• 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

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. When we start creating "Hate Speech Laws", we are playing with fire. We don't need some numbnuts politician telling us what is and what isn't "hate speech", because then we are on the road to restricting speech.

It's bad enough we have colleges/universities creating their own "Bias" gestapos, cracking down on people who "make [insert group here] uncomfortable" just because they use words or actions that are on some "List" made up by overpaid campus bureaucrats (who are forced or voluntarily create the list) or pussified student group(s).

Calling a Black person the "N" word? Yeah...that's bad.
Calling a gay person a "fag"? Yeah...bad again.
People who do that crap are idiots. But idiocy is not a crime. Don't go threatening everyone's rights because of idiocy.
 
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...

We don't need any hate speech laws; we need to marginalize hate speakers and treat them like gum on our shoe.
 
jet57 said:
We don't need any hate speech laws; we need to marginalize hate speakers and treat them like gum on our shoe.
Click to expand...

Best counter to bad speech is good speech. Its always been that way.

Your neighbor has the right to say hateful things, you have the right to speak about that and make him look like a bigot.
 
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...
I consider myself a progressive (generally speaking, since none of these label things fit perfectly).
I am concerned about any proposal that limits free speech - I know that some reasonable limits already exist, such as inciting violence being disallowed, or the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" thing.

"hate speech" seems a dangerously vague and mutable definition to limit free speech with.
 
bomberfox said:
Which isnt happening. Jordan Peterson and those like him are lying.
Click to expand...

Strange I hear that claim more than a few times now and again. Yet no one actually supplies anything to back it up.
 
The problem with this is the current definition of hate speech is not even rational. The term hate speech is composed of two words with the word hate coming before the word speech. In a rational world, that word sequence would imply speech that is induced by hate, since the word hate come first, and then the word speech comes second. For example, if you are pissed off and start to cuss, this is piss speech, since being pissed off led to the words that come out of your mouth. The Democrats hate Trump, so everything that is said against him, is based on this underlying hate. This is hate speech in a rational world. The sequence of events is proper to the ordering in the term. Should this be illegal?

In the irrational world of the Democrat propaganda machine, what they define as hate speech is really sequenced as speech hate. In their irrational world, the words come first, and then the hate comes second. The hate is not necessarily a natural reaction, but is based on a social convention, even if there is no preliminary hate in the heart.

A comedian who has joy and laughter in his heart, can be accused of hate speech, even without any hate being the foundation of their comedy act, since speech hate is assumed to mean the same things as hate speech. This math does not add up. The irrational people need help, but the inmates should not be running the asylum.

The real question should be, should speech hate be illegal? If so, who gets to define the words, that will be socially assigned the emotion of hate, as a spinoff component, even if hate does not exist in the speaker? Should both sides the political spectrum have the same number of speech hate words? Or do the inmates run the asylum, and only they get to define the speech hate terms for all? This is why the swamp needs draining.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
We don't need any hate speech laws; we need to marginalize hate speakers and treat them like gum on our shoe.
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what that means, but basically yes. Although tolerance means you have to give them free access to public spaces just like anyone else.
 
eman623 said:
Not sure exactly what that means, but basically yes. Although tolerance means you have to give them free access to public spaces just like anyone else.
Click to expand...

Tolerance also means ignoring them,: they're trolls, nothing more.
 
jet57 said:
Tolerance also means ignoring them,: they're trolls, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Important to be able to differentiate between Hate Speech and Speech we don't agree with.
 
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...

So when you think of hateful terms, those are the ones that first come to mind with you? I mean those are the ones you listed. You didn't mention the N-Word, Faggot, Tranny, Chinks, and so on, you know, groups that have actually been victims of institutional racism, discrimination, hate crimes, lynchings... That is rather telling about you.
 
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...

That's not hate speech. None of those derogatory terms attack the protected attributes of a person or group of people.

"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
 
"Sticks and stones... etc."

People don't like what other people say then don't give them your ears, "change the channel"; take away the power in their words, don't give them the satisfaction of them making you feel like a victim. Because eventually all it leads to is a celebration of 'victimhood'.

my two cents
 
No, it doesn't need a hate speech law.

Grow the **** up, stop being so pansy ass sensitive, and if someone calls you something you don't like? Don't answer to it.
 
I'll support the right to ban hate speech, if I get to define what is hate speech.
 
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...
You're conflating support for freedom of speech with agreement.

I have no use for many feminists, civil rights activists, "trans rights" activists, but I've never advocated gagging them with hate speech laws.
 
COTO said:
You're conflating support for freedom of speech with agreement.

I have no use for many feminists, civil rights activists, "trans rights" activists, but I've never advocated gagging them with hate speech laws.
Click to expand...

That's because none of them directly advocate for rights that you don't already enjoy, and you don't care about those rights. :shrug:
 
Phys251 said:
That's because none of them directly advocate for rights that you don't already enjoy, and you don't care about those rights. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And yet you still equate support for free speech with agreement with hate speech. Purposely, knowingly. Cravenly.
 
bomberfox said:
One should understand that free speech does not entitle anyone to a platform.
Click to expand...
Metaphorically speaking, it entitles them to not having their platform burned down by the state.

If a pluralistic society could exercise censorship with total impartiality and consistency, based on principles favouring no particular group, ideology, or political persuasion, broad censorship would work. But from the earliest origins of classical liberalism in the 16th and 17th Centuries, the patriarchs of social liberalism universally agreed that pluralistic society was wholly and intrinsically incapable of exercising such restraint. Men of influence, no matter who they are, will always seek to abridge speech contrary to their beliefs, ideals, and interests. Always.

Hence the genesis of freedom of speech laws.

The liberal patriarchs may not have understood human nature perfectly, but when it came to the importance of denying the state power over censorship in a pluralistic society, they knew what they were talking about.

Napoleon Bonaparte once wrote, "A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights." His words are manifest in every supporter of "hate speech" laws.
 
Phys251 said:
That's because none of them directly advocate for rights that you don't already enjoy, and you don't care about those rights. :shrug:
Click to expand...
So take me to task over the "rights that [I] don't already enjoy" in threads devoted to those topics.

This thread is about the right to freedom of speech. They have it. I have it. I don't seek to abridge it. They shouldn't seek to abridge it.

The myriad other rights we do and don't possess have nothing to do with this discussion. Unless your argument is that because a transgendered person can't use the bathroom he wants to, I shouldn't be able to call transgenderism immoral without the gestapo banging down my door.
 
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...

Yes, the left is very vocal about their hate speech. You're right. They don't support the first amendment because they always try to shut down the free speech of those they oppose.

May I alter another viewpoint based on your words?
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 The Proud Boys, Republican activists, etc. when they speak out.
Click to expand...
 
COTO said:
So take me to task over the "rights that [I] don't already enjoy" in threads devoted to those topics.

This thread is about the right to freedom of speech. They have it. I have it. I don't seek to abridge it. They shouldn't seek to abridge it.

The myriad other rights we do and don't possess have nothing to do with this discussion. Unless your argument is that because a transgendered person can't use the bathroom he wants to, I shouldn't be able to call transgenderism immoral without the gestapo banging down my door.
Click to expand...

The gestapo would have cheered the anti-trans sentiment, but you would likely never encounter such a scenario.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, the left is very vocal about their hate speech. You're right. They don't support the first amendment because they always try to shut down the free speech of those they oppose.

May I alter another viewpoint based on your words?
Click to expand...

List these instances of the state shutting down these conservative martyrs
 
bomberfox said:
The gestapo would have cheered the anti-trans sentiment, but you would likely never encounter such a scenario.
Click to expand...
Suppose I argue something as benign as "Children are being inappropriately pressured to change their gender," or "Hormone treatments, puberty blockers, and surgeries can do irreparable harm." With the laws as they are in Canada (and the UK has similar laws), if my identity became known, any sufficiently motivated activist could use the courts here to destroy my life.

It's rare but not unheard of. I'm on a mailing list for an organization that crowdfunds to help pay the legal expenses for defendants in the worst of the worst abuses. They're now assisting in multiple cases every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom