• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Are Your Thoughts On "Hate Speech"?

Viking11

Viking11

Banned
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
174
Reaction score
60
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 
Last edited:
Viking11 said:
I think society should determine what kinds of speech are acceptable or not. 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 government the power to ban forms of speech is a precedent towards totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

Often more so than it should the public reacts with little information and rush to judgement.
Letting the mobs run loose is not a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Viking11 said:
I think society should determine what kinds of speech are acceptable or not. 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...


Yes, good idea, but what do you do about a Hitler?

What do you do with a guy who calls for the assassination of all gays?

There IS hate, and it's not just sticks and stones. And those who encourage others to hate have to be dealt with through the courts. here, we use "restorative justice" like the judge who asked a rape victim why she couldn't keep her legs together, gets sensitivity training.
 
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...

I don't think there should be laws governing hate speech, however, people need to always realize that with freedom of speech is also consequences (not all consequences are bad) of that speech.
 
Fearandloathing said:
What do you do with a guy who calls for the assassination of all gays?
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be hate speech, that would be a threat which is already covered.
 
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...

Eh, I don't know. I've seen some cases where hate speech laws have been used to silence differing opinions (I'm looking at you Europe).
 
What Are My Thoughts On "Hate Speech"? I hate it... the term that is, because what defines "hate speech" is nothing but very subjective, with a few exceptions. Racial hate speech is one of those that is subjective, in that "hateful" speech toward whites is not seen as "hate speech" in a lot of instances. However, all speech is protected speech (with the exception of certain fighting words) and speech such as what we as a society define as hate speech does normally make it a hell of a lot easier to identify the assholes in the crowd.

Truth be told, IMHO, the term "hate speech" should stop being used because it is used as a tool by some to attack people that they disagree with. It's similar to calling a person a racist, just to shut down the conversation when the discussion is becoming uncomfortable for your beliefs or the discussed facts threaten your chosen position.

Don't like that you're losing the debate? Then label your opponents argument racist, or accuse them of hate speech. There, you've now won. And that's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Fearandloathing said:
Wrong
Click to expand...

No, it's not wrong, at least here in the US. Fighting words, or words that incite violence, are not protected and a person can be prosecuted for doing so. However, there has to be actual harm, or a conspiracy to create harm.

Here's an example:

§ 14-277.1. Communicating threats.

(a) A person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if without lawful authority:

(1) He willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another;

(2) The threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means;

(3) The threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out; and

(4) The person threatened believes that the threat will be carried out.

(b) A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1973, c. 1286, s. 11; 1993, c. 539, s. 172; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1999-262, s. 2.)
 
I think the government has no business arresting you for hate speech. (Barring incitement of violence)

But I reserve the right to fire your ass for it.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Yes, good idea, but what do you do about a Hitler?
Click to expand...

If she's wearing a pantsuit and running for President, you elect her!

What do you do with a guy who calls for the assassination of all gays?
Click to expand...

Welcome him in with open arms!

Preacher Shaykh Hamza Sodagar who advocates burning of homosexuals to speak in London | UK | News | Daily Express

There IS hate, and it's not just sticks and stones. And those who encourage others to hate have to be dealt with through the courts. here, we use "restorative justice" like the judge who asked a rape victim why she couldn't keep her legs together, gets sensitivity training.
Click to expand...

Isn't liberalism zany?
 
Hate speech?




I hate it.




see-what-i-did-there.jpg
 
JANFU said:
Often more so than it should the public reacts with little information and rush to judgement.
Letting the mobs run loose is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Government is not entitled to suppress free speech. I don't want the government to be my speech nanny.
 
I think people should learn to deal with words and not associate with people they don't like.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Yes, good idea, but what do you do about a Hitler?

What do you do with a guy who calls for the assassination of all gays?

There IS hate, and it's not just sticks and stones. And those who encourage others to hate have to be dealt with through the courts. here, we use "restorative justice" like the judge who asked a rape victim why she couldn't keep her legs together, gets sensitivity training.
Click to expand...

What is there to do about him? Did he hurt someone?

And whoever came up with sensitivity training should have a foot up his sensitive area.
 
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...

I think people subject to the actions of those in Society who decide for themselves what is hate speech, and cause shunning and loss of jobs should be jailed and sued.

Anarchy is extremely damaging to society and should be rejected by all.
 
Praxas said:
That wouldn't be hate speech, that would be a threat which is already covered.
Click to expand...

Depends upon how it is worded. Then it must be inciting and immediate action to kill. Is that not correct?
 
TheGoverness said:
Eh, I don't know. I've seen some cases where hate speech laws have been used to silence differing opinions (I'm looking at you Europe).
Click to expand...

I agree, but the position that a government has a legitimate interest in preventing incited violence is a valid one. As a result, I support restrictions on hate speech so long as hate speech is defined as: Making repeated, direct calls for violence against specifically identified groups.
 
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...

So tell me, do you think that America was freer during the days of Jim Crow, when nobody could speak up when Joe White Dude used whatever derogatory racial term he wanted to use, even when it was towards his own employees?
 
Henrin said:
I think people should learn to deal with words and not associate with people they don't like.
Click to expand...

I agree, racist assholes should just deal with it when I call them racist assholes.
 
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...

I totally agree that the First Amendment protects speech. But, society certainly doesn't take care of the issue. Democrats are free to hate all they want. They embrace hatred. Remember Gov. Howard Dean screaming, "I hate all Republicans and everything they stand for." I attended a mandatory "Diversity" class. Three days of being taught who it was okay to hate. Of course, Jews were at the top of the hate list but it was okay to hate white people, white males, but not white femailes, and heterosexuals were fair game but not homosexuals, and Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians, could be hated as cirulently as your want but not Muslims, Satanist, or atheists. I could go on but you know the lines as well as I do.

The party of hate promotes the Race War, the Class War, and the Gender War with hatred and lies. It's all they have. They try, poor things.

The Hate Speech nonsense has let to the beloved by the left Hate Crimes which are, obviously, thought crimes.
 
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...

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.
 
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...

Mythbusters_85bde2_2099332.jpg
 
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...

Ummm...no. Society is the people as a whole, while the government is the ruling body over the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom