• 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 vs. other illegal speech

W

whateverdude

Banned
Joined
May 4, 2017
Messages
356
Reaction score
45
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Slander and Libel
False threats
Real threats
Lying under oath
Sexual Harrassment

So let's compare,
1.One man runs a hate article against another, as a result, this person recieves backlash in the public, can't get a job, and ends up committing suicide as a result of constant hate based on lies.
2. A troll writes an anti-gay article

1. A man calls a bomb threat on a school, resulting in the school being closed, the cops being called and bomb squads waste their resources looking for a bomb.
2. A pastor says men are in charge of women

1. I tell a woman I'm going to rape her and send a picture of her house to her.
2. I misgender a transperson.

1. A man lies under oath, resulting in either a guilty criminal going free, or an innocent man going to jail.
2. An alt-right collumnist says whites are smarter than blacks.

1. I follow a woman around verbally harassing her saying I wanna lick her asshole, refusing to leave her alone
2. I use the word "Faggot"

For any of these, is option 2 in any way comparable to option 1?

I would say "No" and anyone who says "hate speech" is equal to that other stuff is an overly emotional *****
 
Let's stipulate the difference between illegal (criminal) and actionable (civil). For example if someone says that a roofer bills for work that he never performed the roofer could sue for defamation.
 
SDET said:
Let's stipulate the difference between illegal (criminal) and actionable (civil). For example if someone says that a roofer bills for work that he never performed the roofer could sue for defamation.
Click to expand...

Yea, but to sue someone civilly, we'd need to establish some form of harm. When we set the precedence where people can sue one another over hurt feelings, I believe you'll see social decay unlike we've ever seen before
 
You know, legal technicalities aside, I can't help but think that the founding fathers would be disappointed to find out that their noble concepts and initiatives would be used a couple centuries later by the dregs of American society for nothing more than to justify their apparent right to be ****ing assholes....speaking of social decay....
 
whateverdude said:
Slander and Libel
False threats
Real threats
Lying under oath
Sexual Harrassment

So let's compare,
1.One man runs a hate article against another, as a result, this person recieves backlash in the public, can't get a job, and ends up committing suicide as a result of constant hate based on lies.
2. A troll writes an anti-gay article

1. A man calls a bomb threat on a school, resulting in the school being closed, the cops being called and bomb squads waste their resources looking for a bomb.
2. A pastor says men are in charge of women

1. I tell a woman I'm going to rape her and send a picture of her house to her.
2. I misgender a transperson.

1. A man lies under oath, resulting in either a guilty criminal going free, or an innocent man going to jail.
2. An alt-right collumnist says whites are smarter than blacks.

1. I follow a woman around verbally harassing her saying I wanna lick her asshole, refusing to leave her alone
2. I use the word "Faggot"

For any of these, is option 2 in any way comparable to option 1?

I would say "No" and anyone who says "hate speech" is equal to that other stuff is an overly emotional *****
Click to expand...

The eloquence contained in the brevity of your last sentence sums it up perfectly. :lol: :thumbs:
 
OlNate said:
You know, legal technicalities aside, I can't help but think that the founding fathers would be disappointed to find out that their noble concepts and initiatives would be used a couple centuries later by the dregs of American society for nothing more than to justify their apparent right to be ****ing assholes....speaking of social decay....
Click to expand...

Really?
I don't think the founding fathers were retards. I think if they created freedom of speech, they definintely knew some people were gonna say asshole stuff. It's not really a big deal anyway. There were people who spoke out against the very revolution they fought for.
I'm sure they didn't appreciate the loyalists speaking out against the revolution.

But they weren't little bitches who wanted to ban whatever they didn't like. You think we didn't have assholes back then? The difference is we're not Canada. We have free speech laws for all. We dont pick and choose free speech for those we like

HonestJoe said:
Has anybody claimed they're equal?
Click to expand...

Anyone who believes in anti-hate speech legislature must think they're equal enough for them both to be illegal
 
Yes, people have a right to be "****ing assholes", that's the entire point. You can't silence someone by some subjective standard of being a prick, because it creates a slippery slope that allows for silencing of everyone. It can be used to justify silencing anyone who speaks out against government, for example, and that's what the founders had in mind: always put power in the hands of the people, rather than government. The entire constitution was created with this principle in mind. Keep federal government small and limited, while always allowing the people to have a voice and a chance to change or overthrow government should it become too oppressive.

I agree on one thing, though. The founders would be sick if they saw what we have become today. They would be sick to see that we're even having this discussion, and that people have allowed fed .gov to get so powerful and tax them into oblivion.

Peace. :peace
 
Do people who believe in white supremacy or antifa agree with this statement?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I oppose both groups. I think we can agree that it is wrong to beat someone with whom we disagree. Is it okay to shout down, block or cause mayhem to prevent people with whom we disagree from speaking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom