4 of 6
4
Should hate speech be protected as free speech?
Posted: 02 November 2013 04:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2583
Joined  2011-04-24
VYAZMA - 02 November 2013 01:42 AM

What’s your basis for defending all forms of hate speech other than some old crusty parchment that was written over 250
years ago?  A document that didn’t list hate as something to be defended in the first place.

Don’t bother with corny retorts.  Everybody’s heard all the old adages about freedoms and rights.
Don’t ask if I have been drinking, give me a real counter to this.

First, hate is impossible to categorize. That means anything can be “hate”.
Then, if we make “hate” unlawful and punishable, the entire society will be in a permanent state of litigation.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 07:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
VYAZMA - 01 November 2013 09:44 PM

Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets.
Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate.  But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive
populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show.
In order to maintain that “theater” peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon.

The irony, of course, is that the segment of the population whose opinions you so vehemently oppose means that you hate either them or what they stand for or how they express themselves.  Thus, your opinion opposing them means you are committing hate speech yourself.  And therein lies the problem with laws on something so subjective as “hate speech.”

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 08:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2013-10-30
mid atlantic - 02 November 2013 04:14 AM
VYAZMA - 02 November 2013 01:42 AM

What’s your basis for defending all forms of hate speech other than some old crusty parchment that was written over 250
years ago?  A document that didn’t list hate as something to be defended in the first place.

Don’t bother with corny retorts.  Everybody’s heard all the old adages about freedoms and rights.
Don’t ask if I have been drinking, give me a real counter to this.

First, hate is impossible to categorize. That means anything can be “hate”.
Then, if we make “hate” unlawful and punishable, the entire society will be in a permanent state of litigation.

I agree with mid Atlantic here and with to address Vyazma"s question.

I will start out with a simple desire – I don’t wish to be sent to jail (or lose my job) for speaking my opinion or having fear that someone will claim that it is hate speech.  People that are confident in their moral and ethical positions do not need to silence others – a simple concept but oh so important.  If you start agreeing to silence some, then you leave the door open to silence all disent. The fact that we are having this discussion scares me the hell out of me. 
Perhaps what I am most concerned about is that we have a group of people (I call them the radial left but it could be anyone) that think that their position is so morally and ethically superior to others that by definition they are right.  That alone should cause us fear.  Not only do they wish to define what hate speech is but they want to use those defintions to silence their foes.  If you don’t see a problem here, then you are not a thinking man or you are part of the radical left seeking to silence those that oppose you.
There is also a fundamental double standard at work here.  I know that you wish to define hate speech as something like the n-word but where do you draw the line?  I see a lot of hate speech against the KKK.  I am not saying that they don’t deserve hate but what gives the radical left the right to hate groups that they oppose but not vice versa?  Look at your own statement: “who somehow live in parallel with the most incarcerated people per capita and the biggest War/Killing marhine th world has ever known…”.  I think I could make a case that this is hate speech.  You certainly do not have much love for the military.  Do you really want to find yourself drawing fine lines between what one group considers hate speech and another sees as free speech?
The evolution of the hate speech debate finds its origins in the minority and women’s movements.  And can there be any denying that it is a political movement set up to squash disent against them?  It is not a moral stance, it is a way to politically manipulate and control those they see as the enemy.  I refuse to have any group dictate to me what I can and cannot say in an effort to politically control.  The sheer audacious nature of it is astonishing. 
Finally, have you ever read Malcom X’s autobiography?  It is one of the finest books I have ever read.  But X was the very definition of hate speech (at least in his early life).  Let’s not forget that X was a radical black muslim set on violent destruction of the enemy.  The same group he was part of was the group that eventually killed him.  But would anyone here wish to silence Malcom X or prevent his book from being publised because they thought it hate speech?  Your position of the moral high ground looks great when you are trying to silence the KKK or those that use the n-word.  But not so good when you begin to apply it in general terms.  Do you really wish to silence Farrakhan or is your movement only against those you are politically opposed to?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
mid atlantic - 02 November 2013 04:05 AM
VYAZMA - 02 November 2013 01:42 AM

If we were to make modifications to our laws concerning hate speech or inflammatory speech do you really think
there would be an overwhelming crowd of people in the streets demanding to bring back hate speech.
I doubt it.

 

I don’t know if we can make modifications to this. But Yeah, I do think many people would be in favor bringing free speech, or as you consider it- “hate speech” back. If it was taken away.

Oh yeah. Modifications can be made. Here’s one example.
Supreme Court to hear new case on public prayer
Robert Barnes.  Washington Post 11/02/2013
Prayers before a town’s board meetings….

Now the prayer people will probably win this time but…
And of course there are Special Federal and State Statutes and Codes designed to deal with Hate Crimes.

For hundreds of years people have defended prayer as free speech. 
And often times that conflicts with the separation of church and state.
So you see laws change.

And I disagree with you.  As these laws slowly change, and things like prayer and hate are outlawed
in schools, public places, etc, the only people who may fight for their return will seem anachronistic
and vulgar.  Base.

[ Edited: 02 November 2013 08:42 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
mid atlantic - 02 November 2013 04:01 AM

We accept a lot of things on principle alone, constitutionally. The countries that restrict speech are dull and lifeless.

Yeah. We have free speech. Whatever that means?
We also have the highest percentage of people in prison or jail in the world.
We have a Defense Budget that is larger than the next 15 or so largest Defense Budgets combined.  One Half of our Treasury.(Tax Dollars) Every Year. 
And we have 10% of the population controlling over 80% of the nations wealth.

Ok, the 3 things listed above are indications of a system that isn’t exactly the most Free.
I myself am always wary of slackjawed myrmidons who banter the loudest about freedom whilst the rug is being pulled out
from under them.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 09:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
Rocinante - 02 November 2013 07:31 AM
VYAZMA - 01 November 2013 09:44 PM

Something needs to be done about the growing amount of slime journalism and blatant propaganda being spewed by outlets.
Much of it easily borders on what I would call hate.  But worse than hate is lying and misinformation to deceive
populations in order to maintain a political dog and pony show.
In order to maintain that “theater” peoples hatreds and fears must be played upon.

The irony, of course, is that the segment of the population whose opinions you so vehemently oppose means that you hate either them or what they stand for or how they express themselves.  Thus, your opinion opposing them means you are committing hate speech yourself.  And therein lies the problem with laws on something so subjective as “hate speech.”

No, no.  I’m simply campaigning to change laws. Redefine what Free Speech should entail.
It’s not difficult.  Look at the 4th Amendment. Look at the 2nd Amendment.
You know how many times they have been modified over the centuries? Lots!
Heck there’s Amendments that barely have any meaning left-if any meaning at all. The 3rd Amendment.
As far as the 1st amendment goes, I see people being carted off and arrested all the time for Peaceful assembly.

It’s all just a matter of degrees. Interpretations.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
VYAZMA - 02 November 2013 09:12 AM

No, no.  I’m simply campaigning to change laws. Redefine what Free Speech should entail.

So you don’t hate members of the Tea Party?  Or Fox News?  Or creationists?  Or nazis? 

And who will decide what free speech should entail?  You?  Me?  Some government bureaucracy?  Should conservatives and liberals have the same free speech rights?  What about creationists and evolutionists?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 09:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14

Rocinante’s Signature…

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Yeah, exactly.
Forget what Madison thought.  That was 225 years ago.  He was selling it, hard!
For all of the rest of us that followed….
What? You thought that “the silent and gradual encroachment of those in power” weren’t going to have an effect on our Rights?
Seriously!?!?!
Are you that naive?  That has never NOT taken place.  Anywhere on Earth, anytime since history was first recorded.
That started happening in the US July 5th, 1776..in earnest!!

So perhaps the people who want to infringe other’s rights the most are the people who scream the loudest about the sanctity of said rights?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
Rocinante - 02 November 2013 09:19 AM
VYAZMA - 02 November 2013 09:12 AM

No, no.  I’m simply campaigning to change laws. Redefine what Free Speech should entail.

So you don’t hate members of the Tea Party?  Or Fox News?  Or creationists?  Or nazis? 

And who will decide what free speech should entail?  You?  Me?  Some government bureaucracy?  Should conservatives and liberals have the same free speech rights?  What about creationists and evolutionists?

Yes of course a Bureaucracy should decide it. They have been all along.  Hopefully that represents some extension of the
majority.  In any government, bureaucracies decide most items. You knew this, no?
The 3 branches of power in The US are a bureaucracy.

Of course rights should extend across the spectrum equally.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 10:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14

Rocinante, Mid Atlantic and Volcano:
I’d be willing to wager that our common interests and goals are far more in common than we
portray.
One thing which makes our perceived differences stand out is the “speech” that is bandied about so freely on both sides of the spectrum.
I’ll be the first to admit “my speech” is polarizing.
But like I said, probably needlessly polarizing.  For the most part.

Polarization is good to a point. 
I think our Nation is currently stupidly crippled by polarization.
One thing that definitely contributes to that is “speech”.
A careful, studied consideration of these dynamics can’t hurt.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 01:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
mid atlantic - 02 November 2013 04:14 AM

First, hate is impossible to categorize. That means anything can be “hate”.
Then, if we make “hate” unlawful and punishable, the entire society will be in a permanent state of litigation.

No it’s not.  It’s not difficult.  Like I said there are plenty of laws on the books which define hate.
And they stand up in courts.  So by actual practice, hate can be defined.

You’re getting all hyperbolic. That means anything can be “hate”
That right there…that’s hyperbole.

A monkey or a small child can be reasonably trained to determine between hate and reason.
Let alone a group of distinguished lawmakers and scholars. It’s not rocket science.

Truth in advertising laws get bent up all the time.  That’s limitations on speech.
And those rules get bent constantly.
Awhile ago Listerine had to make good on a false claim that rinsing with their mouthwash was as good as flossing.
It’s all just a simple matter of how much BS society is willing to let float around in the air.

And we need less BS floating around in my opinion

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2013 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2013-10-30

For hundreds of years people have defended prayer as free speech. 
And often times that conflicts with the separation of church and state.
So you see laws change.

I recognize from your later posts that you think we have a lot in common, but I would like to stress a point here.  In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech—because it is forced on those who participate in the classroom.  I suspect we agree on this point but in case we don’t certainly there is a difference between me expressing my opinion among those that agree with me or those that are willing to freely listen to me and those that are forced to participate in something like prayer that do not share the belief system but must listen. 

In addition, one of my contentions is that suppressing hate speech leads to suppression of all speech that is not desired.  Perhaps you are not of the described ilk I am defining but the radical left has already made some serious infringements beyond hate speech.  In the academy, the university I work for has insisted that the university have “free speech” zones usually located in remote sections of the university far away from most student traffic.  Apparently they felt that a free speech zone is equivalent to free speech on a public campus.  The tactic was focused on suppressing the religious wackos that come on campus and preach and the anti abortion crowd that shows up once or so a year to display hideous images of aborted babies.  There were several professors from various sections of campus (which included me) that objected not because we supported the speakers but because we felt they had a right to make their point anywhere on campus.  It is different than prayer because no one is forced to listen - they can simply walk on by.  I am for abortion and against any faith-based belief system but defend their right to make their point. 

So here we have a case of the speech not being hate but objectionable to the radical left intent on literally silencing those that disagree with them.  These people understand power and will use it to their benefit if given the opportunity.  For a while hate speech included anything that the radical left found objectionable.  I am happy to say that we won the skirmish and free speech areas include all parts of campus now.  But I caution you about the objectives of those that claim hate speech should be silenced.  BTW, we still have a code of speech that is deemed acceptable that must be followed by all employees.  I can lose my job should I violate that code.  I still don’t know precisely where the line is drawn but have found that no one that wishes to test it including myself.  So not only do we have forbidden speech but we are required to be cordial and polite.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2013 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
volcanoman - 02 November 2013 09:55 PM

I recognize from your later posts that you think we have a lot in common, but I would like to stress a point here.  In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech—.....

I just skimmed the first paragraph of your post. 
It doesn’t matter what you think prayer is a form of. It matters what the people who are praying think it is a form of.

They argue on 2 bases.
1.  Free Speech
2 Legislative tradition going back to the Founders.(more BS)

Aside from all of that, prayer is a form of speech.  And there are plaintiffs before a court of law
to suppress it.

[ Edited: 03 November 2013 10:43 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2013 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5166
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting Volcanoman:

In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech—because it is forced on those who participate in the classroom.

Would this reason also apply to the required pledge of allegiance and to required oral exercises in class?

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2013 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2013-10-30
VYAZMA - 03 November 2013 10:09 AM
volcanoman - 02 November 2013 09:55 PM

I recognize from your later posts that you think we have a lot in common, but I would like to stress a point here.  In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech—.....

I just skimmed the first paragraph of your post. 
It doesn’t matter what you think prayer is a form of. It matters what the people who are praying think it is a form of.

They argue on 2 bases.
1.  Free Speech
2 Legislative tradition going back to the Founders.(more BS)

Aside from all of that, prayer is a form of speech.  And there are plaintiffs before a court of law
to suppress it.

I feel particularly fortunate that you took the time to scan my first paragraph.  Just because it is in a court of law does not mean it will win.  But who cares.  Arguing that a bunch of AHs argue something to be free speech does not mean they are correct nor does it support your position that you have the moral audacity to determine what is and is not free speech.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 6
4