• 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!

Should hate speech be illegal?

Should hate speech be illegal?

  • Total voters
    40
matchlight said:
I don't care what someone thinks is "racist." A private person is free to harbor racial animosities or insult a certain race. I am less interested in whether the speech you describe is "hate speech" than in whether a law prohibiting it would violate the First Amendment. Even cross burning may not be illegal in some cases. You might want to read R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a city ordinance a teenager had violated by burning a cross in the yard of a black family.
Click to expand...

I think all speech should be protected its just words. If you are a proclaimed KKK member and go around say you hate blacks that should be ok legally. If you burn a cross on your own property then that should be ok. Once you burn a cross on someone else property you have crossed a line.
I think speech and expression are two different things. One is saying how you feel and the other is putting an item in public to express how you feel. So i feel all speech is protected but there are some limitations on expression becasue your expression can harm other. Again with very small limitations
 
swflyers28 said:
People call me a liberal but here is my take. I don't think there should be "hate speech." Words are words. You can get angry and try to process what is being said and who is saying it. However, when you physically assault someone for being gay, black, Muslim or whatever else there is, that is a crime. I would call this a hate crime. Some people commit crime and like it. Some do it because it's their job but going after someone because you hate who they are, that's a hate crime.
Click to expand...

I agree with you up until the point about "Hate" crimes. That would be a discussion for another thread though.

The problem with labelling hate speech as illegal pretty much makes the entire point of having freedom of speech irrelevant. You don't need protection to say what is already considered socially acceptable. The other problem is having a consensus on what exactly is "Hate speech". Take racism for example, some consider advocating for a wall or voter ID laws as racist when there are logical reasons that someone could believe those are necessary that have nothing to do with race.
 
Hate speech should be legal unless it crosses the line into inciting violence.
 
matchlight said:
I'm sure that in almost any state burning a cross on someone's lawn would violate quite a few ordinary laws in which the actor's motivation would not matter. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, for example, state laws against terrorist threats, arson, and criminal damage to property were available. And yet the city chose instead to charge the teenage cross-burner under its Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance.

In both R.A.V. and Virginia v. Black, the issue was whether the state violated the First Amendment freedom of speech by punishing a person for cross-burning. Both cases are usually considered part of a line of Supreme Court decisions on "fighting words" and "hate speech."

The St. Paul ordinance failed because of viewpoint discrimination--it allowed the city "to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects." Justice Scalia's discussion in R.A.V. of several exceptions to the general rule that content-based prohibitions on speech violate the First Amendment is pure gold--some of the clearest analysis of subtle, difficult points of law I've ever read.

In Black, the Court found that a content-based prohibition on speech fell within one of R.A.V.'s exceptions. It upheld the state law because it found cross-burning was such a "particularly virulent form of intimidation" that Virginia could prohibit it, and yet allow other forms of intimidating expression. I think Justice Thomas' dissent was interesting, because he argued that cross-burning is conduct rather than expression, so that prohibiting it does not raise any serious First Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. And I agree with Justice Thomas on this issue. Certainly laws against certain conduct--public drunkenness, disturbing the peace, public nudity, littering, jay walking, excessive noise, obstructing traffic, etc. etc. etc.--can be prohibited by any community or, if appropriate, by the state. And that could easily include cross burning as unacceptable to the values of that community.

But I personally have a problem with the state at any level having power to punish based on motive or state of mind or that it should be legal for anybody to harass or organize punishment people for their state of mind. (PC police and all that.) I get a lot of blowback from people on that issue, but nobody has been able to give me a convincing argument for why I am wrong about it.

In my opinion, actions and behavior and not what people believe or express should be the criteria for whether the state or the public conscience be involved. Motive can be criteria for suspicion of a crime, but IMO it should not be a crime in and of itself.
 
Snakebite said:
In the Western World, there are two competing ideologies when it comes to free speech.

In America, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. We Americans have historically cherished our right to say what we want, above other concerns.

In Britain and Europe generally, this is not the case. "Hate Speech" - such as overt racism, sympathizing with Nazis, and speech that can incite violence - is considered illegal and can carry jail time. Public safety and an attitude of pragmatism trump any ideological attachment to free speech.

The American Left were once the champions of the free speech movement. "I don't agree with your opinion, but I'd defend your right to have it" was and is the mantra for many. However, we are beginning to see a shift within the American Left toward a more European mentality. Whether it's the advent of "safe spaces" on college campuses or the banning/disruption/shouting down of right wing speakers, the attitude of zero-tolerance toward perceived "hate speech" has begun to take on a distinctly European tone and our love affair with the First Amendment seems to be on the wane.

So my question is, would you support making "hate speech" illegal? In other words, should racism itself be a crime? Or fascism? Or homophobia? Or would you rather continue to see all forms of speech be protected under the law?
Click to expand...
Laws against thought do not stop said thought. I would think that laws pushing certain thought under the surface would only serve to make such matters even more dangerous.
 
Snakebite said:
I agree with you, but let me play devil's advocate: If a large and diverse country such as Germany can define and codify hate speech, why would it be "nearly impossible" for us to do the same? If anything, our hundreds of years of shared history when it comes to racism should make it easier. Who wouldn't agree, for example, that words like "N****r" and burning crosses in lawns is hate speech? Is anybody seriously going to say that wearing a klan hoodie is NOT racist?

Of course, there will always be gray areas. But some things can be generally accepted.
Click to expand...
Are you a believer in the "slippery slope"?
 
I do not approve of "hate" as a legal definition/concept to begin with, so I guess that indicates my answer.
 
Snakebite said:
In the Western World, there are two competing ideologies when it comes to free speech.

In America, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. We Americans have historically cherished our right to say what we want, above other concerns.

In Britain and Europe generally, this is not the case. "Hate Speech" - such as overt racism, sympathizing with Nazis, and speech that can incite violence - is considered illegal and can carry jail time. Public safety and an attitude of pragmatism trump any ideological attachment to free speech.


The American Left were once the champions of the free speech movement. "I don't agree with your opinion, but I'd defend your right to have it" was and is the mantra for many. However, we are beginning to see a shift within the American Left toward a more European mentality. Whether it's the advent of "safe spaces" on college campuses or the banning/disruption/shouting down of right wing speakers, the attitude of zero-tolerance toward perceived "hate speech" has begun to take on a distinctly European tone and our love affair with the First Amendment seems to be on the wane.


So my question is, would you support making "hate speech" illegal? In other words, should racism itself be a crime? Or fascism? Or homophobia? Or would you rather continue to see all forms of speech be protected under the law?
Click to expand...

Should flag burning be illegal, or other similar Republican ideals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom