• 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

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
81,348
Reaction score
19,619
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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?
 
That's because they don't. They don't think ignoring preferences is free speech, they don't think that being mean to someone is free speech, and they don't think that using slurs is free speech. All of those are free speech of course, but who you're talking about don't see it that way.
 
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?

I don't see how hate speech isn't protected. I also don't see how speech returned to the hate speaker isn't protected.

I think everyone should be concerned with the effort to silence people, and the Constitutional ramifications of doing so.

I am free to ignore hate speech, and even call those engaging in it anything I chose. We enter a very dangerous path when we accept efforts to change that.
 
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?

It does and it's been challenged many times. Snyder v Phelps was a recent decision that should have blown away any further challenges but a lot of folks just have nothing better to do than complain about things so I'm sure it will be challenged again.

Just think about it. How fortunate are we that people in our fine country have the time and resources to lodge formal complaints against others that merely offend them? I mean, they don't need to worry about finding food, staying warm in winter or cool in summer. They don't have to worry that someone will sell them into slavery or haul them off to a "reeducation" camp. They don't have to worry that they will be arrested for expressing their opinions or thrown in jail for protesting the government. If someone robs them the police show up to help. They can vote in elections and aren't forced into military service. They can go to school. They generally have no concerns about water not coming out when they turn on the tap and they have toilets instead of slit trenches.

Life is pretty ****ing good if you're an American but there are folks out there will always feel like they're getting the short end of the stick and those folks choose to ignore all the wonderful things they have and, instead, focus on the the things they don't have.
 
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?

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.
 
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.

Which shows that our laws against murder arent strict enough or that hate crime legislation is a bull of liberal bull**** that is an end around to curbing free speech.
 
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?

People use the term "hate speech" to shut down free speech. The perception of what constitutes hate from others is completely subjective. You can think that I hate you, but only I know if I really do. You may think that because of something I said, that I hate you, but only I know if I really do. You may think that because I say something to you or about you that sounds brutal, but it may not be hateful, just brutally honest.

Subjectivity makes it impossible to define hate speech objectively.
 
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?

Hate speech is free speech. It is most definitely protected under the 1st Amendment, despite how much others don't want it to be.
 
Which shows that our laws against murder arent strict enough or that hate crime legislation is a bull of liberal bull**** that is an end around to curbing free speech.

I disagree. State of mind is an aggravating factor when committing crimes.

If someone kills their wife for a large insurance payout, it's usually punished more severely than if he put a bullet in her head when catching her in bed with a neighbor. Same applies to hate. If a person kills someone or beats them up due to ideological idealism, it's punished more severely than if they did it because they were just having a bad day.
 
Hate speech is free speech. It is most definitely protected under the 1st Amendment, despite how much others don't want it to be.

The line for me is when hate speech crosses over into incitement to violence. I have a major issue with allowing that.

He's not American but Anjem Choudary springs to mind here. I support his incarceration.
 
The line for me is when hate speech crosses over into incitement to violence. I have a major issue with allowing that.

He's not American but Anjem Choudary springs to mind here. I support his incarceration.

Of course. We can't have someone preaching death to whites or blacks or Muslims or Christians or gays, finding a following and then sending them off on Manson like attacks on whatever chosen group his band of brainwashed followers are directed to eliminate.
 
The line for me is when hate speech crosses over into incitement to violence. I have a major issue with allowing that.

He's not American but Anjem Choudary springs to mind here. I support his incarceration.

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.
 
The line for me is when hate speech crosses over into incitement to violence. I have a major issue with allowing that.

He's not American but Anjem Choudary springs to mind here. I support his incarceration.

I agree with you there.
 
Of course. We can't have someone preaching death to whites or blacks or Muslims or Christians or gays, finding a following and then sending them off on Manson like attacks on whatever chosen group his band of brainwashed followers are directed to eliminate.

And yet at the time of the Choudary discussions, there were posters suggesting that freedom of speech pretty much trumps all.

Edit to add: Just saw Matchlight's post. There's another example.
 
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.

I don't think there should be such a thing as a "hate" crime... it's just crime... the motivations don't matter other than they are just evidence.
 
And yet at the time of the Choudary discussions, there were posters suggesting that freedom of speech pretty much trumps all.

Edit to add: Just saw Matchlight's post. There's another example.

I'm not sure what you think my statements were another example OF. Choudary was living and speaking in England, and that means English law applied to him. I doubt the freedom of speech is as strongly protected there as it is here in the U.S. I suspect there is some speech that could not be legally punished here, and yet could be punished in England.
 
There is no such thing as "hate speech," and "hate crime" legislation is never just either, as increasing the penalties when you don't like the motive is literally criminalizing thought.
 
That's because they don't. They don't think ignoring preferences is free speech, they don't think that being mean to someone is free speech, and they don't think that using slurs is free speech. All of those are free speech of course, but who you're talking about don't see it that way.

Of course, those taking that position will usually make a distinction between those speaking in hate and tjose speaking from a position of truth, which is their's.
 
I disagree. State of mind is an aggravating factor when committing crimes.

If someone kills their wife for a large insurance payout, it's usually punished more severely than if he put a bullet in her head when catching her in bed with a neighbor. Same applies to hate. If a person kills someone or beats them up due to ideological idealism, it's punished more severely than if they did it because they were just having a bad day.

That's why we have already have different classes of murder, I see no need for an extra "hate crime" legislation because we already have a very tough top level murder law
 
That's why we have already have different classes of murder, I see no need for an extra "hate crime" legislation because we already have a very tough top level murder law

Not in my opinion. I can kill someone and get out in less than 10 years, if I play my cards right. That's not exactly "a very tough top level murder law."
 
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?


I could be very wrong on this.

To me, it seems that people who use this identifier routinely engage in the rhetoric of hate and condemnation themselves against those that they cite for using hate speech.

The offense they seem to like to cite is not "hate" in the speech of others, but rather disagreement with their own closely held beliefs.

The same tactic was employed in trying to silence any disagreement with the actions and policies of Obama.

Anyone who expressed a difference of opinion with Obama was immediately called a racist.

This seems to be, usually, just another tactic used to silence opposing thoughts.

Of course, there is the occasional jack ass that displays the Nazi flag or threatens to blow up the White House. These are usually just hate, pure and simple.
 
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.

How about those folks that holler "Call the snack bar" while killing folks?
 
People use the term "hate speech" to shut down free speech. The perception of what constitutes hate from others is completely subjective. You can think that I hate you, but only I know if I really do. You may think that because of something I said, that I hate you, but only I know if I really do. You may think that because I say something to you or about you that sounds brutal, but it may not be hateful, just brutally honest.

Subjectivity makes it impossible to define hate speech objectively.

I think "Hate Speech" is more about hating whole, definable groups, not just one person.
 
I think "Hate Speech" is more about hating whole, definable groups, not just one person.

Some people define hate speech as saying something against an idea, or a ideology, or culture. Not just people. Hate speech is whatever anyone wants it to be so they can use the term as a tool to shut down free speech.
 
How about those folks that holler "Call the snack bar" while killing folks?

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