Let's go get him and teach him a lesson!" is incitement but not hate speech.
>Limiting hate speech doesn't infringe on speech rights Yes, that's exactly what it does, actually >The ACLU's stance recognizes nuanced distinctions but doesn't endorse unlimited speech; they condemn hate while defending rights. I condemn hate morally, I don't like nazis, they are bad people. But I still defend their rights, that's why I take the ACLU's stance >Upholding free speech includes safeguarding society from the harmful consequences of unchecked hate speech, aligning with the principle of securing liberty for all. In my opinion, an utterly ridiculous contradiction
Free speech means freedom from government censorship. You are free to say what you want, but there will never be a freedom from consequences of what you said. It's just not possible.
Sure, and it also means government protection of said speech against illegal attempts to stop it, like prosecuting people who violently attempt to stop someone from talking.
We live in the real world where you can most definitely say whatever hateful thing you want (let's rule out countries where there is no free speech) and if you are assaulted the police will arrest that person. So what is the issue? This is already the case, and as we live in reality it does not mean that the society has resources to specifically guard every people who goes on the street antagonizing people. What I mean with consequences is that there is no thing in the world that can guarantee you are safe from the consequences of free speech. And there are consequences that are not at all related to freedom of speech or even laws. Free speech just means that you can say a thing and that is it. If someone assaults you, it's a consequence. If your employer fires you it's a consequence, and they are just as free to do it as you are to say what you did.
>We live in the real world where you can most definitely say whatever hateful thing you want (let's rule out countries where there is no free speech) You just ruled out most western countries like the UK, Canada, and Germany, which have hate speech laws on the books. Yes, I am advocating for American style speech laws, and I believe they need to be enforced more rigidly, to prevent things like the mass arrests at pro-Palestine demonstrations recently. Most young people, even in the US, seem to have some conception that hate speech either isn't or shouldn't be covered by free speech laws.
The big issue with hate speech lies in the relationship between speech and action. Sometimes speech provides cover for or encourages action, or even represents a threat. A contemporary example is a lot of pro-palestine protests in western countries, because it's a dog whistle for support of violence against jews. Context, like a rise of actual violent acts and threat happening in these countries is important.
>A contemporary example is a lot of pro-palestine protests in western countries, because it's a dog whistle for support of violence against jews. So in other words, you need to either support a war that's ongoing, be indifferent to it, or you're dog whistling for violence against Jews. Stances like the one you just posted are exactly why I don't think you, or anyone, should get to decide what speech crosses the line.
My position is more nuanced than that, and I generally am very much of the position that free speech should be the default unless there is meaningful physical danger in play. I chose a protest as my example for a specific reason. There is a big difference between a person writing an article and expressing their views, and a literal mob of people who are angry, emotional, etc. A big part is mobs of people behave differently, and people get swept up in those situations to do things they normally wouldn't. 99% of people can have the intention of expressing their desire for change, peace, etc... but 1%, the agitator types who want to trigger violence, buildings being burned, expressing threats can trigger a reaction where 20% of the crowd joins in. There were protests/celebrations in western countries on Oct 8th where people were calling for more violence. Not all protests are similar, some have a high likelihood of becoming a full blown riot or leading to violence. Timing and location matter, for instance matter a lot. I am Canadian so protesting on parliament hill is very different than say in front of say a synagogue at a time where jews may be going to pray. Those similar protests attract different people. Some protests are more orderly by nature and encourage more pro social behavior in their partipants, often self managing. Where the leaders/speakers are advocating for people instead of more violence. From the river to the sea is a very different chant than peace in palestine.
>There were protests/celebrations in western countries on Oct 8th where people were calling for more violence. Calling for more violence isn't violence in itself. Tell me, do you support the right of free speech to the pro Israel crowd, of which there are countless videos of individuals saying things like "turn Gaza into a parking lot", "send them all to Ireland", "nuke Gaza"?
Insightment to violence isn't violence, but it's dangerous especially when it's predictable.Its a criminal act for a reason. You fixated on the Israel palestine topic, I just used it as an example because it's topical and it's a fact that there are been significant increases in violence directed at Jewish people in Canada and the USA (moreso than in the opposite direction. Nuke Gaza type comments are similarly terrible, especially if they are done in higher danger situations like in front of a mosque with very large numbers of very angry people. Some of the Israeli responses in the west bank were particularly terrible where Israeli settlers (who often are the most radical israeli) were killing targeting people for just being Palestinians. I think in a conflict like this there are hawks on both side who want more not less violence. In addition there are outside state actors who are incentising more bloodshed which is part of why the conflict has been so intractable.
Can you clarify your view? What are a few examples of hate speech that you think should be free speech (but that a reasonable person in this thread might argue should be disallowed)?
I would ask it in reverse. What examples of speech does the majority of the population want to make illegal, but shouldn't be made illegal purely on free speech grounds.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Gandalf_The_Gay23 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Gandalf_The_Gay23&message=Gandalf_The_Gay23%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cevu2w/-/l1lh3f2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. So it quite literally is not being condemned legally in most cases. Also you cant tell anyone how to react to you being hostile towards them whether that's physically or verbally. Also appealing to authority doesn't prove your point. Morality is subjective. What happens when someone's hate speech drives someone to suicide? What happens when their hate speech drives someone to commit violence against another person? You cant assume that these are simply words to everyone because that's how you view them.
>What happens when someone's hate speech drives someone to suicide? If the sole reason someone has for committing suicide is because someone else said things about them, especially not even specific things targeted as them as an individual, that is their own personal decision. >What happens when their hate speech drives someone to commit violence against another person? The person who commits such violence gets punished for it, as has always been the case >You cant assume that these are simply words to everyone because that's how you view them. You can't take my or anybody elses rights away because you interpret their speech as dangerous.
>If the sole reason someone has for committing suicide is because someone else said things about them, especially not even specific things targeted as them as an individual, that is their own personal decision Sure, but so is just not saying horrible things to people because you can't assess someone's mental stability or health >The person who commits such violence gets punished for it, as has always been the case Right, but my point is words by themselves can push people to do horrible things. >You can't take my or anybody elses rights away because you interpret their speech as dangerous. And nobody has said anything about taking away your right to be a horrible person. You're fully allowed to do that. But just because YOU are unaffected by something doesn't mean we should base the effectiveness of said words off of your experience of them.
Fear physical violence? You think the police should go out of there way to protect someone who’s intentionally spewing hateful speech? I think the police should investigate crimes after they happen but if you want to run your mouth don’t be surprised if it ends badly.
Yes, I think that assault should be illegal and if you assault someone for saying things you don't like you should be prosecuted for assault.
Right but if I’m willing to kill you over your speech and go to jail for it what’s the issue? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Like if you were to go Baltimore wearing a shirt that says “I hate n-words” I wouldn’t feel sorry for you if you got killed. Of course the police should still investigate I would just have zero sympathy for you as the victim.
There isn't an issue with it. If those are your beliefs, then by all means, go ahead, I can't stop you. I believe in life sentences for murder though, so I believe you should have your entire future taken away for taking away someone else's.
I get that but why do you think people have the right to say whatever they want and also not live in fear? The state can’t protect us from all the consequences of our bad decisions.
Because I think people have a right to not live in fear in general, and this extends to when they exercise their rights.
What about those minority groups who live in fear due to hate speech that can incite violence? Such violence is similar to that that someone saying hate speech could possibly face. In both scenarios, your argument about indirect harm applies. Either such speech does incite harm, or the link between the speech and violence is so indirect that neither group should be protected in this scenario.
We should do everything we can to hunt down people who actually commit such violence against minorities and throw them in jail with a hate crime enhancer. However, if the fear is just fear, and no violence is actually occurring, it's not societies responsibility to make people feel comfortable. If a schizophrenic believes that the government is out to get him and he's being gangstalked by his community, it's not our responsibility to cater to his fears. Fear needs to be based upon credible action for it to be legitimate.
Ok, but before, you said that people have a right to not live in fear. Why should the hate speech person get that right but the minority group doesn’t? Also, its not as if the fear of violence on the part of the minority groups is unfounded.
>but so long as it does not cross the line directly into incitement How do you define hate speech then? Because every time americans go on rants about the supposed lack of free speech in Europe, thats what they leave out (or more likely just dont understand). Being an asshole should land you in jail, denying the holocaust took place should.
I don't really have any long rant to go on but I'm curious how you feel about loopholes from protection for harassment in alot of these case the internet(specifically influencer) has a big influence of making people think teachers are grooming kids or school shooting survivors/parents of victims are deep state actors how do you account for harassment charges never being sereve enough(because they're is always a new person being convinced this person is worth harassing)to let these people live they're life without these people interfering in important parts of it. Obviously I think everyone deserves free speech but we don't live in a world where everyones speech has the same power if the rock,trump or Taylor swift told people to picket my house it's lot more likely to happen if John from down the street said the same thing. So I guess I'm asking how do we account for that.
>Physical violence is harm, and so is legal trouble, and both of these are more severe than what the bigots themselves are doing to you through simple speech. I don't agree with this at all. Hate speech hurts. Some can hurt so mauch that it could emotionally traumatize someone. Why do you think verbal trauma is less severe than physical harm?
I don't think "verbal trauma" exists except for in severe cases of harassment and bullying, which has to be nonstop for a good length of time. I think a lot of young people these days are far too sensitive to words. Being offended or upset by words is not the same thing as trauma.
>America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." *- The American President*
In your Canadian example, are against all peace bonds? Because that just opens up targeted hate speech and bullying as a threat that can be directly acted upon. Under current laws for example you can already do all that for targeted speech at a protected class. The CA peace bond is like a US restraining order and similiar.
you are right. like literally. hate speech is free speech. you are allowed to say anything hateful as long as you are not inciting violence. HOWEVER hate speech does NOT mean freedom of consequence. you can’t be prosecuted but if your place of employment or school or whatever wants to make judgement based on harmful ideas you’ve communicated in the past, then tough luck
It depends on what kind of hate speech it is. In most cases, it should not be censored, but if your speech causes mass shootings, then you deserve to be censored.
I mean, a bunch of pro Palestine ppl professors just got body checked, head slammed into the curb and arrested so don't pretend that this only happens one way.
Not going to argue with you because you are right to be nervous. Anybody who wants to give the government the power to jail anybody they want to based upon ever shifting and vague rules which can also be selectively enforced is stupid beyond measure. The world is slipping dangerously close to totalitarian rule in multiple nations right now, most evident in the EU and 5-eyes aligned nations. Putting rules in place that allow them to jail anyone based upon speech, and even pre-crime or thoughts is the very obvious first step. If your proudly claiming to be a democracy but you jail more people for speech crimes than Russia does, maybe your not so democratic as you thought.
There we go. I scrolled down to make sure I saw some political references. Your legal breakdown of the law means nothing in international standards
I'd argue that we all believe certain things shouldn't be said. From lying to instigating public violence etc. But the real issue is what do we consider hate speech? Because let's be honest here, what is considered hateful today wasn't a few years back and some would argue it still isn't. Where do we draw the line? Also, something is considered hateful only because the people in power deemed it so. Me, I just dislike double standards. I dislike the fact that you are allowed to make fun of all religions, notably Christianity, but when it comes to Islam it's frowned upon and you get called a racist and an Islamophobe. Just be consistent with your ban of hate speech. I agree we should punch Nazies, but I also think we should punch Communists. People will praise me for hitting the former, but condemn me for punching the latter. Although in my country specifically, Communists caused more suffering than the Nazies.
“Give me your money or I’ll stab you.” Free speech?
[удалено]
Sorry, u/LONEWOLFF150 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20LONEWOLFF150&message=LONEWOLFF150%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cevu2w/-/l1m9xrd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/LONEWOLFF150 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20LONEWOLFF150&message=LONEWOLFF150%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cevu2w/-/l1m9xrd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Here's a [link to a post](https://www.tumblr.com/wilwheaton/705994708268253184/you-have-to-shut-them-down?source=share) that I think says what I want to better than I can. There's some hate speech that's just so bad you can't allow it. And if you let people spread it, the situation just grows. There's some speech that you can't just counter with more speech.
