The Fine Line Between Hate Speech and Freedom Of Speech

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by TheUnenlightenedMind, May 6, 2017.

  1. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,075
    Likes Received:
    859
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    We're dealing with a mob of outright dictatorial bloodthirsty tyrants on the political Left that push this crap. They want total and complete control and they want to sanitize society.
     
    crank and Lil Mike like this.
  2. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,519
    Likes Received:
    780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As long as it doesn't incite violence against another person, it's protected under the 1st amendment.
     
    perdidochas likes this.
  3. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,303
    Likes Received:
    4,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only line should be when it becomes a threat to commit violence against people. Other than that, hate speech should be allowed.
     
  4. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,303
    Likes Received:
    4,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Their speech is protected speech, be it hate or not. The only speech not protected is speech that advocates physical violence against other people.
     
  5. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    16,775
    Likes Received:
    11,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since "hate speech", is a fraudulent concept, the only line should be incitement to commit violence.

    "Hate speech" is a fraud because it can mean whatever the authority decides it means.
     
    crank likes this.
  6. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong.

    Hate speech is in fact protected speech and included within freedom of speech and that is a legal fact supported by the US Supreme court in more than one decision.

    Hate speech is strictly subjective anything you or I say is hate speech to someone somewhere.
     
    crank likes this.
  7. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have confused Rights with Force and might to get what you want.
    A Right is not the ability to steal or kill people.
     
  8. jmblt2000

    jmblt2000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nature's law says might is right. A male lion controls a pride of females until a stronger male takes it away...The alpha male in a wolf pack is the only one that mates...that's why I asked how far do you wish to go back? Because if there ever is an event that eliminates a large portion of the human population... Nature's law will return in full force.
     
  9. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have everything mixed up ala crazy head to excuse stupid notions.
    Animals are A-moral.
    And even my dog knows when he has done wrong.

    Once, he had an accident and pottied and you could see by the way he acted, he knew it was not good, but he got excused because he was ill.

    We as humans have compacts agreements treaties and laws, and what was done to Native American Indian tribes was criminal in every way.

    Many acts you describe are crimes and are prosecuted as such.

    Some people like to muddy the water and confuse crime with proper acts or non criminal or justified acts.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2017
  10. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Example;
    I saw a large heavy man bully a small much younger male, a 14 or 15 year old.

    I was late for a meeting and yet I stopped, I asked the teen male who was the other man to him, and he stated, I do not know this man, and I asked what reason the other man had accosted the teen, he could not give one, so I after identifying myself, badge & ID, told the man to desist from harassing minors or face arrest.

    As long as we have a human society, we will not tolerate members that want to act out Zombie Apocalypse scenarios...
     
  11. jmblt2000

    jmblt2000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do realize you are quoting a native American that grew up on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation? And you're trying to school me on what was done to my people? What a joke, my father was at Wounded Knee in 1973, I was 12, and wondered if I would ever see him again. So don't assume you know crap about my people and what they went through.

    And I hope that it never happens, but mark my words...If it ever does, survival would be the strongest instinct. I will work hard to preserve and protect my family, and too be honest I don't care what happens to you or anyone else on this board. And to be honest, if you can be honest with yourself, that will be your first and only priority.
     
  12. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right, you know me not, or how I still morn those Braves.
    Anyway, I care, and whether or not it is reciprocal, is irrelevant to me.
    I have never stood by and tolerated injustices, and if I die in that manner, it will be a good death
    Of a Warrior called Little Wolf....
    School you ?
    Better men than I tried and failed.
    Carry on then.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2017
  13. delade

    delade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,516
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You have the right to say hateful things. Different establishments have different guidelines to what they consider, 'hateful'.

    I can say hateful things at home or in the park. I might not be allowed to say those things at grandpa's house, though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
  14. walkingliberty

    walkingliberty Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    speech
    spēCH/
    noun
    1. 1.
      the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.
      "he was born deaf and without the power of speech"
      synonyms: speaking, talking, verbal expression, verbal communication
      "he doesn't have the power of speech"
    free·dom
    ˈfrēdəm/
    noun
    1. the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
      "we do have some freedom of choice"
      • absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
        "he was a champion of Irish freedom"
        synonyms: independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy;
        democracy
        "revolution was the only path to freedom"

    Speech, at it's core, is an integral form of basic human mechanics. There is little difference between speech and breathing oxygen. We as humans, have a tendency to blurt out our thoughts the same as we take a breath, It is part of the human condition.

    To subdue human speech is to regulate thought.

    The authors of the First Amendment had an acute understanding of the dangers of regulating core human function. These functions do not require acumen or the propensity to agree with the masses. These rights are based upon the very right to feel sound and speak accordingly in accordance with their own beliefs.

    The First Amendment sets the basis and acts as a precursor to the following Amendments. It solidifies and defines the human element in regards to true Freedom. There are no liberties granted anywhere else in the world where you are free to speak out against your Government openly or rally a party against it (outside USA). These types of 'thoughts' are regarded as threatening or 'harmful to the state'. Any governing board that regards you as 'threatening' for your thoughts fears your uprising. They fear the loss of control.

    As a human species, we have seemingly grown accustomed to being regulated. We have become used to putting our faith in the efforts of those that define our laws. We have grown to accept other's definitions of Freedom.

    The parameters get smaller and the walls get thicker with every right we wish away in the pursuit of comfort. It is without reverence to propose silence upon another without bludgeoning our own voice.

    Thought and speech are only feared by those that wish to subdue the masses. It has been accomplished in recent history, ancient history, and is not immune to affect us today or tomorrow.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2018
  15. CFM

    CFM Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2018
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    To a certain ideology, anything someone says with which they disagree is deemed hate speech.
     
  16. Erimitis the Heretic

    Erimitis the Heretic Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2018
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Hate speech is the very essence of free speech, no one needs a right to protect agreeable speech.
    The real question would be
    *what is hate speech?
    *What person, our persons get to decide what is and is not acceptable thought, and speech?
    *to what end?
    The saying "hate speech is not free speech" is political doublespeak for "the censorship, and suppression of some individuals is ok as long as you give it a moral pretense". Alas, do you not realize that so called "hate speech" is a subjective matter it can not be defined in a non despotic way. If I had to define it I would say hate speech is when another person holds an opinion that is fundamentally opposed to the narrative of ones value structure. This is a very dangerous thing not just for the individual, but for the whole spices as well.
    I remember a time when the pretense was "fighting terrorism", to "defending freedom", every day the propaganda machine would have "exports" playing on people's fears, and protective natures telling us of how the question is "the line between individual liberty, and ones right to privacy, VS the need for increased policing powers to keep us safe from those terrorists who hate our freedom"
    Because that bill of rights is great, as is the due process of law, but they sometimes get in the way of the government exercising authority, and the terrorists exploit this to bring another September 11 to rain down death and destruction upon us. This is the pretense which gave us the patriot act, as well as the NDAA, for you see in order to keep you safe and protect freedom, the government needs the ability to indefinitely detain individuals, with out charges, our due process; but don't worry about abuses of this power for thanks to "secret courts" the accused always has a fair trial.
    Only terrorists need worry however right?
    *but what is a terrorist?
    *who decides?
    *to what end?
    Reminder that Republican political correctness "enhanced intinterrogation" political doublespeak for torture, and of how it was ok because it was done only to terrorists. Will I am sure glad the definition of terrorist is clear, and can't be exploited as a one size fits all pretence.
    My point being the art of politics is the art of deception. You cant say I need to disarm the people so the state can have a monopoly of force, to enable it to impose it will. That's just not going to go over so well so you say we need commonsense gun laws which keep firearms out of the wrong hands, to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. (moral pretense)
     
  17. sonofthunder

    sonofthunder Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Hate speech is a meaningless term.

    Some people need to go read the constitution and try to get away from the group think
     
  18. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,885
    Likes Received:
    8,746
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hate speech is fine too.
    That's what freedom is for.
     
  19. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    57,738
    Likes Received:
    38,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no such thing as hate speech.

    It is an SJW term for "things I don't want to hear".

    That is all it has ever been.
     
  20. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    13,423
    Likes Received:
    8,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    (Assuming OP resides in the US, if not, apologies)
    The limit is inciting violence or danger, not 'Hate Speech'. 'Hate Speech' is still and always has been protected by the US Constitution.

    Excerpt from WaPo article: 'Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment'

    "And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...endment/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2d091543c97c

    Its true that 'hate speakers' are often legally penalized for their hate speech. But it is most commonly done on the grounds that they're disturbing the peace or attempting to incite violence, not merely because they are being offensive. They are also sometimes penalized unconstitutionally...
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2018
    vman12 likes this.
  21. Matt22yuc

    Matt22yuc Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Any and all forms of speech should be a right. Why should hate speech be restricted? Because it offends someone? Anyone can get offended by anything especially in today’s day and age, so it’s just arbitrary. You don’t have a right to live in society and not be offended. So no freedom of speech doesn’t have limits.
     
  22. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,652
    Likes Received:
    797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your premise is completely wrong. Hate speech is not the limit of freedom of speech. The only true limit is the encouragement (actual, not claiming that a given retoric is such because you don't like it) of violence and destruction. Freedom of speech include every hateful vile and nasty thing that is out there.
     
  23. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    57,738
    Likes Received:
    38,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no such thing as hate speech.

    It's a made up term by people trying to re-write reality.

    Even if hate speech was a real thing not pulled from the leftist imagination, it would be the reason for free speech.

    Unpopular speech is the only type of speech that needs protected.
     
  24. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,652
    Likes Received:
    797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll disagree, there is such a thing, but it is defined by the individual making the "speech". If they have hate behind it then it is hate speech. That doesn't make it a limit on free speech, but hate speech is still real.
     
  25. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    57,738
    Likes Received:
    38,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hate speech is determined by the listener, not the speaker, therefore it is entirely subjective to the audience in question.

    Therefore, hate speech is not real.

    There are two genders and genetic abnormalities.

    Those are facts, or hate speech, depending on the listener.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019

Share This Page