Hate speech

Cigar said:

Call it whatever you want, there's no debate on how I handle my business, and it's worked just fine for me.

A man needs to know their own limitations, so your mileage may very.

Click to expand...

So are you a gascon?

SCitizen said:

Sadly even in USA thousands people have been fired for Politically Incorrect Speech.

In UK, Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, thousands have been jailed.

View attachment 67215790

Click to expand...

Why is it sad it someone get fired for their comments on issues by a private employer who does not agree with those comments and does not wish to be associate with those comments by way of a known employee of their.

Of course you can post anonymous where your comments does not reflected on the employer in any way and the employer even does not even know of your connection with the posting.

SCitizen said:

Sadly even in USA thousands people have been fired for Politically Incorrect Speech.

In UK, Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, thousands have been jailed.

View attachment 67215790

Click to expand...

Well, if my employee starts calling black customers the n-word and telling the female customers they are fine pieces of ass, they are getting fired. But I don't think they should go to jail.

calamity said:

You can say what you want, but if you start yelling N-word this and N-word that while shooting black people, you're going to be charged with a hate crime. Same applies for pretty much any group you do that to, including whites.

Click to expand...

Why does your example include "shooting at black people"? Is it your understanding the opening post is discussing hate speech as an enhancement for punishment for an underlying crime?

NotreDame said:

Why does your example include "shooting at black people"? Is it your understanding the opening post is discussing hate speech as an enhancement for punishment for an underlying crime?

Click to expand...

IMO, speech related to an underlying crime is the only kind of speech which can be called "hate speech."

Without a crime being committed which is related to said speech, I really do not care what people say.

calamity said:

IMO, speech related to an underlying crime is the only kind of speech which can be called "hate speech."

Click to expand...

Understood. Okay. So, absent an underlying crime, speech is speech and worthy of protection under the 1st Amendment (excluding, of course, those areas of speech long recognized to be exceptions).

NotreDame said:

Understood. Okay. So, absent an underlying crime, speech is speech and worthy of protection under the 1st Amendment (excluding, of course, those areas of speech long recognized to be exceptions).

Click to expand...

Sure. I may not agree with some of the things free speech leads to, but unless there is a crime associated with it, I see no reason to make it illegal or otherwise punishable by the state.

The latest issue that caught my attention is that some people are egging-on others into committing suicide, even convincing them to broadcast it live video. Clearly an abhorrent prospect: talking already depressed people into hanging themselves for the lulz and then watching them do the deed for more kicks. But, I am not sure that the speech itself should be illegal in its own right.

Skeptic Bob said:

Well, if my employee starts calling black customers the n-word and telling the female customers they are fine pieces of ass, they are getting fired. But I don't think they should go to jail.

Click to expand...

Thant is right!

But people are fired for posting controversial political opinions online.

SCitizen said:

Thant is right!

But people are fired for posting controversial political opinions online.

Click to expand...

An once more what wrong with firing an employee who publicly take a stand that you do not wish your firm to be connected with?

In Florida most employees are employed at will and can be let go for almost any reason.

This is not a matter of freedom of speech but an issue of an employer right to employ who they wish to.

CLAX1911 said:

As of late I've heard the term "hate speech being thrown around a lot. So, my question is, doesn't the first amendment protect speech regardless of its emotional motivations?

Click to expand...

This is one of the areas in which American jurisprudence and legislative postures are deeply screwed up.

It is a tangled knot, difficult to unravel in a short space, but lets see if we can manage to clarify things a bit.

Very broadly speaking, human linguistic utterances (speech) can serve any of several purposes. Most simplistically speaking, they can convey assertions of fact, or those of opinion. In my view, it is opinion that is most strongly protected by the 1A. Facts, too, are protected, but also encompass communications elements not generally found in opinions. Most particularly, fact-speech may readily convey messages of intent.

Therefore, there is a world of difference in the semantics of "I think Barack Obama is an America-hating scumbag" and "I am going to shoot Donald Trump". The former is opinion and is clearly protected by the 1A. The latter is a clear expression of intent, and while it may be a load of hot air, those in earshot of the utterance are well within their proper reason to assume the speaker is serious about and capable of carrying out that which is stated.

The place where the courts have truly pooched is the so-called "hate speech" issue. "Barack Obama is a nigger and should be lynched with piano wire from a tree" is a pretty good example of such speech. I think most of us would agree that it is not the nicest thing to say to, or about, anyone - even Obama. And yet, it is nonetheless an opinion, even if the precise formulation of the sentence is more akin to a statement of fact. But does errant grammar render an utterance criminal? For the most part, I very seriously doubt it. In fact, I am not convinced off the top of me head that any utterance is criminal. Risky, perhaps, but not criminal. For instance, if a stranger approaches me on the street while saying he is going to kill me, I do not take it as a criminal act. I do, however, regard it as a threat and might be moved to produce a pistol and shoot him. Regrettable as that outcome might be, another man communicated an intention to do me grave harm and I respond accordingly. The words are no crime, in sé, but express the intent to commit one upon my person, which places me in the position of having to choose between risking being harmed or acting to preempt it.

In such matters, the courts have failed with impossible spectacle. As far as I am concerned, ALL speech is protected. That does not, however, mean that all speech is safe. Some speech, such as that conveying threats, is risky. The courts recognize this, but only in limited fashion, having placed all manner of idiotic caveats and limitations on how a man can respond when threatened. Most of the nonsense seems to revolve around the "reasonable man" standard. I reject this mostly, in the belief that those who make utterances bear the onus of taking great care in the formulation of their sentences. Why do we think that men of yore spoke with such care and circumspection? It wasn't because they were imbeciles with pathological penchants for flowery talk, but because men were more equal in those days than they are today. In days gone long by, men settled their affairs between one another, even unto death. That is why one did not speak in cavalier fashion; after all, be might find himself on the wrong end of another man's sword.

Today, sadly, language has been so grossly discounted that few people take it seriously. Imagine that; the single most important skill that any human being ever learns is treated with such carelessness! Today, people routinely make noises with their mouths that 150 years ago would have gotten them killed. In my opinion, the world is very much the poorer for it.

A man should be able to say just about anything he pleases without fear of "law". However, he is not entitled to utter words without risk in the cases where they constitute physical threats to others. Likewise, I would say they are not protected from the consequences of defamation and libel. While those can also constitute threats, they are not immediately physical, but rather constitute attacks upon one's reputation, the results of which can be every bit as damaging as a knife wound.

This is why I advocate a return to true warrior culture. Were the race of men to do this, the world would become a far improved place over its current status as political dung-heap.

In.

My.

Opinion.

calamity said:

Yelling, "Death to infidels" before opening fire upon a crowd would be a hate crime. Yelling, "My god is great," however, would not be.

Click to expand...

How about yelling "Death to infidels" and then doing absolutely nothing? Hate speech deserving of sanction?
How about yelling "My God is great" before opening up with a machine gun on a crowd? Hate speech?

Athanasius68 said:

How about yelling "Death to infidels" and then doing absolutely nothing? Hate speech deserving of sanction?
How about yelling "My God is great" before opening up with a machine gun on a crowd? Hate speech?

Click to expand...

It is the speech that is protected, not the firing of a machine gun into a crowd. Your retort was right on the money, however.

Charles Cook lays it out pretty well here,

Howard Dean: 'Hate Speech' Not Protected by First Amendment | National Review

The first amendment of the USA protects all forms of speech. Period. Hate speech is a term derived from liberals who cannot handle the truth. Leftists often complain that being offensive is abusing the freedom of speech. To quote the constitution directly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The end.

BillRM said:

An once more what wrong with firing an employee who publicly take a stand that you do not wish your firm to be connected with?

In Florida most employees are employed at will and can be let go for almost any reason.

This is not a matter of freedom of speech but an issue of an employer right to employ who they wish to.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you believe that an employer can use his position to punish an employee for words the employee has used outside of the work place. Pray tell the readers, HOW is such an action to be seen as promoting "free speech"? Or the fact that a person may suffer economic consequences because of their words is not seen by you as a restriction on "free speech", amirite?

TheRightSide said:

The first amendment of the USA protects all forms of speech. Period. Hate speech is a term derived from liberals who cannot handle the truth. Leftists often complain that being offensive is abusing the freedom of speech. To quote the constitution directly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The end.

Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't. it doesn't protect you from inciting a riot or would cause a mass hysteria such as yelling fire in a building.

Somerville said:

Apparently, you believe that an employer can use his position to punish an employee for words the employee has used outside of the work place. Pray tell the readers, HOW is such an action to be seen as promoting "free speech"? Or the fact that a person may suffer economic consequences because of their words is not seen by you as a restriction on "free speech", amirite?

Click to expand...

The right to free speech refers to government and laws. That's all.
What you describe might be a wrongful dismissal issue, but employers limit your rights in ways the government can't all the time.

I wrote a paper in college about this topic. My artifact was "The Turner Diaries", a white-power novel written by some lunatic whose name escapes me at the moment.

Although I'm a huge advocate for the first amendment and bill of rights in general, my argument in the paper was that this artifact doesn't deserve protection. The reason is rather simple, let me be as concise as possible.

1) Inciting violence is one of the very few exceptions to protected speech. If you provoke people into deliberate violence they otherwise might not have committed, you can be held liable. Of course there's a big grey area, and most examples are still protected. But sometimes it's so obvious that the original intent is to incite violence, like with The Turner Diaries.

First, the book is basically a race war manifesto disguised as a novel. Most chapters read like an instruction manual on how to make bombs and weapons caches. The entire plot revolves around a protagonist who ends his life via suicide bombing the pentagon, under the guise of "protecting the white race".

There are some other examples of this kind of stuff being censored, such as "The Anarchist's Cookbook". It details how to make bombs and weapons from household items. It is illegal even in America.

So even though 99% of speech ought to be allowed, now and then an exception does arise. And as for employers limiting expression, that's another issue entirely. Employers can pretty much do as they please, as long as it's not considered discrimination based on gender/race.