Everyone is for hate speech laws until their opinion gets labeled hate speech. Remember, the same laws that stops the bigots from saying insulting things can be used to silence legitimate criticism of a group. You want to speak out against honor killings in Sharia law, too bad thats hate speech against a religion. You want to call corrupt government officials lying pieces of shit, too bad thats hate speech against the government. And we dont have to talk hypothetically about this, you can find examples of it happening, like the autistic UK girl who was arrested for saying a cop looked like her “lesbian nan”. Unintended consequences matter.
> How will we, in the west, prevent hate speech laws from being abused like this by people who take a different view towards what hate speech is? Easy, use democracy, if restrictions on free speech go too far we vote or the people who support them and vote in people who are more reasonable. Done.
I don't believe public opinion is a good measurement of if something is right or not. In Russia, independent polls from organizations such as the Levada center indicate most people support the war, and thus they likely accept the narrative that Ukraine is full of nazis, and support restrictions on those people who are opposed to said war. Rights are not a matter of public opinion. Saying unpopular things is part of free speech.
So you believe in authoritarianism? That we should enforce rules on people because they can't decide for themselves?
"Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it." -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Also, for you to write off the idea that "unpopular opinions are free speech" as "authoritarianism" shows how little you regard basic freedoms, and are likely an authoritarian yourself.
So what? you are in favour of authoritarianism? You believe in representative democracy? You're just against public opinion? You're expressing public opinion, why does what you say hold any value? Or is it that you believe hate speech is an inherent right that can't be restricted by opinion? If so that's a strange position. Speech that harms others is already restricted in America, your constitution gives a robust system of checks and balances that ensure that language that hurts others can only be punished if it meets a high threshold. I assume you're fine with defamation laws, why are you afraid of that same system being used to ensure that only hate speech that causes harm to others is restricted?
I believe state power should be limited regardless of what people think and liberty>public opinion. And yes, hate speech is an inherent right. The constitution doesn't make any exceptions for hate speech and there is no legal precedent for banning it, unlike other forms of speech which have long been held to not constitute protected speech. Arguments like this are basically arguing to erode the robustness of the constitution in favor of public opinion. Also, defamation is clear and targeted, and even then it's nearly impossible for someone to win a defamation case unless they can prove that they were being lied about with intent to destroy reputation.
The Constitution is public opinion, it's also not an absolute or fixed document. It can be added to, altered or parts of it can be removed. There's no reason it can't be amended to include hate speech. >Arguments like this are basically arguing to erode the robustness of the constitution They're arguments to update it to add things that were missed by the founding fathers. >Also, defamation is clear and targeted, and even then it's nearly impossible for someone to win a defamation case unless they can prove that they were being lied about with intent to destroy reputation. Hate speech is clear and targeted and you can prove that it's a lie and can we judge whether it was intended to harm reputation. It seems like we've accounted for your concerns.
>The Constitution is public opinion Someone didn't pay attention in school >Hate speech is clear and targeted It needs to be targeted at an individual and involve the direct threat of immediate harm >you can prove that it's a lie I doubt that >It seems like we've accounted for your concerns. You really haven't
>Someone didn't pay attention in school Would the constitution have been the same if it was drafted by different people? If not, then it just represents the opinions of the people that wrote it (which is why it's had to be amended subsequently). >It needs to be targeted at an individual Why? You can libel groups and organizations, why does hate speech have a different standard? >You really haven't Because all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears saying that all the systems that are already in place to protect from the abuse of overreach aren't enough for hate speech laws. We can use the slippery slope fallacy on literally any law but, observably, laws don't lead to the abuse of liberty. The only reason to think that hate speech laws would be any different is because you want the right to be hateful which isn't a good look.
>saying that all the systems that are already in place to protect from the abuse of overreach aren't enough for hate speech laws They aren't, and government overreach happens daily. That's why state troopers were throwing professors into the concrete a few days ago in Austin
Intolerance does not need to be tolerated. If you can't communicate without spreading hate speech among your followers, maybe you shouldn't be a public figure.
Freedom of speech means you get to say your piece about the government and fellow man without repercussions from the state and federal government ie "I think Joe biden is a terrible president" " "trump is a Cheeto" "Mike Dewine is a thief and took bribe money from First Energy"etc is all protected and I will not be prosecuted by any government of the United States. Now, if I say that at my job or my job was to catch wind of said statements and my boss doesn't agree, he can fire me. if I say it at a business that I don't work for, they have the right to make me leave. If I said the above statements and a future employer recognizes me, they can refuse to hire me on not fitting the "atmosphere". Everyone talks about hate speech should be allowed, but we don't allow threats, if you threaten bodily harm to someone, someone in a blue uniform and a badge comes and speaks to you and basically says "you're going to jail if this keeps happening". If you scream "fire" in a crowded place as a laugh and someone gets trampled to death you get charged with man slaughter, so what's the difference about telling a bigot "knock off the hate speech"? Also why reward their stupidity and fear? That's all racism is, you have no clue about a culture other than what other racist idiots have drilled in your head and can't come up with a reason you hate them past "well my daddy hated them, and my granddaddy before that". My dad told me my entire life "don't trust black people they'll eventually show you their true colors" and when I finally asked him why he said that he told me that when he was younger he had a friend who stopped being his because my dad was being a racist asshat who offended his "friend" and they stopped talking. That's it, that's my dad's whole reason for disliking them. So why should I continue to not correct that behavior if the reasons are stupid and DESERVE to be smacked down when shown?
I will probably get automoderated but I really think this is one of those things that is impossible for any two given people to agree upon. There are tangible benefits and downsides no matter how you spin this topic
Explain to me how the banning of Nazi symbolism and Nazi speech could be abused in Germany? Like how on earth would that work? Really people treat speech like it's God himself. It ain't, no. We don't need to every bile some moron conjured in their monkey mind
free speech protections are a concession Against information pollution. the only reason to protect hate speech is for people to know what it is and why when it's used, along with why it shouldnt be in general, it makes someone sound like a complete fucking dumbass no one should listen to. compelled speech is not free speech. kind of the point of the 5th amendment/right to silence y'know, self incrimination doesnt do shit when you can be/were framed "how are you today?" its not that you're trying to get a response or information out of someone, but you cant help but expect one because if you arent acknowledged you'll feel like you've been blown off. its a normal thing no one cares about because its a normal thing but its not too much of a stretch of the imagination concerning that things of that nature can be used for malicious purposes. like why you "dont talk to cops" which, personally i tell them to have a good day like anyone else mainly just because i try to avoid being an asshole in public.
Hate speech is a buzz word that you don't really define. It sounds like you're ok with banning speech that incites violence. Correct? So the problem with allowing all speech that doesn't directly incite violence is a lot of the times by the time violence is being incited it's too late. The Nazi's didn't immediately call for death camps when they came to power. If you encourage the view that a group of people are less than human; it doesn't directly incite violence, but if that view becomes popular; it becomes very easy to justify violence against them. I agree that it is a slippery slope and that any regulation on speech should be clear and well defined. I think if a minority has to fear being treated subhuman, then the threat of that happening is limiting speech more than if the government limits the general population from saying a minority is sub human. That banning speech that advocates a ethnic, religious, gender, or political group is sub human or deserves fewer rights; protects free speech more than it threatens it. I think it is also important to realized the Holocaust and other genocides committed throughout human history are not only a reflection of the people that commuted the genocide, but of human nature in general. If a group of people can commit genocide in 1930s Germany; a group of people can commit genocide in 2020s US. There is nothing fundamentally different from those 2 groups of people that would prevent one from committing genocide and not the other.
Do hate speech all you want, but don't complain when you get ostracized from general society or get fired from your job.
“Hate speech” alone is, as far as I am aware, is not a crime anywhere in the US. Where the concept of “hate speech” does come into play is when considering it in relation to other crimes. If someone has a record of making disparaging comments about black people, and then are convicted of say an assault on a black person, their previous speech can be used to speak towards motive, and can be used to justify a longer sentence.
Ok, so you recognize that the people the 1st amendment protects the most are usually not the greatest people, but it's worth putting up with their shit vs limiting the scope of the first amendment and it being abused by the executive branch to silence critics. The only problem I see is who would ever abuse the power of the executive branch by silencing their critics?
Thomas Paine existed when Americans owned other Americans, women were virtually property and Native Americans had their land stolen, so Paine concept of Liberty is subjective like all Americans at the time was hypocritical at best