• 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

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...

Maybe you should be thrown in jail for your post. How would you like that? That's what a hate speech law would do, because your post is full of hate. Let that sink in.
 
American said:
Maybe you should be thrown in jail for your post. How would you like that? That's what a hate speech law would do, because your post is full of hate. Let that sink in.
Click to expand...

They don't understand their vile hatred. They think it's OK for them, but not others.
 
bomberfox said:
That wasnt even my argument, depending on your clients you might be defending people whos sole purpose is detrimental to the well being those advocates are trying to protect.
Click to expand...
If it's not your argument, it's still what the thread is about.

"Defending people whos [sic] sole purpose is detrimental to the well being [of others]" is very much protected speech, for two reasons: i) in a plurality, no two people agree fully on what is/isn't detrimental; and ii) no party, government, or state power can be trusted to fairly and impartially judge which ideas are unworthy of a defense.

Lord of Planar said:
But the party of tolerance doesn't believe in tolerance. They want to silence anyone that opposes them. The party that has so hard fought for the first amendment, did so for shaping it in their image only.
Click to expand...
Progressive Tolerance[SUP]®[/SUP]
"Teaching deplorables love and respect since 1962."

$39.99
$29.99
$10.99
$5.99
$2.99
$1.99
$0.99
$0.49
$0.19
$0.06
$0.03 OBO

I'm a hard-nosed, fundamentalist, black-and-white, traditionalist religious conservative--by my own admission. It's pretty bad when in four out of five online arguments I find myself pleading with self-described "liberals" for less war, less censorship, fewer speech prohibitions, fewer bans, less surveillance, fewer registries, permitting alternatives to public schools, permitting vaccine opt-outs, permitting pit bull ownership, not jailing people for "improper pronoun use"...
 
COTO said:
If it's not your argument, it's still what the thread is about.

"Defending people whos [sic] sole purpose is detrimental to the well being [of others]" is very much protected speech, for two reasons: i) in a plurality, no two people agree fully on what is/isn't detrimental; and ii) no party, government, or state power can be trusted to fairly and impartially judge which ideas are unworthy of a defense.


Progressive Tolerance[SUP]®[/SUP]
"Teaching deplorables love and respect since 1962."

$39.99
$29.99
$10.99
$5.99
$2.99
$1.99
$0.99
$0.49
$0.19
$0.06
$0.03 OBO

I'm a hard-nosed, fundamentalist, black-and-white, traditionalist religious conservative--by my own admission. It's pretty bad when in four out of five online arguments I find myself pleading with self-described "liberals" for less war, less censorship, fewer speech prohibitions, fewer bans, less surveillance, fewer registries, permitting alternatives to public schools, permitting vaccine opt-outs, permitting pit bull ownership, not jailing people for "improper pronoun use"...
Click to expand...

Then talking to you is kinda pointless people arent jailed for improper pronoun use.
 
bomberfox said:
Then talking to you is kinda pointless people arent jailed for improper pronoun use.
Click to expand...
I never said they were. Such laws are still in the pipelines, not yet in force (excepting California, where they actually did pass a bill criminalizing improper pronoun use in 2017, although to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever been charged).

What I said was I've argued against self-described "liberals" who've plainly, fervently argued in favour of such laws. They're A-OK with criminalizing improper pronoun use.

If you're not: thank you.
 
COTO said:
I never said they were. Such laws are still in the pipelines, not yet in force (excepting California, where they actually did pass a bill criminalizing improper pronoun use in 2017, although to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever been charged).

What I said was I've argued against self-described "liberals" who've plainly, fervently argued in favour of such laws. They're A-OK with criminalizing improper pronoun use.

If you're not: thank you.
Click to expand...

If you are worried about that, despite Jordan Peterson lying about Canada’s bill C16, nobody has been jailed for improper pronoun usage. Now constantly misgendering a trans person could be considered harassment and will likely incur social and employment concequences depending on where you work but im not in favor of jailing people for improper pronoun use
 
Lord of Planar said:
It was around 80% across the board back then. Funny how conservatives learn from the past but liberals don't.
Click to expand...
:2funny:

Conservatives not only don't learn from the past--they actively suppress it in schools, and they sometimes make the past look pretty good! Just look at who they put in the White House as an example of that.
 
Phys251 said:
Runaway hate speech is a key component to setting up genocide. It's the fourth stage of genocide, and there are examples throughout history of this happening.

People who want to keep hate speech unchecked are like those who say that no matter how dangerous fire conditions are, campfires must be allowed, only forest fires should be extinguished. Turns out that forest fires are much more difficult to put out!
Click to expand...

It is a slippery slope. I don’t like hate speech, but if someone gets offended by what someone says, they could claim that as “hate speech” and thus ban that. This would be like a boy-that-cried-wolf situation, and real hate speech would be ignored b/c anything remotely offensive would be considered hate speech.
 
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...

do you think that only wasps oppose the creeping crud of welfare socialism, banning honest people from owning guns, or bashing corporate America and those who prosper?
 
Phys251 said:
:2funny:

Conservatives not only don't learn from the past--they actively suppress it in schools, and they sometimes make the past look pretty good! Just look at who they put in the White House as an example of that.
Click to expand...

many on the left are reactionaries. Their solution to any problem is more government and less freedom.
 
Lord of Planar said:
They don't understand their vile hatred. They think it's OK for them, but not others.
Click to expand...
Unless a law applies to everyone equally, it isn't just.

Which is why I consider many aspects of the justice system currently in place unjust.
 
If the Nazis can't self-identify, how will we know who to throw aerosol oven cleaner at?
 
The U.S. hasn't had free speech for a long time, even more so in the past 20 years.

The days when activism could actually disrupt the cogs of the machine are long gone. Now you need to ask nicely to protest and get a permit. They tell you when, where and for how long you can exercise your speech. Better not step outside of those parameters or they will jackboot you. When the jackbooting happens, partisan enemies of the protesters cheer it on, blithely and idiotically unaware that they are cheering for their own oppression as well.

This subject about hate speech can't see the forest for the trees. We don't have free speech in America. The government has already successfully established limits on how we may challenge its authority. The fight is over -- we lost.
 
TurtleDude said:
do you think that only wasps oppose the creeping crud of welfare socialism, banning honest people from owning guns, or bashing corporate America and those who prosper?
Click to expand...

Strawman indeed.
 
American said:
Maybe you should be thrown in jail for your post. How would you like that? That's what a hate speech law would do, because your post is full of hate. Let that sink in.
Click to expand...

No clue what I meant?
 
On the Internet, truth is not optimized. On the Web, it’s not enough to battle falsehood with truth; the truth doesn’t always win. In the age of social media, the marketplace model doesn’t work.


I think people still need more time to get used to the whole internet thing.

Schools need to teach critical thinking so that people can more easily find the truth.

Just because someone you see as an ally says something doesn't mean it's true. Find news outlets you trust, Associate Press, Reuters, PBS are all good.
 
enderpotato00 said:
It is a slippery slope. I don’t like hate speech, but if someone gets offended by what someone says, they could claim that as “hate speech” and thus ban that. This would be like a boy-that-cried-wolf situation, and real hate speech would be ignored b/c anything remotely offensive would be considered hate speech.
Click to expand...

Plenty of hate speech laws in Europe shows that this is not the case. :)
 
bomberfox said:
...but im not in favor of jailing people for improper pronoun use
Click to expand...
Suppose legislation entered the pipeline that criminalized "improper pronoun use" at the state or national level. This would include persons using gender-neutral pronouns such as "they" or avoiding pronoun use due to moral misgivings about calling a biological man a woman and vice versa.

The punishment wouldn't necessarily be jail time, but a fine of up to $7,500 per infraction, with jail time substituted if a defendant was unable to pay. Furthermore, the legal costs for any defendant contesting the charges could easily run into the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Would you actively support such legislation, actively oppose such legislation, or would you sit back and let other people deal with it?
 
Phys251 said:
Plenty of hate speech laws in Europe shows that this is not the case. :)
Click to expand...
Europe is an textbook case in the failure of hate speech laws, unfolding in real time.

Nations are finding themselves overrun by lawless immigrants engaged in everything from organized rapes to de facto Sharia Law, but everyone from the laypeople to the politicians have been forbidden by the courts to speak out against Islam, immigrants and immigration. Not surprisingly, huge (and growing) nationalist populist movements have arisen in virtually all European states--including, BTW, a huge win for the AfD in Germany this year--fueled by people sick to death of watching Europe eaten away while self-righteous Eurocrats forbid any recourse but playing the fiddle.

If you want to witness the end game of hate speech laws, you need only behold the rise of unrestrained, unrepentant nationalism, antiestablishmentism, and (yes) racism in Europe over the coming decade. What's worse, it will arise as a matter of self-preservation, making it the distinct lesser evil.
 
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...

Amen to that. Many in the pro-gay community want to ban various types of religious free speech. They apparently don't want their feeble consciences tweaked to the point they might get convicted of their sins and saved.
 
Phys251 said:
Plenty of hate speech laws in Europe shows that this is not the case. :)
Click to expand...

There was a story about a guy who uploaded a video where he jokingly made the pug look like he was giving a nazi salute. The guy was arrested for “hate speech” and “hate crime”. That’s not a problem.
 
Phys251 said:
People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech.
Click to expand...
we are entitled to hate speech. Look at the First Amendment.
They do not do so because they support free speech.
Click to expand...
Hate speech is Free speech. Speech that is non controversial or not hate speech doesn't need to be protected.
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...
I just defended their rights to speak hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom