First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
does hate speech exist?
3176 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Minnesota USA
Offline
Posted 12/11/16
most important, should hate speech be illegal? i see a problem with hate speech being illegal since "hate speech" is a mostly relative term and anti-hate speech laws would seem to me lead to someone abusing the system to silence bad reports of themselves and seems in itself a destruction of freedom of speech
19308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 12/11/16 , edited 12/11/16
The problem with outlying hate speech is that anything can be defined as offensive. Maybe I'm offended by being called a woman. Or a man. How can you possibly communicate if everything can possibly be labeled as hate speech?

I seem to recall there was a South Park episode about this, where everyone in the town was so offended by aspects of the Christmas holiday that the kids were forced to perform so weird dirge for their holiday show in lieu of Christmas songs.
5371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Cat Empire
Offline
Posted 12/11/16 , edited 12/22/16
Hate speech does exist. Well i don't think the 1st amendment says anything about hate speech

but if there's anything that can prevent hate crimes, that would be cool
6046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 12/11/16 , edited 12/11/16
making blanket laws protect against corruption and abuse, however do not address real life well, as nothing will perfectly fit the mold of the situation the law maker had thought up in his head.

individual analysis of each incident leaves it open to bias, corruption, etc. but can also lead to the most appropriate ruling.

overall, since human nature seems to have proven itself as inherently bad, as capitalism focuses on a working system based on greed, and communism based on fairness and kindness to others in society, but capitalism is the one that works out while communism is riddled with corruption. this give some evidence to say people are inherently bad at least in modern society. with that in mind. blanket laws are better against corruption as it is an absolute. therefore it is probably better to maintain free speech. allow people, however hateful they may be, to express themselves, and allow those on the opposition to do the same. and have observers figure their own opinions.
699 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 12/11/16
Most hate speech laws are pretty loose, at least in the countries I have lived in (including America). As long as you aren't, like, literally advocating violence, often specifically genocide, you can get away with quite a lot in a legal sense. Might get fired or kicked out of your school, mind, but that's not really the government's decision so I can't really advocate one way or the other on that issue.
25478 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / So. Cal
Offline
Posted 12/11/16 , edited 12/12/16
It's a form of censorship, and I oppose all forms of censorship
1372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 12/11/16
speech should only be limited if it is a call to action. Free speech is protected under the first amendment as long as said speech does not present a clear and present danger. For instance, calling someone a racial slur, despite being a despicable thing to do, can be protected under the law. A think that the cut off point is that one has to be actively advocating for the harm of another before legal action needs to be taken.
27021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wales, UK
Offline
Posted 12/12/16
Hate speech can be rigorously defined so as to be more meaningful than "offensive", the problem is people don't care about whatever line you draw there in a principled fashion, they care about silencing people whose opinions are offensive and wrong. There's no bright line around whatever definition of "hate speech" you draw - if I say black people are more likely to be criminal, aren't I implicitly saying violence against black people is more justified? You can argue either way as to whether that meets a specific definition of "hate speech" like "advocating violence against certain groups".

As such, I think the existence of the concept of "hate speech" and laws involving it are ultimately harmful to the marketplace of ideas, because it promotes a slippery slope of more and more censorship, beyond things that probably in and of themselves should be censored like serious advocation of genocide.
25684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Imouto Sanctuary
Online
Posted 12/12/16
Hate Speech has a definite definition. You're just looking at the two words separately in order to glean what possible definitions there are based on the words inside. Please no.
Humms 
12729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Online
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16
Fuck no.

Just a bunch of whiners getting their panties in a bunch
2518 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/16 , edited 12/12/16
Hate speech does exist. Just watch any Nazi rally and you'll see clear evidence of it. Should it be illegal? No. There's a reason our democracy works so well and freedom of speech is a big part of it. Right or wrong words are just words. Actions are a whole different matter though.

I would argue though that any hurtful words could be classified as hate speech. One does not need to go on a racist rant for it to be hate speech. Look at all the things that were said to Martin Luther King Jr. and yet he kept going and always turned the other cheek. Hateful words did not stop him. They don't have the power to stop anyone. They are just words and you and you alone decide how those words can or can't effect you. Words only have the power that you give them. If you look hard enough you can find the negative in anything. On the other hand if you look hard enough you can see the beauty in anything.
qwueri 
23478 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 12/12/16
When you start advocating violence against people(s), you should be held responsible in part for the violence that speech may inspire. Like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, speech meant to cause panic or violence should have consequences.
31316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Ajures
Offline
Posted 12/12/16
Sure hate speech exist. Example making hate speech against the Japanese and anime, say against Christian values. Or hate speech by ISIS. Think about America, how lots of people there are and if hate speech laws were not in place. Other places are different.
12131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/12/16
Of course hate speech exists. It's kind of easy to find :/

That being said I think it should only be outlawed when it is in violation of other laws, like if the people doing the hate speech are harassing or inciting violence.
Posted 12/12/16
No it doesn't.

If it does then its the only speech that actually needs protection. You can't call it free speech if you can't say things that offend people.

An example of what happens when you allow 'hate speech' laws to exist:

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.