• 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

Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
120
Reaction score
58
Location
665 miles off the East Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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?
 
There are posts about it all the time.

Some people claim "hate speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment.

They're wrong.
 
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?

Of course it does. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that people don't like.
 
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?

That is pretty much the way I see it.
 
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?

Tis a true statement. Hate speech is free speech, violence is not. Any individual should be allowed to run their mouth about whatever so long as they keep it to running one's mouth, not one's fist.
 
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 it does protect the rights of those saying things we deem hateful. There is no fine print that says "as long as it doesn't offend anybody".
 
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?

Where there is no disagreement there is no liberty. It is human nature to disagree with one another and disagreement is necessary for the development of new ideas. It's a function of growth.

One need not endorse ideas which they find offensive or personally hurtful but to seek suppression of those ideas is to seek tyranny.
 
Where there is no disagreement there is no liberty. It is human nature to disagree with one another and disagreement is necessary for the development of new ideas. It's a function of growth.

One need not endorse ideas which they find offensive or personally hurtful but to seek suppression of those ideas is to seek tyranny.
Why is that tyranny? Why we should allow people to spread their hatred in public and call for death of other people?
 
Why is that tyranny? Why we should allow people to spread their hatred in public and call for death of other people?

What makes your hatred if their ideas any better than their hatred of your ideas? Suppression of free speech is totally self-serving and, as such, is a function of totalitarianism.
 
What makes your hatred if their ideas any better than their hatred of your ideas? Suppression of free speech is totally self-serving and, as such, is a function of totalitarianism.
So opposition to Nazis marching in public and calling for killing Jews and Blacks is hatred?
 
What makes your hatred if their ideas any better than their hatred of your ideas? Suppression of free speech is totally self-serving and, as such, is a function of totalitarianism.

Folks who have hatred, of any type, in their hearts for others - doesn't hold up in a wet paper bag. They can soapbox their hatred all day long.

It's when they, or others, who hold similar beliefs - manifest those beliefs of hatred into acts of violent behaviors against other - is when they are a danger to our society and blatantly ignore the laws meant to protect all people within the jurisdiction of the United States.

These types of expressions of hatred isn't suppression of free speech.
 
So opposition to Nazis marching in public and calling for killing Jews and Blacks is hatred?

Opposing them peaceably is fine. Opposing them by spitting on them and throwing things at them is not.
 
Folks who have hatred, of any type, in their hearts for others - doesn't hold up in a wet paper bag. They can soapbox their hatred all day long.

It's when they, or others, who hold similar beliefs - manifest those beliefs of hatred into acts of violent behaviors against other - is when they are a danger to our society and blatantly ignore the laws meant to protect all people within the jurisdiction of the United States.

These types of expressions of hatred isn't suppression of free speech.

Is protesting the pending removal of a monument in a public park by standing in the park, holding signs and hollering at passers by a violent act?
 
Opposing them peaceably is fine. Opposing them by spitting on them and throwing things at them is not.
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.
 
Is protesting the pending removal of a monument in a public park by standing in the park, holding signs and hollering at passers by a violent act?

Is that what happened? Have you got all of the facts in yet? Trump says that he hasn't.
 
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.

No problem. This is America and you're free to advocate for totalitarianism all you like. Just don't try to suppress free speech by force of government or force of violent actions. Doing the former will foment revolution and doing the latter may result in comparable violent actions being taken against you.
 
Is that what happened? Have you got all of the facts in yet? Trump says that he hasn't.

I don't know who started flinging things but there are definitely videos out there showing the counter protesters spitting and throwing projectiles. As I've said all along, both sides came loaded for bear.
 
No problem. This is America and you're free to advocate for totalitarianism all you like. Just don't try to suppress free speech by force of government or force of violent actions. Doing the former will foment revolution and doing the latter may result in comparable violent actions being taken against you.
I didn’t say I am supporting totalitarian regime, don’t distort my words.

I don’t live in the US but I think any democratic regime that protect the liberty of its people, should protect it’s people not just from physical harm but also from mental harm, and in this case the harm in the public feelings is way to much and therefore its overpower the free speech.
 
Why is that tyranny? Why we should allow people to spread their hatred in public and call for death of other people?

Do you agree that BLM, The Muslim Nation, radical immams, antifa, etc. should also be banned?
 
I didn’t say I am supporting totalitarian regime, don’t distort my words.

I don’t live in the US but I think any democratic regime that protect the liberty of its people, should protect it’s people not just from physical harm but also from mental harm, and in this case the harm in the public feelings is way to much and therefore its overpower the free speech.

No such protections exist, nor should they.
 
Do you agree that BLM, The Muslim Nation, radical immams, antifa, etc. should also be banned?
Any group or organization which his people calling for death and support terror should not be allowed to protest and spread hatred.
 
II don’t live in the US but I think any democratic regime that protect the liberty of its people, should protect it’s people not just from physical harm but also from mental harm, and in this case the harm in the public feelings is way to much and therefore its overpower the free speech.

Color-coded for contradiction.
 
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?

Antifa... making sure all discussion ends in violence.
 
Any group or organization which his people calling for death and support terror should not be allowed to protest and spread hatred.

The American Left disagrees.
 
No such protections exist, nor should they.
Do you agree there some mental injuries which are severe just like (and somtimes more than) physical injury?
 
Back
Top Bottom