• 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!

Free Speech, Hate Speech, and Pornography

ecofarm said:
Thus, the requirements:

1. Specific target.
2. Specific audience.
Click to expand...

No. This is viewpoint.

Siiiigh. I guess I have to quote your article to you yet again:

the suppression must be aimed at the violence and not at the particular viewpoint of the speaker.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

3. Realistic threat.
Click to expand...

Only of imminent lawless action, and this is not restricted to "hate speech," but any kind of inciting speech. This is not at ALL specific to "hate speech."
 
Harshaw said:
No. This is viewpoint.

Siiiigh. I guess I have to quote your article to you yet again:



:shrug:



Only of imminent lawless action, and this is not restricted to "hate speech," but any kind of inciting speech. This is not at ALL specific to "hate speech."
Click to expand...

Thus, in America, one does not get prosecuted for hate speech unless it is to incite violence specific to the requirements noted. In Europe, it's different. As far as non-criminal hate speech, that's open to some interpretation.
 
ecofarm said:
Thus, in America, one does not get prosecuted for hate speech unless it is to incite violence specific to the requirements noted. In Europe, it's different. As far as non-criminal hate speech, that's open to some interpretation.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Dude.

You pulled a "legal definition" of "hate speech" out of your behind, one that was refuted by the very article you offered in support of it.

There is no legal category of "hate speech."

Just stop.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

Dude.

You pulled a "legal definition" of "hate speech" out of your behind, one that was refuted by the very article you offered in support of it.

There is no legal category of "hate speech."

Just stop.
Click to expand...

The legal requirements for prosecution are available online. Those I've read from reasonable sources.
 
ecofarm said:
The legal requirements for prosecution are available online. Those I've read from reasonable sources.
Click to expand...

Suddenly your own article isn't a "reasonable source," because it showed that you're wrong?

:lamo

Please do link to these sources giving your "legal definition" of "hate speech," and that someone may Constitutionally be prosecuted specifically for said "hate speech."
 
Harshaw said:
Suddenly your own article isn't a "reasonable source," because it showed that you're wrong?

:lamo

Please do link to these sources giving your "legal definition" of "hate speech," and that someone may Constitutionally be prosecuted specifically for said "hate speech."
Click to expand...

The point was, what one can be prosecuted for in the US is different than in Europe and what someone could refer to as hate speech. If we're to discuss losing rights, it's important to note those distinctions. If we want to consider a loss of rights beyond threats, then I've listed some categories of hate speech in general. Are there any you disagree with there?
 
ecofarm said:
The point was, what one can be prosecuted for in the US is different than in Europe and what someone could refer to as hate speech. If we're to discuss losing rights, it's important to note those distinctions. If we want to consider a loss of rights beyond threats, then I've listed some categories of hate speech in general. Are there any you disagree with there?
Click to expand...

Liberals will target you, make sure you don't get hired, harass you, harass your family, all for saying words, but they LOVE free speech.
 
phattonez said:
Liberals will target you, make sure you don't get hired, harass you, harass your family, all for saying words, but they LOVE free speech.
Click to expand...

That's not criminal prosecution, that's others exercising their free speech, criminal activity aside.
 
ecofarm said:
That's not criminal prosecution, that's others exercising their free speech.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it, but it's incredibly hypocritical. Liberals will defend your legal rights, but they'll just take away your means of support and make sure you never have peace.
 
ecofarm said:
The point was, what one can be prosecuted for in the US is different than in Europe and what someone could refer to as hate speech. If we're to discuss losing rights, it's important to note those distinctions. If we want to consider a loss of rights beyond threats, then I've listed some categories of hate speech in general. Are there any you disagree with there?
Click to expand...

No, the point was that you thought "hate speech" is a legally-defined, prosecutable offense in the United States, and it isn't -- and you still won't admit you're just wrong. Which is made all the more amusing by your quip that it's I who should "educate" myself on the subject.

Any argument you make based on your error is invalid.
 
Harshaw said:
No, the point was that you thought "hate speech" is a legally-defined, prosecutable offense in the United States, and it isn't -- and you still won't admit you're just wrong.
Click to expand...

I thought it could be prosecuted under that heading when it met the criteria, not that the criteria met prosecution in general and when applied to hate speech delineated criminal hate speech. Granted.

Which is made all the more amusing by your quip that it's I who should "educate" myself on the subject.
Click to expand...

The requirements for the prosecution of hate speech are easily available, and are as I claimed.

Any argument you make based on your error is invalid.
Click to expand...

Absurd. The OP claims rest on criminal prosecution. He's now added general repercussions, but that's another issue.
 
ecofarm said:
I thought it could be prosecuted under that heading when it met the criteria, not that the criteria met prosecution in general and when applied to hate speech delineated criminal hate speech. Granted.



The requirements for the prosecution of hate speech are easily available, and are as I claimed.
Click to expand...

Good lord. You still don't get that you can't be prosecuted for the content of speech, but only lawless action irrespective of that content.

There is no prosecution of "hate speech." There is no "legal definition" of "hate speech."

Well, I tried. Remain in stubborn ignorance if you wish; it really has no bearing on anything.


Absurd. The OP claims rest on criminal prosecution. He's now added general repercussions, but that's another issue.
Click to expand...

Oh, moving goalposts now, too; what I said wasn't about the OP; it was about your own arguments. You know that, so you're just squirming dishonestly.

I'll leave you to all that.
 
Harshaw said:
Good lord. You still don't get that you can't be prosecuted for the content of speech, but only lawless action irrespective of that content.

There is no prosecution of "hate speech." There is no "legal definition" of "hate speech."

Well, I tried. Remain in stubborn ignorance if you wish; it really has no bearing on anything.
Click to expand...

The point is, there is no "thought crime". You seem to agree. Now, that's different than Europe. And it's different than what one can consider hate speech. I don't get why you are stuck on semantics.

Oh, moving goalposts now, too; what I said wasn't about the OP; it was about your own arguments. You know that, so you're just squirming dishonestly.

I'll leave you to all that.
Click to expand...

In the context of the OP, I think it's important to note what "freedom" we have lost, as Americans. Perhaps it's better stated thus:

Hate speech is not criminal in America unless: 1, 2 and 3.
 
phattonez said:
This is baseless. We have seen, for example, sexual mores utterly transformed through these generations. There was no pattern repeating itself. What we saw was a massive breakdown of family bonds, there was no reversion to traditional mores. What we're seeing politically, you can't just expect to revert with time.
Click to expand...
My point was more that every generation thinks the previous generation is lazier and more worthless than they were. And that they generally become less idealistic as they age.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom