• 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

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't. We are always engaged in one dialog or another to shift the views of society as a whole. Maybe it is as simple as to what proper road etiquette should be (vice road laws) or what is considered tasteful non-vulgar clothing wear. While we should never seek to legislate such things, the very essence of free speech is allowing the ability, collectively, to shift the views of society and how it acts. For example, it is legal in most states for women to go topless, yet society has said we don't want to see that. There are individuals in society who want to make it more socially acceptable, and they should be allowed to influence and cause such a change. It is not a legal change but a societal one.
 
maquiscat said:
No it wouldn't. We are always engaged in one dialog or another to shift the views of society as a whole. Maybe it is as simple as to what proper road etiquette should be (vice road laws) or what is considered tasteful non-vulgar clothing wear. While we should never seek to legislate such things, the very essence of free speech is allowing the ability, collectively, to shift the views of society and how it acts. For example, it is legal in most states for women to go topless, yet society has said we don't want to see that. There are individuals in society who want to make it more socially acceptable, and they should be allowed to influence and cause such a change. It is not a legal change but a societal one.
Click to expand...

Shift the views of society? By force? By intimidation? By allowing a group to define what is acceptable speech and what is not? I don't think you should confuse etiquette with freedom of speech.

There are public decency laws on the books that define what is acceptable dress while in public. Citizens can change those laws via the proscribed process, if they choose.

Silencing speech, because it is no longer considered acceptable by certain groups, is a dangerous practice to encourage. It is entirely subjective, and violates the 1st Amendment.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It's the English definition.
Click to expand...

In the United Kingdom, any Hate Speech even without threats is a crime. Hundreds of people have been jailed for rude tweets.
 
ocean515 said:
Shift the views of society? By force? By intimidation? By allowing a group to define what is acceptable speech and what is not? I don't think you should confuse etiquette with freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Define how you are using "force" in this context. It certainly isn't by the force of law that I am talking about. I am advocating the use of social pressure. You will always have those who do not bow to such a force, but when enough people run counter to an established social norm, then they force a change to such that must now be accepted, by society as a whole, leaving those who were the social pressure, the ones running counter to it. They will either then disappear eventually, or amass again to force the change back. Look at acceptable swimwear and body displays. At one point anything above the ankles for women was unacceptable. Over time because of free speech and other rights, people have forced the changed to where above the knee is nothing special

There are public decency laws on the books that define what is acceptable dress while in public. Citizens can change those laws via the proscribed process, if they choose.
Click to expand...

Indeed there are public decency laws, but there are also social norms that go beyond those laws. As noted, in most places there is no actual law against women going toplessin public. There is no law to change to allow women to go topless on a more regular basis. It is social pressure that prevents more women from doing so. Through free speech and social pressure that could change, and we must allow for such to occur and the change to be embraced.

Silencing speech, because it is no longer considered acceptable by certain groups, is a dangerous practice to encourage. It is entirely subjective, and violates the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
You have a serious conceptual error on the 1st Amendment going on here, silencing speech by force of law, or by physical force indeed would be a first Amendment violation. But when I tell you that you may not speak upon a certain subject, or else you will not be allowed on/removed from (depending upon the current situation) my property, and you decide that you being allowed access to my property is worth more than speaking on the subject, I have effectively silenced you with no 1st Amendment violations. If I run a forum and state that there will be no discussion or mention of Star Wars, else the poster(s) will be banned and the posts deleted, there is no violation of the 1st Amendment. This difference is why we should never allow such force to be legislated it should always allow it to occur naturally. Free Speech is a vehicle through which social pressure operates.
 
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...



The first amendment does NOT allow speech of any kind that is likely to cause harm. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is one example. Driving through Watts yelling N****r is another.

I know Americans believe in that because after 911 a tenured "Woman's Studies" professor made a speech about how the USA "deserved" the attack because "US history is steeped in blood, steeped in the blood of blacks, browns and everyone who they have repressed'

The American right wanted her fired. And at least one said tarred and fathered.

So, even the extreme right figures there's a limit.
 
maquiscat said:
No it wouldn't. We are always engaged in one dialog or another to shift the views of society as a whole. Maybe it is as simple as to what proper road etiquette should be (vice road laws) or what is considered tasteful non-vulgar clothing wear. While we should never seek to legislate such things, the very essence of free speech is allowing the ability, collectively, to shift the views of society and how it acts. For example, it is legal in most states for women to go topless, yet society has said we don't want to see that. There are individuals in society who want to make it more socially acceptable, and they should be allowed to influence and cause such a change. It is not a legal change but a societal one.
Click to expand...



I agree with everything but one. "..is allowing the ability, collectively, to shift the views of society" should read "to try to shift the views of society."

A small thing but could be gigantic in the wrong hands/interpretation.
 
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.
Click to expand...

the above is incorrect, the 1st amendment does not grant anything but only recognizes free speech which existed before the constitution was ever created, rights are recognized by the constitution or recognized by the USSC, law does not create rights.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I agree with everything but one. "..is allowing the ability, collectively, to shift the views of society" should read "to try to shift the views of society."

A small thing but could be gigantic in the wrong hands/interpretation.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with you. It is a distinction similar to what I gave Ocean515 on his comment, that started this sub topic.
 
Fearandloathing said:
The first amendment does NOT allow speech of any kind that is likely to cause harm.
Click to expand...

That is not an accurate statement of the law. Speech may be likely to cause harm, and yet be protected by the First Amendment. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
 
Fearandloathing said:
The first amendment does NOT allow speech of any kind that is likely to cause harm. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is one example. Driving through Watts yelling N****r is another.
Click to expand...
Yes freedom is limited.

I know Americans believe in that because after 911 a tenured "Woman's Studies" professor made a speech about how the USA "deserved" the attack because "US history is steeped in blood, steeped in the blood of blacks, browns and everyone who they have repressed'

The American right wanted her fired. And at least one said tarred and fathered.
Click to expand...
That professor being fired would be fair. Tarred and feathered? Who said that a 1950s cartoon?

So, even the extreme right figures there's a limit.
Click to expand...
Well there is a limit, total freedom is anarchy.
 
Last edited:
Hate speech is free speech, meaning you can't be prosecuted by the government for it. It doesn't mean it has no consequences from rest of society.
 
CLAX1911 said:
That is assault. And if you have to assault people for saying things you don't agree with, than you must be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll sleep like baby knowing anyone who disrespects me or my family gets what coming to them.

Sorry, I can't get over the past :mrgreen:
 
Fearandloathing said:
The first amendment does NOT allow speech of any kind that is likely to cause harm. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is one example. Driving through Watts yelling N****r is another.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment does not "allow" or disallow any kind of speech. The First Amendment is a restriction on what the government may prohibit.

"Fire in a crowded theater" is an old wives' tale, extraneous dicta in a Supreme Court case which has long been overruled anyway. It was never "outlawed," it didn't even have anything to do with that overruled case. But it's something everyone thinks they "know."

The only exceptions to the First Amendment protection of free speech are fighting words, incitements to violence or unlawfulness, and libel/slander. Each has a strict definition, and any restriction falling under any of them must meet strict scrutiny, which means that not all restrictions of those exceptional types of speech pass Constitutional muster. So no, your blanket, absolute statement is not correct.

"Likely to cause harm" is not any Constitutional standard for restricting any fundamental right.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Hate speech is free speech, meaning you can't be prosecuted by the government for it. It doesn't mean it has no consequences from rest of society.
Click to expand...

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

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

Think.jpg
 
CLAX1911 said:
Disrespects your family? What are you in the mafia or something?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Hate speech is indeed on the whole protected in the US that does not mean however that such speeches can not be attack and those who put it out can not be regard as hate full people for using it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom