Hate speech: should it be covered under free speech?

Who would decide what constitutes hate speech?

The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them.

~shrug~

You can protest anything so long as you stay out of the goddamned way. If people want to stand in front of a clinic or a funeral, you can't stop them... so long as they stay on the street. You can throw them out if they try to physically stop you from doing something that is perfectly legal, however.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I think that there should be some strict guidelines set up... if it uses inflammatory language (i.e., slurs or canards) against a specific group or groups, then it can be considered hate speech.

You know, I seem to recall that in some states there were laws set up that prohibited anti-abortion protests within a certain number of blocks from the clinic. The law was there for a reason - it was set up right after Roe.

edited 9th Sep '11 3:25:56 PM by LilPaladinSuzy

Would you kindly click my dragons?

As much as it may suck the answer is yes. As long as it does not cross previously established limits.

Who watches the watchmen?

So long as those words do not incite violence or physical/legal damage, such as the points made earlier in this thread, then words are really meaningless. All they can do is change a crowd's opinion on a matter, at worst, and this is a weapon totally open and valid for use on the opposing side, so it's fair. If someone is saying something you don't like, speak louder.

I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior

Proximity limits are crap if they restrict you from being on public property.

Once again, no amount of standing there shouting at people can be illegal if it doesn't actually obstruct anything and stays organized and peaceful. If they get touchy-feel-y I wouldn't hesitate to have them thrown out, ideological-agreement or not.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Yes, but by that logic the civil rights protests of the 1960s would have also been disrupting the peace, and I don't think anyone is saying those should have been illegal. As others have said, the line is drawn when you are threatening physical harm. Saying "Man, I sure think the Norwegians suck" isn't very nice, but is, and should be, perfectly legal. Saying "Hai guyz, I have this awesome plan to nuke Norway, who's with me?" is probably going to be a problem.

Free speech for those whose views a large enough majority hates to make crushing them trivial is the very litmus test of a liberal state. Once you crush them, you don't have liberalism, but a traditional authoritarian society that uses power to enforce progressive ideas.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Yes because all progressives behave like dictators.

Who watches the watchmen?

Anybody who thinks their ideas are above democracy is authoritarian.

edited 9th Sep '11 4:42:56 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Well, we could always gather together like the guys I mentioned in my first post and go gather and practice our free speech at the WBC enclave. It'll be fun, guys!

Some speech is clearly criminal. I'm not saying racial slurs or crass stereotypes should be illegal, but going off about an inevitable race war and how you have guns and ammo stored for it kinda warrants some investigation.

the statement above is false

Right let me know when that race war starts.

Who watches the watchmen?

I support even letting the race-war jihadists have free speech. That way their speech can be out in the open, so it will be easier for people to notify the authorities so they can do a proper investigation.

Would you kindly click my dragons?

Also a good way to know who the nutters are. We let them speak their mind.

Who watches the watchmen?

In my mind, this argument is basically about drawing a line between speech and threats. Once it crosses that line, that's when it shouldn't get free speech protection.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Or, you know, you could build an environment where that attitude is almost non-existant.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

You can say you're ready for war all you like.

Don't be surprised when we bust you for having an armory without any permits (which I will bet money that you have if you're saying stupid shit like that), though...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Free speech? Most definitely. Because line between unpopular view and hate speech is fluid and way too open to interpretation. Also, because tolerance for unpopular viewpoint is what defines liberal state. Without it, just how is it different from tyranny that happened to uphold different ideas?

But there is a difference between free speech and avoiding all responsibility for one's words. Note that free speech does not, actually, guarantee anything but your ability to say what you want and not be prosecuted for saying it. If someone speaks with intention to incite violence against some group, they can rightly be held responsible and seen as culprits for that violence.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

It does warrant an investigation, but free speech has nothing to do with it. That's the distinction. One is not detained for talking about inevitable race war. One is in trouble because they've been storing ammunition, and their words lead to a reasonable suspicion that they are about to commit violence.

Umm, for example, a student successfully cheats on exam. Later said student tells the whole campus about it and after that, gets expelled. Can a student say: Hey, they're denying me freedom of speech! I've been saying things and now I am expelled for that! Of course not. Student was not expelled for saying they're cheated on exam, but because they were cheating in the first place. Which their words enabled everyone to know.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

But what if people who speak hate speech and the one storing ammnuition is different people ? In indonesia some mullah arguing that Ahmadiyah is apostate and should be killed. then some ahmadiyah got killed. police did capture the killer, usually poor and unemployed. but mullah who advocate murder did not suffer any consequence. some even celebrating it.

Because you have to prove that the speech incited the action directly, which is a monumental task unless it's patently obvious...

I am now known as Flyboy.

If you ask me, you can say what you want up until the point of encouraging or threatening violence or similar abuses against a person or group of people. At that point, it stops being about your rights and the rights of people to live in safety and in peace.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

that's why stronger hate speech law is needed. especially if you speak in TV or radio. mass communication media have great effect and should not be treated like yelling in lawn. hate speech in public space should not be acceptable.

Yup, agree with that.

edited 9th Sep '11 11:59:09 PM by PhilippeO

See above

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common