I hold FREE SPEECH as ubiquitous, the FIRST AMENDMENT the final arbitrator.

[crossfire]

I think that most "hate speech" must be allowed, even if we don't like it. I think we have to stick with the long standing limits of speech which boil down to restricting speech only when it will immediately provoke violence.

With that said, can you give any specific examples of "hate speech" you think should be restricted?

Restricted? No. Called out for what it is? Yes. Calling out hate speech for what it is does not constitute restricting free speech.
(Keep in mind that hate-speech is different from hate-crimes.)

 

[LeftyLen]

see "amygdala hijack"

Amygdala Hijack: What It Is, Why It Happens & How to Make It Stop

Amygdala hijack happens when your brain reacts to psychological stress as if it's physical danger. Learn more here.

www.healthline.com

snippet:​

The amygdala hijack occurs when your amygdala responds to stress and disables your frontal lobes. That activates the fight-or-flight response and disables rational, reasoned responses. In other words, the amygdala “hijacks” control of your brain and your responses.​

Hate speech seeks to shut down reason via amygdala hijack.

Please do not confuse reason-invoking speech with reason-disabling speech. Reason-disabling speech will try to masquerade as reason-invoking speech. Do not let yourself become deceived by reason-disabling speech, especially if tries to cloak itself as reason-invoking speech.

Indeed, authoriarians (anti-freedom types) will use reason-disabling hate speech and lies in an effort to shut down free inquiry.

Agreed.

No programmed response. The authoritarian programming was in danger of being exposed for what it is, and made her feel uneasy.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I disagree on this point. Pointing out reason-disabling hate speech for what it is gives the person a chance to recover from amygdala hijack, if they are not overcome by the uneasy feeling of the subconscious realization that their frontal lobes have been quelled.

Only disagreement, " reason-disabling hate speech" as qualified by whom? a government agency given the task, power to do so/Or the populace at large given the credit to figure it out?

 

[icehorse]

That's a dangerous proposition.

What .. you don't like pink? Screw you man! I'm came here to do two things: Talk smack and kick *** and I'm done talking smack.

Yeah, people are crazy like that.

Sometimes.

Yes they are. And in the case of an internet forum that speech is protected (and ought to be). In a biker bar that speech might cross the line into "imminent violence" territory.

 

[icehorse]

Restricted? No. Called out for what it is? Yes. Calling out hate speech for what it is does not constitute restricting free speech.
(Keep in mind that hate-speech is different from hate-crimes.)

I'm all for calling out destructive speech!

 

[crossfire]

Only disagreement, " reason-disabling hate speech" as qualified by whom? a government agency given the task, power to do so/Or the populace at large given the credit to figure it out?

The population at large (provided that it isn't under mob mentality) is more efficient at this sort of thing than the government is. When it comes to cases of slander and libel, the government justice system is appropriate to employ as necessary.

 

[LeftyLen]

The population at large (provided that it isn't under mob mentality) is more efficient at this sort of thing than the government is. When it comes to cases of slander and libel, the government justice system is appropriate to employ as necessary.

I'm all for calling out destructive speech!

yes with indignation literally call out loudly destructive speech. its not however a government issue, mandate to 'define' destructive speech and enforce laws against it, at least not in America.

 

[crossfire]

yes with indignation literally call out loudly destructive speech. its not however a government issue, mandate to 'define' destructive speech and enforce laws against it, at least not in America.

Slander and libel are laws enforceable through the government justice system.

 

[F1fan]

its about clarity as opposed to elitism

Your elitism speaks for itself.

 

[Nakosis]

Salient examples, one extreme desires a book banned for being immoral, anti- authority, secularist, heretical, occultic, anti-family, etc etc etc, all to ‘protect’ children. The other extreme says a book should be banned from schools for being sexist, phobic, hater, racist, etc etc etc., all for the ‘common good’-as youth ‘must be protected.’ Besides divergence in rhetorical proclamations, left/right all book banning no matter the motivation the same thing, ‘censorship.’ The only viable censorship I see is the front door of ones own home. Outside of self-evident porn or ‘profanity,‘ I see no reason to censer anything, anything. If you don’t like what's being taught send your children to a private school or home-school. If you don’t like certain books in the library, keep your child locked up.


Clarity normally clears up the difference between censorship and actual inappropriateness. Now say the extreme right wants flat earth, geocentric earth, young earth taught in science class, mere clarity as to what is/is not science excludes such things from science class. Now say the fanatic left wants gender dogma in children's classes, both science and the mere idea of sexualizing children exposes it just as inappropriate as the other extreme.

Free speech as I see it from a Constitutional perspective is the freedom to express an opinion and or criticize an idea. Not the freedom to cause mayhem. Free speech maybe ubiquitous but the freedom to cause mayhem isn't. What you'd get punished for would be the mayhem caused, not the speech.

What happens in schools is between the school board and the parents. The school board makes decisions about their educational policies and the parents/public are free to criticize, express their opinions and or remove their children from that environment if the parents so desire.

 

[LeftyLen]

Free speech as I see it from a Constitutional perspective is the freedom to express an opinion and or criticize an idea. Not the freedom to cause mayhem. Free speech maybe ubiquitous but the freedom to cause mayhem isn't. What you'd get punished for would be the mayhem caused, not the speech.

What happens in schools is between the school board and the parents. The school board makes decisions about their educational policies and the parents/public are free to criticize, express their opinions and or remove their children from that environment if the parents so desire.

And the Biden adm. considers parents who complain to be 'domestic terrorists'

 

[fantome profane]

And the Biden adm. considers parents who complain to be 'domestic terrorists'

source?

 

[Left Coast]

Clarity normally clears up the difference between censorship and actual inappropriateness. Now say the extreme right wants flat earth, geocentric earth, young earth taught in science class, mere clarity as to what is/is not science excludes such things from science class.

And the same with creationism. Right...?

Now say the fanatic left wants gender dogma in children's classes, both science and the mere idea of sexualizing children exposes it just as inappropriate as the other extreme.

What is "gender dogma?"

 

[Twilight Hue]

FREE SPEECH (sic) is clearly not ubiquitous, and the reason that one cannot yell fire in the theater is precisely because the FIRST AMENDMENT (sic) is not the final arbitrator.

Well I suppose people must be completely quiet during a fire as well unless they go to jail or get fined or even both for yelling Fire!

 

[Pogo]

source?

Ah, the problems with unfettered free speech, an awful lot of garbage keeps getting repeated.

Posts mischaracterize school board organization’s letter to Biden​

CLAIM: The National School Boards Association is asking the Biden administration to label parents who protest school policies domestic terrorists.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The organization — the NSBA, for short — is not asking Biden to label parents who protest at school board meetings as terrorists. The NSBA asked the administration to do an interagency investigation of threats of violence against school board members and said the threats “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.” Biden has yet to publicly comment on the issue, and there’s no indication he or the Department of Justice has called protesting parents “domestic terrorists,” despite false claims to that effect by social media users.

THE FACTS: Local school boards around the country have become political battlegrounds over issues such as COVID-19 mask rules, the treatment of transgender students and how to teach the history of racism and slavery in America, The Associated Press has reported.


The National School Boards Association, a non-profit representing U.S. school boards, said these disputes were also leading to harassment and threats of violence against school board members. On Sept. 29, the NSBA sent a letter to President Joe Biden, asking his administration to investigate these threats.

Compounded by comprehension problems.

 

[Argentbear]

Maybe its an American ideal.Freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason. FREE SPEECH correspondingly cultivates openness to being persuaded by reason. The opposite of persuasion political force such as the arbitrary notion of 'HATE SPEECH.' Persuading rather than compelling is the primary mode of political interaction. Emotions where free speech are held as a premium are moderated by the demand to speak rationally persuading others, defend positions, rather than emotional retreats into claims of 'hate speech. The notion of enforced hate speech (other than a direct threat) is the lefts direct threat to free speech.

you have confused freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of free speech

You could for example exercise you right to free speech by writing a nice work e-mail about how people of color are all child molesting sexual deviants and as such the black people at your place of employment should be fired to "protect the children" and you are completely free to say that. you however are not free from the consequences of engaging in this fine example of hate speech.

 

[Argentbear]

That is not evidence. That is someone saying something. Don't you understand the concept of evidence?

did you really expect an honest answer?

 

[LeftyLen]

And the same with creationism. Right...?



What is "gender dogma?"

Part of woke dogma.

And the same with creationism. Right...?



What is "gender dogma?"

its part of woke, it began with the work of the sexologist Dr. John Money, who performed "transsexual" operations in Baltimore, Maryland. He carried out a bizarre experiment from 1966 onwards, on a pair of twin boys named Brian and Bruce Reimer. The twins were born in Winnipeg in August 1965. When they were seven months old, an accident at a hospital destroyed Bruce's penis. Dr. Money advised the distraught family was that he could turn Bruce into a girl. When Bruce was 18 months old, he was castrated and brought up as a girl with the name Brenda. The experiment ended in failure, and in disaster as first of all Bruce on growing up decided to regain his male identity, then later both twins, victims of this disturbing experiment, committed suicide. Since the time of Dr. Money, who coined ''gender affirmation' understanding of the human genome has advanced and we now know that a child's sex is fixed from the point of conception, and is inscribed in every cell of his or her body, including those of the brain. Each cell contains either two "X" chromosomes (indicating a female), or one "X" and one "Y" chromosome (indicating a male); this genetic marker of gender cannot be changed. Hormones present in the womb may influence secondary sexual characteristics, but nothing can change the sex of a child, or of an adult. There is a growing body of evidence that attempting to do so is harmful and cases of ex-transsexuals who regret and try to reverse their decision.

 

[LeftyLen]

Well I suppose people must be completely quiet during a fire as well unless they go to jail or get fined or even both for yelling Fire!

strawman fallacy

 

[Twilight Hue]

strawman fallacy

Sure it is.

 

[Argentbear]

Part of woke dogma.

its part of woke, it began with the work of the sexologist Dr. John Money, who performed "transsexual" operations in Baltimore, Maryland. He carried out a bizarre experiment from 1966 onwards, on a pair of twin boys named Brian and Bruce Reimer. The twins were born in Winnipeg in August 1965. When they were seven months old, an accident at a hospital destroyed Bruce's penis. Dr. Money advised the distraught family was that he could turn Bruce into a girl. When Bruce was 18 months old, he was castrated and brought up as a girl with the name Brenda. The experiment ended in failure, and in disaster as first of all Bruce on growing up decided to regain his male identity, then later both twins, victims of this disturbing experiment, committed suicide.

since the child maintained a male identify through out his life it is dishonest in the extreme to call it a transsexual operation.

Since the time of Dr. Money, who coined ''gender affirmation'

False the term was first used in the 1920's by Dr, Magnus Hirschfeld and other physicians conducted the first formal studies and transsexuals

understanding of the human genome has advanced and we now know that a child's sex is fixed from the point of conception, and is inscribed in every cell of his or her body, including those of the brain. Each cell contains either two "X" chromosomes (indicating a female), or one "X" and one "Y" chromosome (indicating a male); this genetic marker of gender cannot be changed.

You should learn the difference between sex and gender

Hormones present in the womb may influence secondary sexual characteristics, but nothing can change the sex of a child, or of an adult. There is a growing body of evidence that attempting to do so is harmful and cases of ex-transsexuals who regret and try to reverse their decision.

Well that is just a lie. the largest study of transgender individuals fount that almost universally trans individuals who transitioned found great improvement in their daily lives including
Improved quality of life
Greater relationship satisfaction
Higher self-esteem and confidence
Reductions in anxiety, depression, suicidality, and substance use