What Are Your Thoughts On "Hate Speech"?

Society is the state but that doesn't mean society can do what it likes. There are checks and balances (fortunately or unfortunately). If we were truly a representative democracy slavery would have lasted longer than it did and their would be no marriage. Gay marriage was not legislated.

The state is constrained by the constitution. The state can not do whatever it likes. Thank you Jesus.

JumpinJack said:

Hate speech is not illegal. Hate CRIMES are.

In any case, society IS the state, since we have a representative democracy. "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If you want a different kind of government, there are other countries that have dictatorships. All of the free world has representative government, though.

Click to expand...

Henrin said:

Ummm...no. Society is the people as a whole, while the government is the ruling body over the people.

Click to expand...

Of the people, by the people, for the people. We elect our representatives from among ourselves. Those representatives write the laws and execute them. We, the people, can and do elect different representatives to change the laws.

Our government is us, and we are the government.

TobyOne said:

Society is the state but that doesn't mean society can do what it likes. There are checks and balances (fortunately or unfortunately). If we were truly a representative democracy slavery would have lasted longer than it did and their would be no marriage. Gay marriage was not legislated.

The state is constrained by the constitution. The state can not do whatever it likes. Thank you Jesus.

Click to expand...

We wrote the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. We, the people. We also write the laws that govern us in our daily lives. If we don't approve of the laws, we can elect other people to write different laws. We do it every year.

We have no monarchy. We have laws and representatives that we elect from among ourselves.

If it is what people are thinking or feeling then that is what they should say, that is how I feel.

Oh, and speaking our minds true should NEVER be a crime.

Hawkeye10 said:

If it is what people are thinking or feeling then that is what they should say, that is how I feel.

Oh, and speaking our minds true should NEVER be a crime.

Click to expand...

There are limited kinds of speech that we, as a society, have decided are criminal. The age old example is that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You also can't incite others to violence in a public forum. It's also illegal to threaten someone with violence. And so on.

Just because someone thinks and feels it, doesn't mean it falls under free speech. It depends on how it affects others. Each of us does not live alone here. There are millions of us. Each of us has rights. Not just you or him or me. My rights end where yours begin.

JumpinJack said:

There are limited kinds of speech that we, as a society, have decided are criminal. The age old example is that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You also can't incite others to violence in a public forum. It's also illegal to threaten someone with violence. And so on.

Just because someone thinks and feels it, doesn't mean it falls under free speech. It depends on how it affects others. Each of us does not live alone here. There are millions of us. Each of us has rights. Not just you or him or me. My rights end where yours begin.

Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood the thread...I just got back from Top of Tacoma feeling good, maybe I got it wrong.

I thought it was my opinion that was asked for.

Hawkeye10 said:

Maybe I misunderstood the thread...I just got back from Top of Tacoma feeling good, maybe I got it wrong.

I thought it was my opinion that was asked for.

Click to expand...

You said never, he provided some examples that show it's not quite never. After all, no right is truly absolute.

Deuce said:

You said never, he provided some examples that show it's not quite never. After all, no right is truly absolute.

Click to expand...

Is that a divine law or something, that no right is absolute?

I dont swing that way in any case.

Hawkeye10 said:

Is that a divine law or something, that no right is absolute?

I dont swing that way in any case.

Click to expand...

Well, we covered free speech, unless you think direct threats should be legal.

What else you think is absolute?

JumpinJack said:

Of the people, by the people, for the people. We elect our representatives from among ourselves. Those representatives write the laws and execute them. We, the people, can and do elect different representatives to change the laws.

Our government is us, and we are the government.

Click to expand...

Is that why a good percentage of them come from Harvard and Yale? Anyway, nothing you said changes much of anything. Society and government are different things, not one in the same. Government makes their own rules and the rules that we must follow as well. They are above and beyond the people, not part of us.

Deuce said:

Well, we covered free speech, unless you think direct threats should be legal.

What else you think is absolute?

Click to expand...

Are threats always with the intent of being acted on? Are threats themselves harming others?

"HATE SPEECH" is highly subjective, and open to interpretation.

Just like HATE CRIMES.

Notice almost ZERO minorities are prosecuted for hate speech or hate crimes, yet they do them all the time.

Henrin said:

Are threats always with the intent of being acted on? Are threats themselves harming others?

Click to expand...

No, not always.

And yes, threats themselves can be quite harmful.

Viking11 said:

I think society should determine what kinds of speech are acceptable or not, not the State. Society already takes care of this problem very well. People who say hateful things are shunned and often lose their jobs. Anything could be classified as "hate speech", so giving the State the power to ban forms of speech is a precedent towards totalitarianism.

Click to expand...

The federal government was given no authority whatsoever as to what speech anybody used for any reason other than to incite illegal activity harmful to all or endanger all. The feds could step in for instance if a person suggested an airliner should be hijacked or that a terrorist bomb should be placed in a public place and such as that. But one person saying something hateful to or about another person or group? Nope. It was never intended that the federal government would have any jurisdiction regarding that.

But the states or local communities were not prohibited by the original constitution from being able to put whatever restrictions they wanted on speech. If your town wanted no public profanity, it could pass a law imposing a penalty for public profanity. If it wanted no offensive signs or media/literature, it could have that. The federal government was not given power to dictate what sort of society Americans must have. And the intention was that the people would have complete liberty to organize and enforce whatever sort of society they wished to have so long as they did not interfere with the liberties of the next town or county or state.

Deuce said:

No, not always.

And yes, threats themselves can be quite harmful.

Click to expand...

How can treats be harmful? By causing fear?

AlbqOwl said:

The federal government was given no authority whatsoever as to what speech anybody used for any reason other than to incite illegal activity harmful to all or endanger all. The feds could step in for instance if a person suggested an airliner should be hijacked or that a terrorist bomb should be placed in a public place and such as that. But one person saying something hateful to or about another person or group? Nope. It was never intended that the federal government would have any jurisdiction regarding that.

But the states or local communities were not prohibited by the original constitution from being able to put whatever restrictions they wanted on speech. If your town wanted no public profanity, it could pass a law imposing a penalty for public profanity. If it wanted no offensive signs or media/literature, it could have that. The federal government was not given power to dictate what sort of society Americans must have. And the intention was that the people would have complete liberty to organize and enforce whatever sort of society they wished to have so long as they did not interfere with the liberties of the next town or county or state.

Click to expand...

Local communities cannot “…put whatever restrictions they wanted on speech.” Unprotected speech, such as "fighting words," "true threats" and words inciting participation in illegal activity, can be restricted. As can profane speech in school areas and military bases. A private landowner can restrict free speech, but not if the property is freely open to the public, such as a mall. There are also various FCC regulation of airwaves.

There is a legal definition of hate speech:

“Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.”

However, hate speech in and of itself is not illegal. If hate speech can be proven to incite a crime, then it can be considered as additional sentencing to the sentence for the underlying crime.

bluesmoke said:

Local communities cannot “…put whatever restrictions they wanted on speech.” Unprotected speech, such as "fighting words," "true threats" and words inciting participation in illegal activity, can be restricted. As can profane speech in school areas and military bases. A private landowner can restrict free speech, but not if the property is freely open to the public, such as a mall.

There is a legal definition of hate speech:

“Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.”

However, hate speech in and of itself is not illegal. If hate speech can be proven to incite a crime, then it can be considered as additional sentencing to the sentence for the underlying crime.

Click to expand...

I know of no federal law that says a community cannot ban public profanity, nudity, obscenity, or whatever else they deem unacceptable in that society. They just can't pass a law for anybody else but themselves.

As for "hate speech", the Founders gave no authority to the federal government to ordain what is or is not 'hate speech' nor to impose any regulation or penalty regarding it. Liberty allows us the right to hate, to say we hate, however we define that, so long as we do not violate the rights of another. Any restrictions on that liberty were to be left to the states and local people. For the federal government to provide any definition or any law regarding speech of any kind other than that which is intended to incite violence to the detriment of others is to violate the most core principle of protection of our liberties that the Constitution was intended to protect.

AlbqOwl said:

I know of no federal law that says a community cannot ban public profanity, nudity, obscenity, or whatever else they deem unacceptable in that society. They just can't pass a law for anybody else but themselves.

As for "hate speech", the Founders gave no authority to the federal government to ordain what is or is not 'hate speech' nor to impose any regulation or penalty regarding it. Liberty allows us the right to hate, to say we hate, however we define that, so long as we do not violate the rights of another. Any restrictions on that liberty were to be left to the states and local people. For the federal government to provide any definition or any law regarding speech of any kind other than that which is intended to incite violence to the detriment of others is to violate the most core principle of protection of our liberties that the Constitution was intended to protect.

Click to expand...

At least we both agree hate speech is legal.

The federal law you say you don’t know of is the 1st Amendment. It’s a “You can” law, not a “You can’t” law. A reference that discusses the subject:

About Laws Against Profanity | eHow

Or, maybe you have a countering reference for me. Then it would be a debate.

It’s rather impracticable to say there can be no legal definition of something. How else can a court determine what something is? Courts have done so throughout history. If a “legal” definition has not been set, the court determines definition from a selected dictionary. Not that coming up with a definition is easy, as in defining “obscene”. As Justice Potter Stewart said “I know it when I see it”.

The definition I gave is also in the reference shown above, which includes the incitement of violence. The Supreme Court used an “imminent danger” standard if they are considering a case where someone was found guilty for hate speech alone.

Or, maybe you have a countering reference for me. Then, like I said, it would be a debate.

bluesmoke said:

At least we both agree hate speech is legal.

The federal law you say you don’t know of is the 1st Amendment. It’s a “You can” law, not a “You can’t” law. A reference that discusses the subject:

About Laws Against Profanity | eHow

Or, maybe you have a countering reference for me. Then it would be a debate.

It’s rather impracticable to say there can be no legal definition of something. How else can a court determine what something is? Courts have done so throughout history. If a “legal” definition has not been set, the court determines definition from a selected dictionary. Not that coming up with a definition is easy, as in defining “obscene”. As Justice Potter Stewart said “I know it when I see it”.

The definition I gave is also in the reference shown above, which includes the incitement of violence. The Supreme Court used an “imminent danger” standard if they are considering a case where someone was found guilty for hate speech alone.

Or, maybe you have a countering reference for me. Then, like I said, it would be a debate.

Click to expand...

Sorry but my opinion is not debatable. It is what it is. I have participated in many debates and know the difference between that and opinion. I know the difference between that and a discussion. I am engaged in a discussion re my opinion on hate speech and have supported my opinion sufficiently to satisfy me. You are welcome to rebut it if you can--I would rather be right than just assume I am right and I will always acknowledge a good argument made by another. But a message board simply does not allow the right conditions for a formal debate. So you're right, it is not a debate. It is a discussion.

(As an old debate coach I can't resist giving points to those who make an excellent argument for their beliefs or point of view though. )

AlbqOwl said:

Sorry but my opinion is not debatable. It is what it is. I have participated in many debates and know the difference between that and opinion. I know the difference between that and a discussion. I am engaged in a discussion re my opinion on hate speech and have supported my opinion sufficiently to satisfy me. You are welcome to rebut it if you can--I would rather be right than just assume I am right and I will always acknowledge a good argument made by another. But a message board simply does not allow the right conditions for a formal debate. So you're right, it is not a debate. It is a discussion.

(As an old debate coach I can't resist giving points to those who make an excellent argument for their beliefs or point of view though. )

Click to expand...

As a former Masterdebater, I couldn't agree with you more.