Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by TheUnenlightenedMind, May 6, 2017.
And 2+2=4in anything greater than base 3 is only a perception?
Also 2 plus 2 can equal 22. If you take one 2 and put another 2 with it, there are other possibilities.
Freedom of speech is a right, being free from hurt feelings is not. You do not have a right to not be offended. Hate speech laws are in violation to the 1st amendment unless in the case where actual harm can be proven.
At some point in this country we lost all common sense when it comes to understanding what a crime is.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim there is no crime. Likewise, criminal law should be under the same burden of proof as civil law.
If you attempt to sue someone in civil court for damages, it is incumbent upon you to prove that you were harmed in some way.
Should not criminal courts in which a persons life can be irreparably damaged be held to at least the same standard?
Unless you intend to insite violence hate speech is free speech..
If we want a free society we have to tolerate hate speech
What we are really talking about here is the attempt to nullify the right to free speech by insisting people have some right not to be offended. That is BS, you do not have a right not to be offended. To call someone a name or to hold a belief one way or the other is not a crime. Our real Natural Rights are being stripped one by one in an attempt to remove our sovereignty as individuals and we must be cognizant of that fact. Hate speech is simply another example of that.
Hate speech exists because we have freedom of speech. When it creates violence it is no longer speech it becomes something else.
Speech cannot create violence. It is impossible.
I see...so if I yell in your dace that your girl is a slut right in front of her, you would be fine?
Insults do not create real harm, except possibly to ones feelings. It is the insecurity of the person which causes the hate and propensity for violence. I do not resort to violence unless I am under real threat. The first thing one learns when studying martial arts is to attempt to avoid violence and walk away unless it is unavoidable.
Hate speech is free speech unless it crosses the line to call for action that oppresses other rights. The left wants to label all speech that they don't agree with as hate speech. That is un-American.
All rights that occur in nature that do not involve government force are natural rights. You call them social constructs when in fact government oppression of natural rights are social constructs.
Good for you....the folks in charlottsville could learn from you.
The dead girls mom disagrees with you though.
If you go looking for conflict, you may just find it.
They certainly found it....and free speech became murder.
Not a fine line at all. If you don't call for action it's protected period.
IMHO, the only hate speech should be speech that actually threatens violence.
The point at which individual rights end is at the point where they infringe on the rights of another. In order to prove infringement you must prove real and tangible harm.
The right to free speech does not end at hate speech, that is a bold face lie. Hate speech, in order to end freedom of speech must be proven to cause real and tangible harm. Being butt hurt does not count.
The left loves to spew false "hate speech" claims, almost as much as false "racism" claims in order to attempt in vain to justify their constant infringement on individual rights and their attempt to enslave the American people under a socialist regime.
Hate speech is free speech until you overtly call for violence.
In fact there have been dozens. Clearly you do not understand what free speech is about.
Hate speech is what those in power say it is. I've never seen a word (hate) applied so liberally to what is really dissenting opinions.
But of course we know what's going on. Dissenting opinions are condemned as hate so as to squelch disagreeing positions.
The whole point of free speech is to prevent someone from labeling something they don't like as hate speech. If you allow free speech but not hate speech, then free speech means nothing. There are some things you are allowed to say in one country that isn't considered hate speech, but could be considered hate speech in another where such speech isn't culturally accepted. If you say, "It's okay to be gay" in England, you will be fine, but if you say the same thing in Pakistan, well, don't say I didn't warn you. Free speech is made to protect unpopular things, because someone with a different opinion from the rest of the group may just be right. Good ideas are able to stand on their own merits, and spread form an open exchange. Also, it is very damaging to not allow hate speech because it makes the problems worse. It makes it so that people who hold radical beliefs can never be challenged on them, radicalizing them further, and it makes extremists and hateful people harder to spot. If there was someone that hated me because of my race or religion or whatever, I certainly want to know who they are so I can avoid them. That's what freedom of speech does. Instead of letting the government, a small party compared to the people, decide what is culturally acceptable and who is ostracized, freedom of speech lets society as a whole to make that decision.
People rarely defend the expression of ideas that they think will have harmful outcomes. During the Cold War many American conservatives thought that a Communist takeover in the United States was a serious possibility. Consequently they made it dangerous to say anything good about any Communist country. There were even taboos against criticizing capitalism.
Currently many liberals fear the result of research into genetic reasons for differences in intelligence and criminal behavior. They are afraid that if it becomes commonly understood that genes play an important role in determining ability levels and influencing behavior there will be efforts to repeal civil rights legislation.
Agreed. Not even trying to be confrontational, but I seriously wonder if the O.P. is an American, because it would be hard to be more wrong about this topic.
Separate names with a comma.