• 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

You should probaby see a doctor if my words are a credible imminent threat of harm or lawless action to you.

Some people do need to see a doctor. Those doctor needing people have access to the magistrate's office and can file charges against those who do not need a doctor. So please. Stop using your free speech. As a society it is our obligation to protect those who need to see doctors. Mentally sick people are capable of hating opinions just as well as mentally healthy people.
 
If you claim that my words are a credible threat you need to be able to prove it. The claim of any person must be able to be verified because their words alone are not sufficient. Someone who is delusional cannot threaten the free speech rights of others because they see a threat where none existed.

Not right now but once we ban disgusting, filthy, and hateful speech that should never be said by anyone then it opens the doors to all types of nonsense. I can shut you up for anything I don't like if you can shut someone else up for things you don't like. Then we will live in a facebook-type world of pansies with no ideas to better society.

The dictators will love to have access to masses of people who silence each other. They can rule with no opposition or necessity to improve. They won't even get their hands dirty by murdering their opposition. The people will do it for them all in the name of preventing hate speech.
 
Last edited:
Not right now but once we ban disgusting, filthy, and hateful speech that should never be said by anyone then it opens the doors to all types of nonsense. I can shut you up for anything I don't like if you can shut someone else up for things you don't like. Then we will live in a facebook-type world of pansies with no ideas to better society.

The dictators will love to have access to masses of people who silence each other. They can rule with no opposition or necessity to improve. They won't even get their hands dirty by murdering their opposition. The people will do it for them all in the name of preventing hate speech.

Don't expect others to support your ban on free speech.
 
Some people do need to see a doctor. Those doctor needing people have access to the magistrate's office and can file charges against those who do not need a doctor. So please. Stop using your free speech. As a society it is our obligation to protect those who need to see doctors. Mentally sick people are capable of hating opinions just as well as mentally healthy people.

Is this sarcasm or just stupid, I cant tell..................
 
Should hate speech be punished when the speech contains racist content?

Follow up question for those who voted yes: At what times of day does the first amendment apply to citizens who happen to be racist?

Ideally, when you are dealing with individuals, the answer is no. If it is simply confined to speech, it should not be illegal. If someone acts on racist ideas to commit acts of violence, obviously that can and should be covered by other laws.

It gets trickier if you have a neo-nazi or neo-fascist party polling something like 20-30% in elections and you have to debate whether to ban them to protect democracy by preventing them from gaining power and ultimately the rights of minority groups. (And when I saw neo-nazi/neo-fascist, I mean the real thing that will engage in street fighting, organised violence, terrorism and harassment of minority groups). That being said Banning such an organisation won’t necessarily work either as a ban only deals with the symptoms of the problem and not the causes feeding in to racial animosity such as socio-economic distress, unemployment, job and financial insecurity, a failure to educate people on different cultures and religions and a host of other things.
 
Punished socially? Yes. People who are openly racist should be subject to the hatred, scorn and obloquy of their peers.

Punished economically? Yes. I would refrain from doing business with open racists as well.

Punished legally? No. The government should not have the power to imprison people for holding toxic viewpoints that do not translate into racist action or calls for racist action. Once the precedent is set that the government can charge you not for action but for opinions stated in words and writing, that opens to the doors to tyranny.

This is the best post I’ve seen on this topic. Yes, yes and no. Those are the three perfect answers.
 
Only if followed by threats of bodily harm...

Still not. The threat of bodily harm is not protected speech and punishable whether or not it is accompanied by "hate speech", racist or not.
 
Your scenario is why we have a Second Amendment, not a valid one for ignoring the First.
 
It is definitely a criminal offense...

Intimidation - Wikipedia[/QUOTE

Just calling someone a mean name, racist or otherwise, regardless of whether some legislatures have decided it ought to be criminal, would have a very hard time passing muster in terms of the First Amendment. These statutes are written to preclude "guilt" merely from the utterance of some insult:


(1) A person is guilty of ethnic intimidation if that person maliciously, and with the specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's race, colour, religion, gender, or national origin, does any of the following:
(a) Causes physical contact with another person.
(b) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person.
(c) Threatens, by word or act, to do any act described in subdivision (a) or (b), if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in subdivision (a) or (b) will occur.

Notice it requires an ACTION, or threat of action.

In otherwords, you can't just criminalize saying mean things even if they are deragotory of race, sex, religion, or other factor. Note, this is very different from actual acts of discrimination, or other overt criminal acts, that may be motivated by such "hate".
 
It is definitely a criminal offense...

Intimidation - Wikipedia[/QUOTE

Just calling someone a mean name, racist or otherwise, regardless of whether some legislatures have decided it ought to be criminal, would have a very hard time passing muster in terms of the First Amendment. These statutes are written to preclude "guilt" merely from the utterance of some insult:




Notice it requires an ACTION, or threat of action.

In otherwords, you can't just criminalize saying mean things even if they are deragotory of race, sex, religion, or other factor. Note, this is very different from actual acts of discrimination, or other overt criminal acts, that may be motivated by such "hate".

Yeah, that's what I said...threatening bodily harm...:roll:
 
Yeah, that's what I said...threatening bodily harm...:roll:

But that is a crime regardless of "hate" speech. As I previously said, it is not the "hate" that makes it a crime. If I call someone a c-nt, that is not a crime. If I threaten to "rape you, you c-nt" it is the threat of rape, not the use of the word "c-nt" that makes it a crime.
 
Is this sarcasm or just stupid, I cant tell..................

Some people need doctors, yet others do not need those doctors. Their desire or necessity to obtain doctors does not negate their rights under the first amendment.

I would say that's pretty stupid and not exactly a sarcastic method of communication. Within the parameters of your question I'd say it is just down right stupid.
 
The people with the highest IQ's.
So the same people who have brought the social cancer of cancel culture? (Academia)
So the same people who have brought on campus 'shout downs' and disruption for speech they don't agree with?
The same people who support the idea of 'micro-aggression' for any speech they don't agree with?

Oh good Lord.
 
Should hate speech be punished when the speech contains racist content?

Follow up question for those who voted yes: At what times of day does the first amendment apply to citizens who happen to be racist?

RBG has already answered you.

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

 
No. You are no better than the racists you are inciting violence toward. There are no right or wrong opinions. We all have them and at the end of the day, they are worth all the same. Nothing. We are all unique individuals with unique emotions and thought processes. Calling for hatred and scorn to people because they don't share your opinion is hypocrisy at its' finest. We are free not to agree with people. We are free to agree with people. We are free to respect that other people have perspectives that are far from our own without fear of censorship. That is what makes this country a great one. Not many people like racists. And that is their right. But it is a racist's right to dislike anyone who does not share their opinion as well.
We are not talking about political correctness. We are simply talking freedom to be ourselves, think for ourselves and even share our opinions without being attacked for them.

So you demand a safe space then. Sorry, no one else agreed to that.
 
So the same people who have brought the social cancer of cancel culture? (Academia)
So the same people who have brought on campus 'shout downs' and disruption for speech they don't agree with?
The same people who support the idea of 'micro-aggression' for any speech they don't agree with?

Oh good Lord.

There is no such thing as cancel culture. IT’s just another right wing made up term that has no bearing on anything. Another “war on christmas”.
 
Should hate speech be punished when the speech contains racist content?

Follow up question for those who voted yes: At what times of day does the first amendment apply to citizens who happen to be racist?

The problem is what is "racist content"?

I think it is clearly "racist" if it includes any calls for violence against, say, the Martians who live here on Earth. I think that it is clearly "racist" if it includes the offensive epithet for "Martians" (whatever that is). Then, yes, that kind of speech should be sanctioned.

But IMHO, it is not "racist" if, say, I warn people to be careful before getting into an elevator with three Martian teenagers. It is not "racist" if President Trump says that immigrants from Norway would be more beneficial to American society than those from certain other countries. Such comments should not be sanctioned, IMHO.
 
What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

 
The problem is what is "racist content"?

I think it is clearly "racist" if it includes any calls for violence against, say, the Martians who live here on Earth. I think that it is clearly "racist" if it includes the offensive epithet for "Martians" (whatever that is). Then, yes, that kind of speech should be sanctioned.

But IMHO, it is not "racist" if, say, I warn people to be careful before getting into an elevator with three Martian teenagers. It is not "racist" if President Trump says that immigrants from Norway would be more beneficial to American society than those from certain other countries. Such comments should not be sanctioned, IMHO.

So you feel made up fantasy racist comments should be punished but real world actual racist comments should not.
 
Only if followed by threats of bodily harm...

Yeah...agree with this thinking... There should no more be an open playing field for hate speech than there should be for censorship. Both have consequences. A bit of logic applied here would go a long way.
 
There is no such thing as cancel culture. IT’s just another right wing made up term that has no bearing on anything. Another “war on christmas”.
You are sticking your head in the sand if you really believe so.

The multiple times conservatives speaking on college campuses were shouted down and disrupted, not based on what they said, simple because of who they were. Yes, there is a cancel culture, yes, it is a cancer on society, and yes, it started in academia, where it was tolerated and even encouraged, rather than what college campuses historically were, namely a place for the free exchange of ideas from differing perspectives, but that's not allowed anymore.


Purifying Publishing
The cultural commissars come for conservative books.
July 8, 2020, Bruce Bawer

Even in book publishing, then, the left is way ahead. But this isn’t good enough for Alex Shephard, a young staff writer at the New Republic, who in a recent article maintained that the book industry is “overdue” for a major “reckoning.” Here’s his article’s subhead (italics mine):

Culture Wars
The culture wars of the past several decades are intensifying and Americans are divided more than ever before.

It’s time to stand up against the muzzling of America
Senator JOSH HAWLEY JANUARY 24, 2021

Have you checked your social credit score lately? You might want to. Mine seems to have taken a nosedive this month. You might want to see how yours is doing.

Everyone knows what a credit score is. But social credit scores are new. They’re the latest corporate import from Communist China, where government and big business monitor every citizen’s social views and statements.

And they’re the latest form of cancel culture in this country, as corporate monopolies and the left team up to shut down speech they don’t like and force their political agenda on America. For those who still believe in free speech and the First Amendment, this is the time to take a stand.

Tyranny in democratic republics does not proceed in the same way, however. It ignores the body and goes straight for the soul. The master no longer says: You will think as I do or die. He says: You are free not to think as I do. You may keep your life, your property, and everything else. But from this day forth you shall be as a stranger among us. You will retain your civic privileges, but they will be of no use to you. For if you seek the votes of your fellow citizens, they will withhold them, and if you seek only their esteem, they will feign to refuse even that. You will remain among men, but you will forfeit your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow creatures, they will shun you as one who is impure. And even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they, too, be shunned in turn. Go in peace, I will not take your life, but the life I leave you with is worse than death.
 
You are sticking your head in the sand if you really believe so.

The multiple times conservatives speaking on college campuses were shouted down and disrupted, not based on what they said, simple because of who they were. Yes, there is a cancel culture, yes, it is a cancer on society, and yes, it started in academia, where it was tolerated and even encouraged, rather than what college campuses historically were, namely a place for the free exchange of ideas from differing perspectives, but that's not allowed anymore.

Purifying Publishing
The cultural commissars come for conservative books.​
July 8, 2020, Bruce Bawer​
Even in book publishing, then, the left is way ahead. But this isn’t good enough for Alex Shephard, a young staff writer at the New Republic, who in a recent article maintained that the book industry is “overdue” for a major “reckoning.” Here’s his article’s subhead (italics mine):​
Culture Wars​
The culture wars of the past several decades are intensifying and Americans are divided more than ever before.​
It’s time to stand up against the muzzling of America
Senator JOSH HAWLEY JANUARY 24, 2021​
Have you checked your social credit score lately? You might want to. Mine seems to have taken a nosedive this month. You might want to see how yours is doing.​
Everyone knows what a credit score is. But social credit scores are new. They’re the latest corporate import from Communist China, where government and big business monitor every citizen’s social views and statements.​
And they’re the latest form of cancel culture in this country, as corporate monopolies and the left team up to shut down speech they don’t like and force their political agenda on America. For those who still believe in free speech and the First Amendment, this is the time to take a stand.​

To prove to me cancel culture exists you quote an op-ed by Josh Hawley that blared on the front page of a paper belonging to a multibillion dollar media conglomerate.

Your hysteria about these imagined “social media credit scores” are for others locked in the right wing scream machine.

What else?
 
Back
Top Bottom