NationStates Jolt Archive

Hate speech should not be illegal. Banning hate speech not only violates free speech (obviously), but is also dangerously open to abuse: Who decides what constitutes 'hate speech?' The government could, in theory, label any speech it didn't like as 'hate speech,' and punish people accordingly. A small risk, but one not worth taking.

The First Amendment was never meant to serve as a shield against incoming fists. Or pies.

Just because the government has no right to regulate free speech, doesn't mean that there should be no consequences for saying stupid shit. I say pie the hate spewers. Pie them a lot. *nod*

Well, I've always heard about hate speech. Studied it, listened to it on the TV, or read about it on the internet, but today was the first real time I've heard it in person.

You're all familiar with the Obama Muslim chain e-mail (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071205/D8TBIDE00.html), yes? Apparently, the pastor at my mother's church just used it to justify a verbal attack on Muslims. In his little hate-fueled tirade, he called them "violent savages", "anti-American mobs", and (here's my favorite) "only exist to bring down the Christian values of the United States".

So, here's my question to NSG, how far does free speech go? Should we arrest people like this so that their warped opinions never see the light of day; or do we hold them as our equals under the law?

EDIT: e.g. Europe's Holacaust denial laws and America's current standing laws against inciting hate-based violence.

Well, I've always heard about hate speech. Studied it, listened to it on the TV, or read about it on the internet, but today was the first real time I've heard it in person.

You're all familiar with the Obama Muslim chain e-mail (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071205/D8TBIDE00.html), yes? Apparently, the pastor at my mother's church just used it to justify a verbal attack on Muslims. In his little hate-fueled tirade, he called them "violent savages", "anti-American mobs", and (here's my favorite) "only exist to bring down the Christian values of the United States".

So, here's my question to NSG, how far does free speech go? Should we arrest people like this so that their warped opinions never see the light of day;
No
or do we hold them as our equals under the law?
This

The list of things and people I hate and rant about is long, and if any entity attempts to restrict such speech will only serve to expand my list and consequent ranting.

I say pie the hate spewers. Pie them a lot. *nod*

Only using those cheap whipped creme pies. True banana creme pies are too good for them.

Well, I've always heard about hate speech. Studied it, listened to it on the TV, or read about it on the internet, but today was the first real time I've heard it in person.

You're all familiar with the Obama Muslim chain e-mail (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071205/D8TBIDE00.html), yes? Apparently, the pastor at my mother's church just used it to justify a verbal attack on Muslims. In his little hate-fueled tirade, he called them "violent savages", "anti-American mobs", and (here's my favorite) "only exist to bring down the Christian values of the United States".

So, here's my question to NSG, how far does free speech go? Should we arrest people like this so that their warped opinions never see the light of day; or do we hold them as our equals under the law?

EDIT: e.g. Europe's Holacaust denial laws and America's current standing laws against inciting hate-based violence.

Is he Baptist or Evangelical?

The First Amendment was never meant to serve as a shield against incoming fists. Or pies.

Just because the government has no right to regulate free speech, doesn't mean that there should be no consequences for saying stupid shit. I say pie the hate spewers. Pie them a lot. *nod*

LG, the more you talk, the stronger the case there is for your being President. :D

I think that obama chain mail crosses the line from hate speech to slander.

Unfortunately the right to free speech includes being hateful (or fortunately if you think about it; you censor one thing you can censor everything).

As a man who holds the Right to Free Speech and indeed, the entire First Amendment, as his most sacred right as a US citizen, I say that we must allow this ignorant, ass-backwards, bigoted fuckwits to say as they wish, even if they make even the most sensible among us pull our hair out at the roots and speak in tongues at their mere mention.

NOTE: This protection obviously does not apply to speech inciting violence against a particular ethnic group, nationality, sexual preference, etc.

Yes it does bolol. Otherwise rap music wouldn't exist.

I think that obama chain mail crosses the line from hate speech to slander.

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.
In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
No real line to cross, although you are right, it is slanderous.

Unfortunately the right to free speech includes being hateful (or fortunately if you think about it; you censor one thing you can censor everything).

As a man who holds the Right to Free Speech and indeed, the entire First Amendment, as his most sacred right as a US citizen, I say that we must allow this ignorant, ass-backwards, bigoted fuckwits to say as they wish, even if they make even the most sensible among us pull our hair out at the roots and speak in tongues at their mere mention.

NOTE: This protection obviously should not apply to speech inciting violence against a particular ethnic group, nationality, sexual preference, etc.

fixed

I think that obama chain mail crosses the line from hate speech to slander.

slander is spoken. In print it is libel.

Yes it does bolol. Otherwise rap music wouldn't exist.

fixed

Forgive me. "Does not apply..." insofar as "This protection obviously does not apply to speech inciting violence against a particular ethnic group, nationality, sexual preference, etc, in my mind."

But fair enough.

But YOU! Dyakovo! You went over my HELMET?!

But YOU! Dyakovo! You went over my HELMET?!

1-2-3-4-5? That's amazing, that's the same combination I have on my luggage!

slander is spoken. In print it is libel.

Thank you, J. Jonah Jameson. :D

Thank you, J. Jonah Jameson. :D

in my case, thank you torts professor, I learned that lesson a good 2 years before that movie came out.

in my case, thank you torts professor, I learned that lesson a good 2 years before that movie came out.

I figured as much, but I assumed you were quoting the movie. :)

But YOU! Dyakovo! You went over my HELMET?!

:confused:

I never bought the idea that speech was somehow sacred. We restrict actions, but we pretend like speech isn't an action itself. A reasonable society can decide which actions, whether they come from one's hand or one's mouth, are acceptable, and which are not acceptable.

(Hey, no one will want to be pied. ;))

I will, if it's banana cream. :D

I figured as much, but I assumed you were quoting the movie. :)

I wasn't particularly intending to quote word by word, but I think he explained it so well that it's fairly impossible to explain it in a succint way that does not result in a fairly accurate quotation.

Everyone has a right to speak, and we must protect that, no matter how stupid, hateful, or selfish their opinions are. Restricting hate speech will eventually lead to the total curtailing of speech unless it is praise for LG, I'm sure of it. (Hey, no one will want to be pied. ;))

I never bought the idea that speech was somehow sacred. We restrict actions, but we pretend like speech isn't an action itself. A reasonable society can decide which actions, whether they come from one's hand or one's mouth, are acceptable, and which are not acceptable.

We only restrict actions that directly harms others, and speech doesn't do that unless you yell fire into a crowded theatre or scream in somebody's ear. Moreover, free speech is essential to democracy. If we allow a government to restrict certain content in speech, then that government has effectively removed any check on any action it may take with regard to that content. And if a government is allowed to restrict certain content irrelevant to its function for popular reasons, then that mechanism can also be used to restrict speech relevant to its function. So by the very act of restricting the content of speech, we create the basis for undermining democracy.

This isn't just a theoretical argument either. Look at various "democracies" issuing nefarious gag orders, etc. Now's the time to throw down the ice axe and arrest our slide down the slippery slope. Vote Obama '08

Freedom of speech is a myth, if any part of speech is censored, then you really do not have it. Try calling in a bomb threat, of yelling fire in a crowed location and see how "free" your right to say what you want is. What we have in the U.S. is the freedom to critisize and to have opinions that are not shared by the general population of the country. If you really think about it I am sure you will see that many freedoms granted in the U.S. constitution are not true freedoms but come with many stipulations. Try buying a gun if you are a convicted felon, yet the fourth amendment give us the right to have guns( yes I know that is a simplification of the actual amendment, but it is the part that most people know).

*pies the OP*

I cannot agree with any law that seeks to restrict the range of opinions people can legally hold.

*pies the OP*

I cannot agree with any law that seeks to restrict the range of opinions people can legally hold.

*pies Trotskylvania*

We only restrict actions that directly harms others, and speech doesn't do that unless you yell fire into a crowded theatre or scream in somebody's ear. Moreover, free speech is essential to democracy. If we allow a government to restrict certain content in speech, then that government has effectively removed any check on any action it may take with regard to that content. And if a government is allowed to restrict certain content irrelevant to its function for popular reasons, then that mechanism can also be used to restrict speech relevant to its function. So by the very act of restricting the content of speech, we create the basis for undermining democracy.

This isn't just a theoretical argument either. Look at various "democracies" issuing nefarious gag orders, etc. Now's the time to throw down the ice axe and arrest our slide down the slippery slope. Vote Obama '08

The 'yelling fire' was mostly what I had in mind as unreasonable--inciting mayhem, violence, or destruction with one's words is certainly more objectionable than most felonies.

And what the fuck is up with the Obama plug at the end? You wouldn't be tolerated if you were blatantly selling us Oaster brand Toasters, and you shouldn't be tolerated for selling the Obama brand in an unrelated discussion.

Hate speech, sure, no problem. Let the harsh light shine on dark opinions and show them for the ignorance they are. I'd rather know who's actually thinking this way.

*pies LG* (It's a dirty job, but somebody has to pie the clown.)

Free speech should include hate. And hate crime legislation must be abolished.

I am not fond of protecting hate speech in any form. Mainly because we cannot ensure that the listener/reader is intelligent enough to know stupidity when he hears/sees it. If I could ban the stupid, well then sure hate speech would be fine because it would be worthless. It only works on idiots anyway.

EDIT: e.g. Europe's Holacaust denial laws and America's current standing laws against inciting hate-based violence.

Well, there's a difference between hate filled speech and hate-based violence mate.

One is simply a person's verbal expression of his/her views, the absolute quintessence of freedom of speech, and a society's most critical test towards its reverence and adherence to civil liberties and civil rights.

The latter is simply an unacceptable form of action that infringes upon another's rights, most notably the right to life and/or right to be secure in ones person.

So, you can't really equate hate-filled speech with hate-based violence, though I'm sure it can be argued that the hate-filled speech is nothing more than a precursor of the violence, however that's not always the case, and no one should be punished by the potentials of their conduct, but by the specifics of it. In other words, if my speech is considered bigoted and closed minded, that cannot be punished for its "potential" for me to then possibly use it to incite, provoke, and encourage violence. I can only be punished when I actively and specifically encourage violence in relation to the speech.

Don't punish the speech, punish the violence. A free market place of ideas cannot be properly established and maintained by producing a catatonic state of fear into the minds of those who entertain the notion of freely expressing their individualism. A democracy is not cohersive to such an autocratic totalitarianism.

The 'yelling fire' was mostly what I had in mind as unreasonable--inciting mayhem, violence, or destruction with one's words is certainly more objectionable than most felonies.

And what the fuck is up with the Obama plug at the end? You wouldn't be tolerated if you were blatantly selling us Oaster brand Toasters, and you shouldn't be tolerated for selling the Obama brand in an unrelated discussion.
Yes, it was shameless, but him and Ron Paul are the only free speech candidates and Ron Paul is an unelectable kook.

I am not fond of protecting hate speech in any form. Mainly because we cannot ensure that the listener/reader is intelligent enough to know stupidity when he hears/sees it. If I could ban the stupid, well then sure hate speech would be fine because it would be worthless. It only works on idiots anyway.
We can't ensure that the government is smart enough to know stupidity when it hears it either, considering that the stupid people are voting in stupid people.

We can't ensure that the government is smart enough to know stupidity when it hears it either, considering that the stupid people are voting in stupid people.

The government is not an omnipotent, all intrusive force within our society that holds virtually unlimited and unchecked power.

The government is us. The government is who we vote it to be.

We must never forget, WE are the government, WE are in charge, and WE must never concede that basic tenet of Democracy.


However, I must agree, the government should not be granted the power or authority to decide what is "hate" speech and what is not. Invariably, I have a sneaky suspicion that if such was the case, we would find numerous dissidents to be charged with committing acts of "hate" filled speech (and I shudder to think what would happen to opposing political parties).......

*pies Trotskylvania*

NUCLEAR POWERED PIE LAUNCHER!

NUCLEAR POWERED PIE LAUNCHER!

*immediately concedes defeat*

LG, save me!!! :eek:

Speech should only be restricted if it actually causes harm - after the fact.

So long as one has the right to the property one is using for their speech, then there should be no law to prevent the owner from saying it. So long as they are using their own throat, paper, or computer, people should be free to say whatever hateful, slanderous, libelous or other speech that they wish to say because we have no right to bludgeon them into submission. Now, we can choose how to arrange our own property in response (such as not letting them into our houses if they insult us), but we do not have a right to force them to say what we like to hear.

Everyone should be allowed to speak his mind, there is no more efficient way for him to self-identify.

Of course it should.

So long as one has the right to the property one is using for their speech, then there should be no law to prevent the owner from saying it. So long as they are using their own throat, paper, or computer, people should be free to say whatever hateful, slanderous, libelous or other speech that they wish to say because we have no right to bludgeon them into submission.

The bolded part is where I have issues. If you say demonstrably false things that can be shown to cause harm to someone, then I see no problem being made to compensate that person for the harm you cause.

Not to prevent you from saying it, but to make you pay for the harm caused by saying it.

Unfortunately the right to free speech includes being hateful (or fortunately if you think about it; you censor one thing you can censor everything).

As a man who holds the Right to Free Speech and indeed, the entire First Amendment, as his most sacred right as a US citizen, I say that we must allow this ignorant, ass-backwards, bigoted fuckwits to say as they wish, even if they make even the most sensible among us pull our hair out at the roots and speak in tongues at their mere mention.

NOTE: This protection obviously does not apply to speech inciting violence against a particular ethnic group, nationality, sexual preference, etc.

By not allowing our children (proverbially, and literally) to hear, and understand hate speech, they can't understand as well to not hate. When you put "Haters" into perspective you see that every group is hated, and I find it broadening. So I hear someone spewing a hate message against cultural/ethnic group X, well, I realize that someone from group Y is hating on the original guy.

I can either start hating everyone, or I can hate no one. At least if hate speech is legally allowed, enough people will be subjected to so much hate speech going in so many different directions, rather than people who are raised by bigots, and only hear hate speech (from parents/community) against group X.

I'm tired, if it didn't make sense, I apologize....

Hearing things we dislike is one of the downsides of free speech, but even hate speech should be tolerated if we are serious about having a society where the state cannot persecute you for your beliefs and you are free to say what you please. Once we start banning what people say, we can no longer call ourselves advocates of free speech nor claim the moral high ground over the hateful.

That said, there is the difficult issue of inciting hate based violence. Here free speech is being used to cause damage, much like the classic example of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Whether the speaker should be punished is a difficult issue. I feel they should be free to incite such action but also bear responsibility when someone is incited (not unlike libel laws, where individuals have to pay for the damage their words have inflicted).

Huh, who said the USA is the beacon of Freedom?
It just another cloaked empire!

:failed:

Speech isn't free, there are plenty of things you are not allowed to communicate through speech or text. Fraud, scams, threats, incitement to crime, copyrighted texts and even sending spam emails is illegal.

As for hate speech though, drag it out into the light and expose it's stupidity in debates. We have a tiny but growing racist party here that have seats in many municipal councils and will inevitably get into parliament the next election or the one after that. Because everyone who doesn't like established politicians vote for the racists since they are the only party who established politicians refuse to debate or cooperate with and who doesn't have to defend their views in debates.

Huh, who said the USA is the beacon of Freedom?
It just another cloaked empire!

:failed:

Um, no one?

e.g. Europe’s Holacaust denial laws...
That would be Austria and Germany’s (misguided yet understandable) prohibitions against Holocaust denial, not Europe as a whole.

Well, I've always heard about hate speech. Studied it, listened to it on the TV, or read about it on the internet, but today was the first real time I've heard it in person.

You're all familiar with the Obama Muslim chain e-mail (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071205/D8TBIDE00.html), yes? Apparently, the pastor at my mother's church just used it to justify a verbal attack on Muslims. In his little hate-fueled tirade, he called them "violent savages", "anti-American mobs", and (here's my favorite) "only exist to bring down the Christian values of the United States".

So, here's my question to NSG, how far does free speech go? Should we arrest people like this so that their warped opinions never see the light of day; or do we hold them as our equals under the law?

EDIT: e.g. Europe's Holacaust denial laws and America's current standing laws against inciting hate-based violence.


Hate speech as defined above is of course legal, what is not is speech intended to cause violence.

1-2-3-4-5? That's amazing, that's the same combination I have on my luggage!

Comb the desert! COMB the desert!

:confused:

Spaceballs reference my friend, I try to incorporate as many elements of geekdom into my speech as possible.

By not allowing our children (proverbially, and literally) to hear, and understand hate speech, they can't understand as well to not hate. When you put "Haters" into perspective you see that every group is hated, and I find it broadening. So I hear someone spewing a hate message against cultural/ethnic group X, well, I realize that someone from group Y is hating on the original guy.

I can either start hating everyone, or I can hate no one. At least if hate speech is legally allowed, enough people will be subjected to so much hate speech going in so many different directions, rather than people who are raised by bigots, and only hear hate speech (from parents/community) against group X.

I'm tired, if it didn't make sense, I apologize....

So over time an individual will be desensitized to hate speech, or even better, realize that bigotry itself is nothing but bunk? I think that's what your trying to say, correct me if I'm wrong.

And don't worry comrade, I stopped making sense two weeks ago when I landed on Mars.

Hate speech should not be illegal. Banning hate speech not only violates free speech (obviously), but is also dangerously open to abuse: Who decides what constitutes 'hate speech?' The government could, in theory, label any speech it didn't like as 'hate speech,' and punish people accordingly. A small risk, but one not worth taking.

Sound point.

Spaceballs reference my friend, I try to incorporate as many elements of geekdom into my speech as possible.

Ah, that would be why I didn't get it...

The bolded part is where I have issues. If you say demonstrably false things that can be shown to cause harm to someone, then I see no problem being made to compensate that person for the harm you cause.

Not to prevent you from saying it, but to make you pay for the harm caused by saying it.

No one has a right to the subjective thoughts in someone else's heads. Making someone pay compensation to another person for making other people change their own thoughts is simply coercion.