• 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!

Hate Speech and the First Amendment

So not just all racists?

The only racists the political left sees are white ones, no matter how many whites are butchered, beaten, or raped on account of their race.
 
The First Amendment protects a person's right to say what they want, but doesn't protect anyone from getting offended. Honestly, I have no problem with it because you legitimize or delegitimize someone just by hearing what they have to say, hateful or not. So if the person says racists things, let them say it, then put them on your list of people that are not worth listening to. Let them dig their own hole and stay in it, and don't allow yourself to get down there with them. That's what they want. The only thing the First Amendment does NOT condone is violence against another person or group. So when someone starts saying that they will go out and pummel someone to the ground on the streets, and tries to do it, because X, Y, and Z, that person, at that time, loses their right to even say that. Or if they say they're going to blow a building up with people in it, and proceeds to move in on it, that, again, means they lose that right.

So violence is a no go. Talking crap is permitted, so if Neo-Nazi says whites are the best and hopes everyone else dies out, let them say it. If someone from Antifa says blacks are oppressed and whites should just die out, they can say that. Let idiots be idiots, and don't get bent of shape because of their idiocy (unless if they start getting violent and in which case let the authorities shut it down). Not everyone is going to like you, despite your best efforts, and vice versa. Anyone that doesn't like it, well, let me be the first to welcome you to reality.
 
Last edited:
Racist hate speech should be criminalized because it’s dangerous often leading to violence. Likewise, all White racist and neo-Nazi groups should be proscribed by law even if they claim to be non-violent.

So non-violent groups that are white should be illegal but what... black ones that are violent or not violent should be legal?
 
The First Amendment protects a person's right to say what they want, but doesn't protect anyone from getting offended. Honestly, I have no problem with it because you legitimize or delegitimize someone just by hearing what they have to say, hateful or not. So if the person says racists things, let them say it, then put them on your list of people that are not worth listening to. Let them dig their own hole and stay in it, and don't allow yourself to get down there with them. That's what they want. The only thing the First Amendment does NOT condone is violence against another person or group. So when someone starts saying that they will go out and pummel someone to the ground on the streets, and tries to do it, because X, Y, and Z, that person, at that time, loses their right to even say that. Or if they say they're going to blow a building up with people in it, and proceeds to move in on it, that, again, means they lose that right.

So violence is a no go. Talking crap is permitted, so if Neo-Nazi says whites are the best and hopes everyone else dies out, let them say it. If someone from Antifa says blacks are oppressed and whites should just die out, they can say that. Let idiots be idiots, and don't get bent of shape because of their idiocy (unless if they start getting violent and in which case let the authorities shut it down). Not everyone is going to like you, despite your best efforts, and vice versa. Anyone that doesn't like it, well, let me be the first to welcome you to reality.

Perfect!
Couldn't agree more. Say what you will, but when you hit someone, there is no justification.
Its not OK for Re-Necks to assault anyone, nor is it OK for their "opposers"...trying hard not to bring the wrath of some people...to assault anyone.
 
To be honest I am surprised I haven't seen any other posts about this.

Brandenbyrg V. Ohio set the precedent that hate speech is indeed still considered an exercise of freedom of speech assuming it does not result in violence.


So what do you, the people of DP think?

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?

Yeah, it does. The problem with "hate speech" is who defines it? Legislators? Judges? Unelected bureaucrats? And if a government wants to restrict freedom, all it has to do is put a label on something and ban it. So any language perceived as undesirable or a political obstacle could be branded as "hate speech." People should not be incited to violence, but some of these SJW types are just plain nuts, as though it's the job of government to keep people from getting their feeling hurt. It's stupid.
 
To be honest I am surprised I haven't seen any other posts about this.

Brandenbyrg V. Ohio set the precedent that hate speech is indeed still considered an exercise of freedom of speech assuming it does not result in violence.


So what do you, the people of DP think?

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?

Yes, as long as said speech isn't violent! Now just because some liberal from berkely with blue hair and a nose ring on wearing a ***** hat is angered does not mean the words were violent! Funny where were the Hollywood lefties and Main Stream media when Black Lives matter were calling for killing whiteys police?
 
I think what most folks mean when they talk about regulating hate speech is speech that inflames another person to violence. An insult, really. But the other person's reaction can't be regulated, now, can it? It can only be punished if it is violent. But if the hate speech itself is not violent, well, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", right? I'm talking about physically hurt, not mental anguish and such. But protection from mental anguish is not a constitutional right.
 
Does the First Amendment protect the rights of those saying things others deem hateful, if so, why, if not, why not?
Sure. Although, when one starts advocating violence, it becomes problematic.

Richard Spencer says things like: "‘Does human civilization actually need the Black race?’ ‘Is Black genocide right?’ and, if it is, ‘What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?". This is despicable but protected in the form of an essay. But what happens if he says similar things in front of a mob carrying torches? That's when things get iffy.
 
Why is that tyranny? Why we should allow people to spread their hatred in public and call for death of other people?

My assumption is that if someone calls for the death of someone else, that is still protected speech. The US take on this sort of thing is pretty absolute compared with other countries which we consider to be free, where the government can penalize some speech and other public expressions.
 
This is why I think the Freedom Census is completely wrong, many of the countries listed above America have hate speech laws which are the enemy of freedom. The problem is that while now it may be considered hate speech to spout racism etc... But the definition of what hate speech actually is can change leading to a downturn of what people will be allowed to say. This protects the media as well, imagine if the left pushes to have hate speech laws and someone else like Donald Trump gets elected. Anything hateful they say about the president would be punishable by law. It would be sort of ironic.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but I dont think Nazis should be allowed to protest and spread their haterd in public, just like I will oppose any protest which support any terror group say ISIS for example.

The First Amendment doesn't say anything about agreeing with what anyone says or that you have to like it, only that you have the right to say it. It's one of the primary reasons colonialists broke away from England, to be able to speak out when they believed the government was enforcing unfair practices without being put in jail for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom