• 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!

Why America needs a hate speech law

Free Speech Absolutist here.

I have one question to ask to people who want to outlaw hate speech. If these people - their arguments, their viewpoints - are incorrect, then why are you afraid of their views? Surely, if you are correct, then the easiest way to prevent these bigots from spreading their ideologies (which I for one find disgusting) is to challenge them in open debate. Take the racists, take the homophobes, take these people who have locked themselves in their echo chambers of false information, and have them try to defend these stances against somebody who even remotely knows what they're talking about. More often than not, I think you'll find that their hateful rhetoric is not backed up with sufficient evidence, and as such they will falter and fail, exposing the glaring flaws in their logic. The best way to prevent hate, I think, is to expose the lack of coherent reasoning behind said hate, rather than suppressing it.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I agree that a hate speach law would be absolutely wrong.

However, I see a very strong need for a law that says you can't lie about science. That is you cannot present something you know is false as science.

That would sort out the global warming debate.
Click to expand...

It would destroy the anti gun movement.
 
Phys251 said:
People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.
Click to expand...

Possibly true of people who "support hate speech", but what of people who just oppose hate speech laws?
 
Phys251 said:
People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.
Click to expand...

Did the ACLU support "hate speech" in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie? No, it did not. What it supported was this concept:

If we protect hate speech, it is because we choose to do so. But why would we do that?

The reason is that Americans believe it is safer to entrust people with access to ideas than to entrust the government with the power to decide which ideas we may express or hear. In other words, the cure for bad ideas — government censorship — is worse than the disease itself.

This is why we protect hate speech
Click to expand...

I don't trust government to wash my socks, so I sure don't trust it to decide which ideas are fit for discussion and which ones aren't. If we agreed on everything, then why would we even bother having a First Amendment?
 
eman623 said:
Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws ...
- Richard Stengal
Click to expand...

No we don't. We call them laws against incitement to violence.
Countries with hate-speech laws don't punish people for incitement to violence, but for incitement to certain thoughts.

Sometimes I get the urge to see these low-information voters get what they ask for, just to see their faces when they discover that whatever buzzwords they have adopted, will be defined in ways that surprise and amaze them, even as they are carted off to the fate they pictured for their enemies.

But then I recall that I have on occasion opened history books with pictures in them, so I've already seen it many times...

Hate-speech, enemies of the people, malcontents, counter-revolutionary elements, anti-social individuals. Meaningless words that only serve as alibies for the grabbing of power.
Experience show that people who support unprincipled, easy fixes tend to end up among their first victims. The fact that they are completely unable to conceive of being targets of the laws they support, only make them more vulnerable. Meanwhile, many of the individuals they thought would be punished, know how the game is played and they are busy brushing their new uniforms and practicing new salutes. After all, totalitarian states always have a use for more scumbags, as long as one can smudge over their past affiliations.
 
Phys251 said:
Would not surprise me one bit if that's what your ilk ultimately wanted to do. Nothing like following in the steps of the authoritarians of the past and oppressing scientists and intellectuals, right? :doh
Click to expand...

Says the guy who wants to legally censor speech he doesn't like.

It's a pretty easy process with you -- people you don't agree with are "fascists," and "fascists" don't get free speech rights.

The irony of it escapes you, but you know . . .
 
Ahlevah said:
Did the ACLU support "hate speech" in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie? No, it did not. What it supported was this concept:

I don't trust government to wash my socks, so I sure don't trust it to decide which ideas are fit for discussion and which ones aren't. If we agreed on everything, then why would we even bother having a First Amendment?
Click to expand...

The ACLU is the only organization I have ever seen support hate speech solely because of their support for free speech.
 
eman623 said:
I don't support hate speech. I tolerate it. Because I want my speech to be tolerated. It's a two-way street.
Click to expand...

One should understand that free speech does not entitle anyone to a platform.
 
eman623 said:
So true. As George Will once noted, at a modern university, "diversity" never means more conservatives.
Click to expand...

Well the republican party doesnt even try to cater to demographics outside the WASP demographic except for some very cringe tokens. At some point republicans are going to have to do some introspection without all the think tanks and fox news bluster. Turning point USA’s most recent conference is just a taste of what is to come. As far as i am aware, there is nothing preventing a conservative from becoming a professor should they meet the qualifications.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Only fraudsters would be caught by this law.

People who misuse the mean of science.

Those who claimed that smoking was safe.

Those who claimed that fat causes heart attacks, it's not it's sugar.
Click to expand...

Practically all of the climate scientists the world over would be out of a job because you are equating actual scientists with glat earthers.
 
AlegroLib said:
Free Speech Absolutist here.

I have one question to ask to people who want to outlaw hate speech. If these people - their arguments, their viewpoints - are incorrect, then why are you afraid of their views? Surely, if you are correct, then the easiest way to prevent these bigots from spreading their ideologies (which I for one find disgusting) is to challenge them in open debate. Take the racists, take the homophobes, take these people who have locked themselves in their echo chambers of false information, and have them try to defend these stances against somebody who even remotely knows what they're talking about. More often than not, I think you'll find that their hateful rhetoric is not backed up with sufficient evidence, and as such they will falter and fail, exposing the glaring flaws in their logic. The best way to prevent hate, I think, is to expose the lack of coherent reasoning behind said hate, rather than suppressing it.
Click to expand...

