The Fine Line Between Hate Speech and Freedom Of Speech

Interesting point!

But then, doesn't it all depend on the political climate? A man can stand in the middle of Times Square ranting about how Asians should die (I use Asians as an example as I myself am Asian) and most people (and most Asians) would simply roll their eyes off at him. But if said same man were to say the same thing about, let's say, Islam, people would be in an uproar and brand what he says as hate speech, as the political climate is hostile towards Muslims.

Same with Hitler; at that time, Germany was poor and they needed a scapegoat, any scapegoat, and the Jewish community, being already one distrusted by the Germans, was an easy target.

This is just an opinion. I am not an American, as I mentioned before, and I do not know what really goes on in your country; these are all conjectures on what I think the problem is. I would like to know what you think about this matter.

 

I already answered that when I stated hate speech is strictly subjective what is hate speech to you will not be to someone else.

There is no objective definition of hate speech there is no universal agreement on any idea or expression being hate speech.

Shapiro and Milo do in fact engage in hate speech to SOME but not to many others. And the same is true for Micheal Moore and Chomsky and anyone else.

Yes you are going to hear a great deal of hate speech in your life you can ignore it or occasionally listen and learn how to effectively argue and refute what you hear.

This is especially true in colleges. If colleges are censoring or banning or restricting ANY form of speech then they are doing a grave disservice to their students. You cannot learn and become educated without being exposed to many many points of view and ideas including ideas and thoughts which are repugnant and offensive ( hate speech ). You listen to such ideas and learn how to judge them and interrogate them and decide for yourself which ideas to reject and which ones to embrace. When others do not want not want you to hear someone else's view they are not only violating your rights they are robbing you of the money someone paid to purchase a college education for you.

Another thing linked to the right to express oneself is the right to hear and be heard. No one has the right to make you hear them or listen but you have the right to voluntarily listen and hear them if you wish. Essentially everyone has a LIMITED right to be heard and that limitation is whatever number of people wish to listen. If no one gives a damn or want's to listen to you then too bad for you. If a hundred or a million people wish to hear you then that is how far your right to be heard goes.

 

You write very well, it is a pleasure reading your points.

 

I believe that one party, the GOP, has worked itself into a state of being where hate is the only common theme they have left. It was formulated during the 70s and then mainstreamed by Reagan who did not hate per se but whose rhetoric easily led normal people to start the process of hating our nations institutions and the opposing point of view. When he said the problem was government, he laid the foundation for hatred of government. When he said states rights, he winked at racism and institutionalized racism. When he said rich people can help poor people if only the rich got richer, he started the process where the poor thought anyone who kept the rich from getting richer was their enemy. Right wing radio turned it into a comedy show with deadly intent. Then Fox News made it into propaganda. The rise of Trump is the end result of decades of conservative actions and words that divided us around politics.

 

So in your world, what is a limiting principle?

 

What nonsense, who is attacking people, disrupting events, and causing violence. It ain't the GOP.

 

Dislike or hatred of institutions began well before Reagan when a bunch of guys decided the king of england can go to hell. Nor is it the right which opposes such institutions but the left as well. the left generally opposes the military and local law enforcement but loves federal law enforcement.

States rights has nothing t do with racism period. the claim that it is racist to support states rights is absurdly stupid. Even institutionalized racism is a mindless and baseless hypothesis. Opposition to such ideas is not racism.

Your claim about the rich is mindless babble.

There was no deadly intent with talk radio merely people with ideas the left hates.

Many of the so called institutions you refer to are worthless and the nation would be better off without.

The rise of trump is due to the left not the right. Trump won the election more because of idiotic left wingers who use racism and sexism and any fascism and any other label to describe anything they disagree with and the nation is sick of their ****

 

I'd say you have a pretty impressive intuition for the current American political climate, but Islam isn't acting as any scapegoat. Rather, people are operating on really ignorant ideas of Islam. I'm not going to say that the right is entirely to blame for that fact, the left tries its best to drown out any real discussion of Islam or Islamic culture that isn't wholly positive.

It's not a healthy way for a society to exist. It only polarizes the extremes.

 

No, the line is not "hatespeech." All speech is free unless it presents a clear and present danger to the welfare of citizens. Such as yelling fire in a movie theater. But if the message of speech is hateful, it is still protected.

We didn't need an amendment to protect speech people like. It was to protect speech that needed protection.

 

I think your first point is typical of this going on throughout time. since the crusades, people have been saying down with islam in the west, and then people would always notice. if you were to say that in texas, that asians would die, they would listen, so you point about climate is understood by myself.

So, if there was to be a rolling of eyes, that means that everybody is saying it - society has become numb to it. this is because the shock of hearing something 'spellbinding' has become dumbed down because of it becoming 'popular,' you could say. it is like a flasher in times square, although with the current interest in transgender bathrooms, there might be more interest in the flasher.

This 'jewish scape goat thing' you mention was like peeing into the ocean, it was a minor cog of much larger machine of campaigning. before the holocaust, there was always jewish hate, but it did not make it's way into the political campaigns, and probably never will again, due to the immediate ploy by the opposition to strap to them the idea they are 'holocaust deniers' or some jive like that.

I am not an american either, i actually will never go there, as their food looks "junk."

 

I think a limiting principle is where the strengths and limits are realized, and then there is, for some or other reason, and maybe a stronger body comes in to lend strength to a movement, yes? this is still a social construct, i think, at least.

 

So someone like Hitler would represent a limiting factor?

 

I would suppose so, what a queer example of something you do not agree with... [lol, very funny...]

 

In the US the constitution and natural rights are the limiting factor no matter who is in office.

 

In my country 'hate speech' is treated no differently than any other. The constitution simply does not permit the speech to be banned or prosecuted except as part of an investigation into other criminal conduct. The KKK get to march with deplorable signs about 'coloreds', 'wetbacks' and 'popists' , the Westboro Baptist church gets to scream slurs at funerals of dead gay people, and I get to write whatever I want on my blog about Jews, and Muslims and atheists. Periodically legislative bodies try to word their statutes and ordinances to get around that first amendment, but appellate courts will have no part of it.

Speech, hate or otherwise, is used in courts mostly as evidence of intent, motive and collusion/ conspiracy in criminal courts, that way it does not matter how you define it.

 

Either you are young or obviously a conservative apologist because anyone who has paid attention to politics since 1964 would laugh at these comments. It is true that some have always thought government was the enemy of the people but only one man made it to the POTUS in modern times making this his center piece of philosophy, Ronald Reagan. His infamous line about being from the government and I am here to help laid the foundation for the conservative movement to mainstream hating the federal government. Whether you like it or not, that is what happened. States rights has always been an excuse for racism, nothing you can say or do will ever change that fact. Trickle down economics, the Laffer Curve and the Greed is Good meme are all smokescreens for the idea that the rest of us will prosper only if the rich get richer. Nothing you can say or do will change this fact. As for right wing hate radio, Rush proved that being a jerk on the radio can make you a rich man and a celebrity. He created an entire industry of copy cats after being syndicated in the late 80s. Nothing you can say or do will change this fact. As for the rise of Trump, it is directly linked to hating government, hating liberals, hating people of color, hating foreigners, hating immigrants, hating taxes, hating environmentalists, hating atheists, hating gay people, hating cities, hating the Clintons and hating our first black POTUS. Nothing you can say or do will ever change those stripes you wear across your back.

 

You have stated no facts of any kind you have stated partisan spin and talking points.

You have also done nothing more than repeat your original argument. Repetition does not equal validation or proof. I stated specific examples of the left acting the same way and all americans feeling distrust for institutions and you ignore them because your argument is shallow and false.

Many things I can say will and do in fact challenge and prove your beliefs wrong and they are not facts again. Insisting something is fact does not make it a fact.

You are not wiser or older or more enlightened than anyone else and I believe it is your silly notions people would laugh at.

Reagan was right about not trusting government. Supply side economics worked and still does. Trump's election had nothing to do with Obama being black and Lefties such as you hate government institutions as much as right wingers. Just different institutions .

 

As you age, wisdom tends to corrupt your emerging mind and after a long time, if you are lucky, it takes over. In your case, it seems to have escaped you so far in your life. Everything I said is obvious to any impartial observer and historian. Answering you in detail is a fools game in such a forum as this, I cannot teach you history nor political science. I suggest you educate yourself by practicing a regimen of reading on a daily basis. The types of books that might transform you into a more able thinker are non-fiction and written by first person witnesses or impartial historians. The rise of this version of conservatism has it's roots in the 50s, got shellacked in the 60s and regrouped in the 70s out of the detritus of Goldwater and Nixon. There are plenty of wonderful books on this topic, reach out and find them. I am not your professor nor your mentor and I have no interest in doing your research for you.

 

It is not obvious it is a faith based belief. Your opinions are based on nothing but that faith. I am sure some neutral observers and historians agree but not all do or even most because it is not fact and it is not obvious.

Learn the difference between faith and opinion you are stating no facts you are merely stating your partisan opinion

When you claim it is a fools game to answer in detail it really means you CANNOT answer in detail because, again, all you have is opinion.

History and political science does not support your claims or prove them correct because your claims are strictly opinion and it is becoming clear they are nothing more than narrow minded opinion.

You are not a more able thinker than I am in fact quite the opposite. You are a poor thinker who cannot judge or interrogate ideas but instead only selectively choose what to read which supports your pre-conceived notions. This sort of thing is what you confuse with research but it is not research at all it is merely living in an echo chamber.

You are no ones professor and could never qualify as one and you are an inferior intellect with poor reasoning skills.

You need a mentor I do not

 

I'd like to ask those who think "hate speech" should not be allowed

What is hate speech to you and what topics would fall into this category?

 

Not true. I've seen the KKK having peaceful protests near the boardwalk in Ocean City. They were spreading their message of hatred of minorities as was their right to. Sadly for them however, everyone else was expressing their rights to ignore them.

We don't. We don't draw any lines. If they do something that is illegal...then we stop them based on that illegality. A bunch of folks saying "I hate Gays" is fine. Attacking a gay person or inciting others to attack a gay person is illegal and should be stopped.

"I don't like Gay Marriage" or "Gay Marriage is against my beliefs" is simply one's opinions and/or beliefs. It may or may not be hate speech depending on who you ask...but it is simply a statement of opinion.

 

There is no such thing as hate speech.

Authoritarians decide certain concepts are counter to their agenda and decide to give them a negative sounding label. The label makes it easier to manipulate or intimidate people to stop expressing those concepts. (Everybody is against hate, right?). If the concepts aren't spoken, they're not heard. If they're not heard, they can't be accepted or believed. After a period of time, the undesired concepts disappear from society. The authoritarians have won. With the willing participation of their subjects.

 

The problem with banning hate speech is that its really subjective what hate speech is and this can be used to ban other political views which is what the first amendment is trying to protect us from. Here are some wise quotes about this.

“If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”
— Benjamin Franklin, U.S. Founding Father

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
— Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Founding Father

 

The United States is the only country I know of with any semblance truly free speech and it is not limited by subjective recently-invented terms like "hate speech" which are defined according to the proclivities of a certain New Leftist political movement.

The inherent danger in such a thing should be obvious.

 

"Hate speech" is a fake term which is designed to censor a person on ideological grounds. "Hate" is a vague term in reference to an unwanted, verboten emotion which is subjectively perceived in a given viewpoint or statement and the perceived presence of this verboten emotion supposedly renders the unwanted speech as void because nobody says anything valid or truthful when they experience this unwanted "hate" feeling and ****.