What is hate speech?

What is hate speech?

A-Speech that offends a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group.

B-What ever those in power say it is.

A little of both of the above

Mostly option A and a little of option B.

Mostly option B and a little of the option A.

other.



Please note that is not a discussion on the legalities of hate speech. Hate speech laws are illegal in the US. Canada and other countries that do not value free speech have hate speech laws. This thread is what term do you define as hate speech.

Hate speech is saying homosexuality is a sin. Hate speech is NOT saying the Catholic Church is a patriarchal, mysoginistic organization run by pedophiliacs.

It's saying that Islam is a violent, opressive religion that promotes terrorism. But it's not hate speech to say that the Mormon church is a patriarchal, homophobic religion.

It's okay to say Evangelicals are all a bunch of deranged lunatics with a distorted view of reality. It's NOT okay to say that Blacks have lower IQs and that intelligence is an inherited trait. That would be hate speech.

MyOwnDrum said:

Hate speech is saying homosexuality is a sin. Hate speech is NOT saying the Catholic Church is a patriarchal, mysoginistic organization run by pedophiliacs.

It's saying that Islam is a violent, opressive religion that promotes terrorism. But it's not hate speech to say that the Mormon church is a patriarchal, homophobic religion.

It's okay to say Evangelicals are all a bunch of deranged lunatics with a distorted view of reality. It's NOT okay to say that Blacks have lower IQs and that intelligence is an inherited trait. That would be hate speech.

Click to expand...

lol...bitter much?

liblady said:

lol...bitter much?

Click to expand...

Not at all... :rofl Just giving some comparisons and examples... :lol:

This is easy:
A politically incorrect exercise of the right to free speech that liberals take offense to.

The term 'Hate Speech' is an attempt to get around the Constitution to stamp out speech that the powers that be would like to stamp out. Similar to some of George W Bush's shenagans in trying to get around the Constitution in the wake of 911. These are loopholes designed to interfere with our Constitutional protections.

Hate speech is a stupid term invented by the government to allow it to intercede in areas where it shouldn't and to add punishment were not warranted.

Goobieman said:

This is easy:
A politically incorrect exercise of the right to free speech that liberals take offense to.

Click to expand...

Does the right to free speech cover the right to say "I want to kill all niggers", in your opinion?

the makeout hobo said:

Does the right to free speech cover the right to say "I want to kill all niggers", in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Well lets see:

-It doesnt cause anyone harm, like libel or slander
-It doesnt place anyone in a condition of immediate, clear and present danger
-It doesnt incite violence

So, yes.

Now, if you were to change your scenario to "we should go over there and kill all the niggers" in the context of speaking to an angry mob, THAT would be different -- but then, the reason for that has nothing to do with the use of the word "nigger".

the makeout hobo said:

Does the right to free speech cover the right to say "I want to kill all niggers", in your opinion?

Click to expand...

It might warrant authorities to keep an eye on your activities if a person publicly states that. But expressing ones negative feelings should not be banned, IMO.

There's no such thing as hate speech. It's a myth. For one thing, you can hardly open your mouth these days without SOMEONE getting offended, so using that as a criteria makes everything "hate speech". That's absurd. The only credible definition is speech which makes direct or indirect threats against a particular group of people, but we already have laws against that.

The whole idea of hate speech is silly.

In my opinion, hates speech is speech that incites persecution and violence against a particular group of people. Simply being offensive is not hate speech as far as I am concerned.

Telling a person or group that they are hated because of who they are and factors they can't control, such as their place of birth, gender, orientation, religion, etc.

Intransigent Atheist said:

In my opinion, hates speech is speech that incites persecution and violence against a particular group of people. Simply being offensive is not hate speech as far as I am concerned.

Click to expand...

Never nind that you have every right to express hatred towards someone or something.

Goobieman said:

Never nind that you have every right to express hatred towards someone or something.

Click to expand...

You have every right to, but it's still hate speech.

Intransigent Atheist said:

You have every right to, but it's still hate speech.

Click to expand...

Only if expressing that hatred incites persecution and violence against a particular group of people

the makeout hobo said:

Does the right to free speech cover the right to say "I want to kill all niggers", in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Yes. But, those words are also considered "fighting words" that may lead to you being physically assaulted.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words]Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

MyOwnDrum said:

The term 'Hate Speech' is an attempt to get around the Constitution to stamp out speech that the powers that be would like to stamp out. Similar to some of George W Bush's shenagans in trying to get around the Constitution in the wake of 911. These are loopholes designed to interfere with our Constitutional protections.

Click to expand...

i don't disagree here. it's too bad common decency alone doesn't deter "hate speech".

Normally I hate to use wiki. However I think they have a pretty good defination of it for how "hate speech" is currently defined/used as.

Hate speech is a term for speech that attacks or disparages a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group[1], such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or lack there of, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability.

Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech]Wiki[/ame]

Personally I think that hate speech is any speech that isn't politically correct for the times.

It's a good thing I'm not partial to PCness. :twisted:

Kal'Stang said:

Normally I hate to use wiki. However I think they have a pretty good defination of it for how "hate speech" is currently defined/used as.



Wiki

Personally I think that hate speech is any speech that isn't politically correct for the times.

It's a good thing I'm not partial to PCness. :twisted:

Click to expand...

I love when libertarians tell people to stop being so PC and get up in arms when they're called kooks.

Interesting that the motivation...

...for speech that attacks or disparages a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group[1], such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or lack there of, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability...

Click to expand...

...is automatically and unquestioningly attrubited to hate.

Because, you know, that's the ONLY reason someome might have to 'attack' or 'disparage' a group of people.

hate speech?

It's something a bunch of low class people indulge in to mask their own lack of self esteem.

MyOwnDrum said:

Hate speech is saying homosexuality is a sin. Hate speech is NOT saying the Catholic Church is a patriarchal, mysoginistic organization run by pedophiliacs.

It's saying that Islam is a violent, opressive religion that promotes terrorism. But it's not hate speech to say that the Mormon church is a patriarchal, homophobic religion.

It's okay to say Evangelicals are all a bunch of deranged lunatics with a distorted view of reality. It's NOT okay to say that Blacks have lower IQs and that intelligence is an inherited trait. That would be hate speech.

Click to expand...

I personally think that all of what you describe qualifies as bigotry, not hate speech. Including some of the things you said weren't "hate speech".

Hate speech is saying "Islamic people are all terrorists and deserve to die." or "Jews secretly run the world, Hitler was on to something" or "Irish people are uncouth savages. They should be rounded up and put into internment camps and we should steal their potatoes."



Also, I find a couple of your choices interesting. For example, You said "saying that Islam is a violent, opressive religion that promotes terrorism" is hate speech, and then compared that to calling Mormonism "a patriarchal, homophobic religion" which wouldn't be considered hate speech.

I don't believe that is a valid comparison. It's apples to oranges, actually.

Saying Islam is a "violent, oppressive religion that promotes terrorism" is comparable to saying Mormonism is a "violent, oppressive religion that promotes terrorism."

Most people who would argue against the first assertion would also argue against the latter assertion. However, most people who would argue in favor of that first assertion, would argue against the latter. These people are bigots.


Conversely, saying Mormonism is "a patriarchal, homophobic religion" is comparable to saying Islam is "a patriarchal, homophobic religion."

In this case, however, I'm not totally convinced that most of those who would argue against the first assertion would also argue against the latter assertion. I think a large proportion might, but I don't know if it would be "most".

However, I do believe that many of those who would argue in favor of the first assertion would also argue in favor of the second.

Goobieman said:

Interesting that the motivation...



...is automatically and unquestioningly attrubited to hate.

Because, you know, that's the ONLY reason someome might have to 'attack' or 'disparage' a group of people.

Click to expand...

Well, "intense dislike speech" didn't have the same ring to it.

Tucker Case said:

Saying Islam is a "violent, oppressive religion that promotes terrorism" is comparable to saying Mormonism is a "violent, oppressive religion that promotes terrorism."

Most people who would argue against the first assertion would also argue against the latter assertion. However, most people who would argue in favor of that first assertion, would argue against the latter. These people are bigots.


Conversely, saying Mormonism is "a patriarchal, homophobic religion" is comparable to saying Islam is "a patriarchal, homophobic religion."

In this case, however, I'm not totally convinced that most of those who would argue against the first assertion would also argue against the latter assertion. I think a large proportion might, but I don't know if it would be "most".

However, I do believe that many of those who would argue in favor of the first assertion would also argue in favor of the second.

Click to expand...

You are expanding the notion of hate speech to include that with which a person has utter control here since you are talking about ideologies voluntarily accepted or rejected rather racial or ethnic traits of which a person has no control.

Under your definition of hate speech to include words critical of arbitrary ideologies, in order to be consistant, you would have to include communism, fascism, supremacist ideologies, occult beliefs or any other belief system. You would if you wished to compare apples to apples yourself, anyway.