Its not really about fear vs no fear. People who gin up hate just dont care and delight in bad faith. We dont actually have to keep letting neo nazis go unopposed to live in a free society. In fact the nazis took over by using the guise of “its just another opinion” and “free speech” to get into power.
 
bomberfox said:
One should understand that free speech does not entitle anyone to a platform.
Click to expand...

No, no one is forced to listen. But people should be free to speak anyway.
 
bomberfox said:
Well the republican party doesnt even try to cater to demographics outside the WASP demographic except for some very cringe tokens. At some point republicans are going to have to do some introspection without all the think tanks and fox news bluster. Turning point USA’s most recent conference is just a taste of what is to come. As far as i am aware, there is nothing preventing a conservative from becoming a professor should they meet the qualifications.
Click to expand...

It's not conservatives' fault they are shut out of the universities. Progressive university professors and administrators are among the most ideologically intolerant people you will find. This thread is evidence of that - you don't see the right trying to ban free speech nowadays.
 
eman623 said:
That's not enough. Free speech means free to speak in the public spaces too.
Click to expand...

Free speech enables you to bring your own mic, not entitling you to someone else’s
 
eman623 said:
It's not conservatives' fault they are shut out of the universities. Progressive university professors and administrators are among the most ideologically intolerant people you will find. This thread is evidence of that - you don't see the right trying to ban free speech nowadays.
Click to expand...

There is no institutional barrier to getting a professorship just because one is a conservative. Perhaps conservatives should quit convincing themselves intellectuals are always wrong.
 
eman623 said:
Wow. Where to begin. Is it from the hypocrisy of a former Time editor now championing censorship? Is it from the lack of faith in the marketplace of ideas? Is it from the hubris that hate speech can even be banned and if it could, then people would stop hating or something? Or is it from the sinister, "give us this power and, trust us, we'll never misuse it for our own political ends." No one gets to define what I think, or what I say. If that bothers you, then those other countries that have don't have free speech beckon.

We already have laws that prohibit speech likely to cause imminent violence. That's enough.

America does NOT need a hate speech law. And if Richard Stengal thinks otherwise then he's an idiot.
Click to expand...

Only the mentally-deranged left seek to implement "hate speech" which they have already defined as any speech with which they disagree. That is because leftist freaks hate the concept of "individual" rights. They want all individual rights abolished.

The First Amendment is unique among nations. No other nation on the planet recognizes free speech or free religion or free association. In England they arrest on average 9 people every day for "offensive" online posts.

Britain Turns Offensive Speech Into a Police Matter

Besides, the First Amendment does not exist to protect the speech with which we agree. It exists to protect the speech with which we do not agree. Something leftist freaks will never be able to comprehend.
 
eman623 said:
Wow. Where to begin. Is it from the hypocrisy of a former Time editor now championing censorship? Is it from the lack of faith in the marketplace of ideas? Is it from the hubris that hate speech can even be banned and if it could, then people would stop hating or something? Or is it from the sinister, "give us this power and, trust us, we'll never misuse it for our own political ends." No one gets to define what I think, or what I say. If that bothers you, then those other countries that have don't have free speech beckon.

We already have laws that prohibit speech likely to cause imminent violence. That's enough.

America does NOT need a hate speech law. And if Richard Stengal thinks otherwise then he's an idiot.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone support hate speech?
 
Lovebug said:
Fine idea doing away with NAZI, white supremacist, orange ape/clown...deplorables, knuckle dragging rednecks, teabaggers, toothless rightwingers...along with all other derogatory hateful terms.
Click to expand...

Those are just truths. There is nothing hateful about speaking the truth.
 
SDET said:
Communist propaganda is hate speech. There is a precedent for this given that the US Communist Party was deactivated by law in the 1950s. I would be willing to tolerate hate speech laws if hating your country was included as well as all Communist/Marxist speech/association.
Click to expand...

The Communist Party USA has never been "deactivated." I don't even know what that means. The CPUSA has existed for 100 years, since 1919, and has never been "deactivated," "abolished," "banned," "prohibited" or anything else. The Democrat-controlled House Un-American Activities Committee violated the First Amendment rights of numerous Americans with their illegal investigations during the 1950s, but nobody "deactivated" anything.
 
TheParser said:
1. The United States of America already prohibits hate speech.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.

TheParser said:
2. All websites have moderators who ban hate speech.
Click to expand...
Those websites and moderators are also not government. Or are you incapable of telling the difference?

TheParser said:
3. The First Amendment allows people who wish to use hate speech to buy their own printing press and say anything they want. But their circulation will be miniscule, for no newsstand will sell their publication, and no one wants their postal carrier to know that s/he is a subscriber.
Click to expand...
Didn't you just post in #1 above that "The United States of America already prohibits hate speech"? But now you claim the US allows "hate speech." Sounds to me like you are seriously confused and have no clue what you are talking about.

TheParser said:
4. At school and at work, hate speech will result in expulsion or dismissal.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. Any school that endorses restrictions on the First Amendment will have their federal funding severed. Public schools and universities are entities of the State, and therefore subject to the same restrictions and prohibitions as the rest of government. They may not restrict or prohibit speech that does not advocate for violence.

TheParser said:
5. So there is no need to have a de jure hate speech law. There is already a de facto prohibition that 99.99% of Americans know they had better observe.
Click to expand...
In the US, you can't ever have such a law. There is no prohibition, you are simply very confused and ignorant on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom