• 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!

Hate speech

matchlight said:
It would not be easy to commit murder that was in fact premeditated, and yet successfully hide the premeditation. It takes very little forethought to make an intentional homicide first-degree murder--even a few seconds' worth of purposeful intent may be enough to defeat a "heat of the moment" defense.
Click to expand...
Since the state has to prove intent and premeditation...

The first step would be for the suspect to keep his mouth shut after arrest. The second step comes from keeping his mouth shut before committing the crime. From what I can tell, a good lawyer can work wonders from there.

My favorite was the Dr who shot his wife in the head, twice. And then said it was an "accident." He only got 14 years, out in 7.
 
CLAX1911 said:
In certain instances yes in others no. In some cases it can even be considered seditious.
Click to expand...

I guess so. Maybe violence in US media is partly responsible for high homicide rate.
 
SCitizen said:
I guess so. Maybe violence in US media is partly responsible for high homicide rate.
Click to expand...

That isn't inciting violence.

An example of iciting violence is giving a speech to you're naighbors in which you talk them into burning down someone's house with them in it. Should a house get burned down and poeple killed as a result the person that made the speech can be held criminally liable.
 
CLAX1911 said:
An example of inciting violence is giving a speech to you're neighbors in which you talk them into burning down someone's house with them in it. Should a house get burned down and people killed as a result the person that made the speech can be held criminally liable.
Click to expand...

This is US definition of inciting violence -- I guess I agree more with US definition then with European ones.
 
It's amazing how many people have no clue what "hate speech" means, legally, in the US. First, we can consider the non-legal meaning. I think we all know when non-illegal hate speech looks like. It doesn't take a genius to spot it. Now, regarding illegal hate speech (for those ignorantly citing free speech) here are the requirements for conviction:

1. The person makes a credible threat against a specific target or group target, by imploring violence.
2. The person makes the threat to a specific audience that is likely to carry out his wishes.
3. Overall, there must be a real and likely chance for the imploring to be acted upon.

Just saying "I hate blacks" is not hate speech according to the law.

So, to all the free speech criers out there: regarding non-legal accusations of hate speech, suck it up snowflake. Regarding legal charges of hate speech, learn the law.
 
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?

The more I see this word tossed around the more it seems that people think it isn't protected.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I cannot comprehend the sanity of restricting and taking away our rights. It has taken 10's maybe 100's of thousands of years for people to attain the freedom our forefathers gave us. Only the insane would want to start restricting and taking them back away from us. Unbelievable.
 
CLAX1911 said:
That isn't inciting violence.

An example of iciting violence is giving a speech to you're naighbors in which you talk them into burning down someone's house with them in it. Should a house get burned down and poeple killed as a result the person that made the speech can be held criminally liable.
Click to expand...

You mean like all the hate yelled at protest by the left over Trump beating Hillary before they start attacking the right or burning and looting their businesses.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I cannot comprehend the sanity of restricting and taking away our rights. It has taken 10's maybe 100's of thousands of years for people to attain the freedom our forefathers gave us. Only the insane would want to start restricting and taking them back away from us. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Me either. I think it's because the argument is difficult to win rationally. So people say is hate speech in an effort to close it.
 
ocean515 said:
We enter a very dangerous path when we accept efforts to change that.
Click to expand...

We enter a very dangerous path when we accept efforts to legislate that change. The difference here is significant and important.
 
matchlight said:
That may be the line for you, but it is not where Brandenburg set the line. The legal standard is not so simple--incitement to violence, per se, is not necessarily speech unprotected by the First Amendment.

I have noticed that sites like this one often--and ironically--do not protect the freedom of speech very strongly.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech refers only to the government, and not to private sites like this one. And in reality, even with any restrictions this site may impose, your freedom of speech (expression) is not limited. Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of said speech when it comes to another's private property right and freedom of association.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
You mean like all the hate yelled at protest by the left over Trump beating Hillary before they start attacking the right or burning and looting their businesses.
Click to expand...

That Starbucks will never be right again.

What the heck was that about?
 
matchlight said:
The problem with the First Amendment arises when people--many of whom, ironically, claim to be "liberal"--try to use government to suppress views they personally dislike.
Click to expand...

This is not a Liberal or Conservative topic. It's a constitutional topic. I like the viewpoint of this article, concerning boundaries.

Legality of Hate Speech

The 1st Amendment grants people the right to freedom of speech by allowing them to express themselves without governmental interference or constraint. Should the government interfere with one’s freedom of speech (i.e., by regulating the content of speech), the Supreme Court requires that there be substantial justification. However, there are limitations to the freedom of speech recognized by the Supreme Court. For instance, the government may prohibit speech which may cause violence or breach of peace.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It's the English definition.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that is the definition for U.K., Australia and New Zeland as well? They are also English.
 
maquiscat said:
We enter a very dangerous path when we accept efforts to legislate that change. The difference here is significant and important.
Click to expand...

That is the point I'm making. Legislating hate speech, creating a virtual dictionary of PC filtered words that can or can't be spoken, is a very dangerous thing.

This fascist trend is being fertilized on College Campuses, and within legislative bodies around the country. It's something all citizens should be very wary off, and should be a consideration when choosing who to vote for in coming elections.
 
ocean515 said:
That is the point I'm making. Legislating hate speech, creating a virtual dictionary of PC filtered words that can or can't be spoken, is a very dangerous thing.

This fascist trend is being fertilized on College Campuses, and within legislative bodies around the country. It's something all citizens should be very wary off, and should be a consideration when choosing who to vote for in coming elections.
Click to expand...
You might misunderstand what my point is. We can accept and make those changes in society as a whole. We do it all the time. History is rife with such social shifts. That is why the distinction between accepting the efforts to make these changes and accepting the effort to legislate those changes are significantly different. The later must never happen, and the former must be allowed.
 
If someone telegraphs intent, which is basically what hate speech laws focus on, then why should they not be punished more harshly for it? If anything, I see it as a sort of Darwin Award.

Person A has a facebook page chock full of Hitler worship. He also writes a blog which calls Jews subhumans who are evil and control the world. One day, Person A ignited a bomb in a synagogue. No one dies or gets hurt. Are you people who oppose hate speech laws honestly going to argue that his was just a simple, random act of vandalism?
 
maquiscat said:
You might misunderstand what my point is. We can accept and make those changes in society as a whole. We do it all the time. History is rife with such social shifts. That is why the distinction between accepting the efforts to make these changes and accepting the effort to legislate those changes are significantly different. The later must never happen, and the former must be allowed.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. In your context, the former you write of would result in violations of another persons protected rights. We should never allow that to happen.

The fact there are many who are in great support of violating another's constitutional rights is a big problem.
 
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?

The more I see this word tossed around the more it seems that people think it isn't protected.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think a kick to the teeth stops all Sate Speech
 
Cigar said:
I think a kick to the teeth stops all Sate Speech
Click to expand...

I don't think the country needs to add the cost of dental care for all the liberal/socialist progressives who would need it as a result of your suggestion.
 
ocean515 said:
I don't think the country needs to add the cost of dental care for all the liberal/socialist progressives who would need it as a result of your suggestion.
Click to expand...

Usually once works for me.
 
ocean515 said:
History records accounts of groups who used such tactics to bring people into line. A couple were quite prevalent in the late 30's and early 40's.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's not for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom