You're viewing a single thread.
Hate speech is not the same as free speech. Free speech was for reporters to keep them from being jailed so it’s not even applicable for what this guy thinks he’s defending with that phrase.
That's not entirely accurate. The first amendment mentions both freedom of speech and freedom of press. Freedom of speech is for individuals sharing ideas, not just reporters. That applies both conceptually and legally. Hate speech is seen as a necessary exemption by many, because of the potential ramifications (see comic). That isn't the same thing as saying free speech wouldn't apply even without said exemption; even though it may lead you to the same conclusion.
If you don’t like the reprocussions and losing your job for yelling sexist or racist comments at people out in the world, that’s not what freedom of speech protects.
It’s also worth noting that the government can’t limit free speech. We as citizens can boycott, bully, and harass hateful speech and should
It’s also worth noting that the government can’t limit free speech.
But it can and does! Go on Facebook and detail how you will storm and overthrow your state government next Monday at noon and see how long it takes for your speech to land you in jail. Or incite a stampede in a cinema by yelling "Fire!". And that's just two examples. Libel and slander are other examples where "just words" can get you in trouble with the government.
The idea of complete unlimited speech in the US is a fantasy. They clearly can and do draw lines at what you can and can't say in public. The only question is where this lines are.
Yeah, fair. That’s a whole nother can of worms to this discussion where physical harm results from words rather than simply expressing abhorrent beliefs
Well, WW2 in Europe and it's resulting horrors was basically the result of Hitler and Mussolini "simply expressing abhorrent beliefs". That's how they got into power in the first place and also how they got the better part of their population behind their insane dreams.
I agree with you there
Citizens have their own limitations when their response strays outside the realm of speech. Boycotts are fine—you have no obligation to buy what they're selling. However, harassment is not okay, and bullying is not okay. These things are wrong (and coincidentally illegal) on their own merits, and not a justified response to someone else's speech.
I wouldn’t go so far as saying bullying hateful and racist actors is illegal, but I think it’s a fair point that you have to use judgment and empathy when dealing with differing opinions
I’m with you on boycotting. Not with you on the abuse. Boycotting is not abuse. Though the bros with the cancel culture shirts seem to think so.
Hate speech is not the same as free speech.
"Free" is not a type of speech. It is the ability to speak. You can freely say all kinds of things. They could be hateful or not.
Germany has extremely harsh laws on language which promotes Nazis, but they clearly still have free speech. We can discourage hateful language and still maintain freedom of expression.
Yes it is possible. The problem is the amendment itself and the context in which it was written. Germany got to make their laws about it 150 years later, taking advantage of modern democratic experience. In 1792 it was extremely prevalent that governments would use any excuse to shut down political opposition. Thus the difference.
We should absolutely have evolved it by now instead of turning it into scripture.
Oh absolutely. It hasn't changed well for the times.
We should absolutely have evolved it by now instead of turning it into scripture.
But you did and still have that very option. That's exactly what the amendments are for! The first was enacted just a few years after the foundation of the US and the last was added in 1992. The US does have the tools to better safeguard themself against fascists if they want to. But of course that's rather difficult when a big part of the GOP has absolutely no scruple to flirt with overthrowing the whole system.
It's not just that. There are large parts of the US where they teach the Bill of Rights next to the Ten Commandments. Theoretically we could amend the first or second amendment. In reality I chose the word "scripture" for a reason.
Would you stick your hand inside the massive machine that is Americas laws and founding documents to fix those gears?
Unfortunately, I’m not so sure we can pause such a machine with all the other chaos that goes around us. Maybe it’s time America finally get their fucking hands out of every other country and start handling its own shit so we can stay a country instead of immanent collapse.
Would you stick your hand inside the massive machine that is Americas laws and founding documents to fix those gears?
That's exactly what the amendments are for. And the last of them was enacted in 1992. So the tools are there.
The main problem is that a big part of the GOP have and will continue to betray everything the US has stood for if it means for them to keep a bit longer in power.
That’s a good point. We’ve made many good corrections as time has gone on.
What are some things that the GOP did specifically to make it harder to do amendments or that are trying to to do? It’s always good to name names and put things into specific words. Otherwise it’s just another loose, general statement without any real backing know what I mean?
It's never a good time and the longer we wait the worse it gets. If a Constitutional Convention isn't ratified then we can keep on going with the previous version. The biggest problem is one side has been working on locking up state legislatures and they aren't going to play nice with representation at a convention.
And what is hate speech? When we start telling people what is and is not allowable to say, we set a highly dangerous precedent and move the game from black and white lines into shades of gray. Another shade darker is far easier to slip into than black from white.
Oh cool! Muddy waters!
I’ll just go ahead and stick this filter in here.
Hate speech: abusive or threatening speech or writing used to express prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
Pretty simple, you don’t get to threaten, scare or abuse people with your words. That infringes on their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Shall we of course discuss the one grey area “or similar grounds” or was there another direction you’d like to take this?
lol No, I'll take it another direction (mostly).
The definition you gave is already broad enough that I do not have to appeal to the "or similar grounds." I, personally, find it dishonest to call another by their preferred pronouns (I perceive that they are not the sex they wish me to refer to them as, therefore to deny my perception would be to lie. Their preferences or gender do not change that.) Under your definition, that would likely be called hate speech; but I am not trying to hate anyone. I don't think they should be treated differently from others, nor am I trying to make them feel unloved or hated in any way; rather, I am simply trying to be honest about what I see.
Here's another example: Say I conduct a study that compares the IQ of different ethnicities within a country. If I get results that slant one direction or another, publishing such a study might be deemed hate speech.
Here's another from the post we are talking about: On the second panel, you see the hateful man holding a book with a cross on it and saying that LGBT people in the background are affronts to God. Later, he is seen become an obvious totalitarian authority of some sort. A Christian might find such a comparison offensive. They may truly believe that homosexuality is wrong because that is what their religion teaches. Would preaching that topic become hate speech? Would preaching that RELIGION be considered hate speech?
A good rule of thumb I found is this: When advocating for any increase in power, especially in government, imagine that power in the hands of your worst enemy. Would you still want it to be used? I wouldn't.
I’ve read enough you’re a douche and you refuse to accept reality because you think your perception is law.
Purposefully and knowingly causing someone true anguish and denying them of their identity is next to nazi shit imo. You’re a sack of human waste and no amount of water muddying you can possibly produce will stop us from identifying and calling people like you out.
Your perception of reality is subjective full stop. It is not objective. Therefor by stomping on others subjectives with your own you imply superiority.
Rot.
Hold up. The above comment called for literal violence, and I'm the one who gets this level of hate? I truly do not understand.
I agree that my perception is subjective, but since I don't have any other that I can experience, I rely on my own first and foremost when mine conflicts with someone else's. That seems logical to me.
EDIT: Hold up x2. "Causing them true anguish?" "Denying them of their identity?" WTF? How is that what I am doing? I think we're losing perspective on what true anguish actually looks like here.
I, personally, find it dishonest to call another by their preferred pronouns (I perceive that they are not the sex they wish me to refer to them as, therefore to deny my perception would be to lie.
Oh wow, who would have guessed that a free speech absolutist is a transphobe? Shocking!!!!!
but I am not trying to hate anyone. I don't think they should be treated differently from others, nor am I trying to make them feel unloved or hated in any way; rather, I am simply trying to be honest about what I see.
By denying them their gender you are denying their identity, hating them and treating them differently just because they are trans/nb and making them feel unwelcomed, unloved and hated, something you doesn't do to cis people.
And all that is assuming you can even "tell" when someone is trans.
You're not being honest, you're being a self-centered bigot that clearly doesnt understand gender, neither trans nor non-binary people.
Here's another example: Say I conduct a study that compares the IQ of different ethnicities within a country. If I get results that slant one direction or another, publishing such a study might be deemed hate speech.
Ugh, here we go.
IQ is only ONE measure of skill/"inteligence" that is very limited and doesn't mean much.
Also your example just shows you wouldn't understand the meaning of the results of such study. If the data represent that a given ethnicity got lower scores that's only the start of the study, you then have to go deeper to understand why. Is it because they are "less inteligent", or is it because they are a marginalized group that receive less and poorer education? Is their education on par with the other tested ethnicity? How do another group of the same ethnicity on another conditions/country/whatever fare in the study? Etc, etc, etc.
On the second panel, you see the hateful man holding a book with a cross on it and saying that LGBT people in the background are affronts to God. Later, he is seen become an obvious totalitarian authority of some sort. A Christian might find such a comparison offensive.
So what? Atrocities have been commited in the name of their religion throughout history, why should we care if the christian find it "offensive" that they are depicted in the wrong for the wrong thst they are still doing? They literally brought this upon themselves by allowing this hateful anti-LGBT behavior to still exist within them.
They may truly believe that homosexuality is wrong because that is what their religion teaches.
Then they need to adapt to the times and start seeing LGBT as people like we are. Or they can go fuck themselves. One side is just trying to exist, the other is spewing hateful views and lies about them. There is no space for intolerance in society.
Would preaching that topic become hate speech? Would preaching that RELIGION be considered hate speech?
Yes. Either change your views and adapt or fuck off. If they don't respect people they should not expect to be respected, no matter how much they convinced themselves they are right.
Oh go cry in your racist pillow that you can’t scream racisms at people on the street.
That slope sounds so slippery
Hmm... Can't tell if you're agreeing or sarcastically and incorrectly pointing out a logical fallacy. If you agree, cool. If not:
The Slippery Slope fallacy is only a fallacy if one posits that the future events MUST happen as a result, not that they are likely to. If I take a step further down a literal slippery slope, I am more likely to fall but not guaranteed. If you start using hardcore drugs, you are likely to get addicted and lose a lot of money but again, not guaranteed.
That this would set a dangerous precedent is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest. Courts frequently have to bear in mind the legal precedent of their actions because once you do something, its easier the next time. That is fact, not conjecture. It is easier to ratchet down on a freedom that is already jeopardized. No conjecture involved there. No slippery slopes involved. If we allow some speech to be censored, it becomes easier to censor other types of speech.