Should hate speech be counted as free speech?

[ChristineM]

So you say... but maybe really... and how can we know?

Witnesses, evidence and a court trial is how we know

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, I believe certain kinds of inciting, harmful speech should be classified as hate speech and outlawed. Some of the world's most free and prosperous countries already do this--the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany outlaw pro-Nazi speech and symbolism, for example. They're not any worse off for it.

The US' idea of entirely unrestricted "free speech" is an outlier among developed countries, and for good reason. It seems to me insufficiently attentive to various practical and harmful outcomes of certain types of speech.

 

[Link]

Witnesses, evidence and a court trial is how we know

For something this ambiguous, no jury is fit to decide.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Free speech should mean free speech. "Hate speech" is a terribly Orweilian concept. The government should never be allowed to restrict the speech of its citizens. That's terrifying, or should be. The government is there to uphold our rights and represent us, we are not subjects.

The government already regulates many aspects of citizens' lives, from taxes and health care to traffic laws and education. I don't see regulation of hate speech as fundamentally different. Ideally, a government should be made up of diverse elements representing citizens and their interests, so such regulation isn't necessarily a negative thing per se.

Besides, if someone slandered another person by baselessly accusing them of, say, being a pedophile or a murderer and ruined their career or life as a result, do you think outlawing the slander would be Orwellian or overly restrictive? The US already outlaws libel and slander, too.

 

[Link]

I think Quran said it best, public speech should not be harmful (to others) and harmful speech should not be permitted. Some forms of hate speech is included in that. Some cults of religions can be included in that, depending. So it restricts some types of hate speech even some religious speech.

But to restrict so much under this umbrella (hate is a natural part of humans). This will have consequences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think that hate speech should be protected in the US? Or do you believe there should be laws against hate speech?

I've always personally been a fan of criminalizing hate speech. It can incite to riot, lead to violence and murder, and creates a dangerous environment.

What do you all think?

I generally like the approach in Canada's hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code, except if I had my way, we'd get rid of the special exemption for religion.

In Canada, there are two "hate speech" offenses:

- advocating genocide
- inciting hatred against an identifiable group that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

Both offenses only apply to statements communicated in public, not private conversations. There are also several defenses/exemptions:

• the person establishes that the statements communicated were true;
• in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
• the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or
• in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

I don't think this law imposes an unreasonable burden on free speech.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your case closed. And that says much.

I have more concern for those injured as a result of hate speech.

I am far more concerned about having my inherent rights recognized and not being trampled upon by a tyrant. When did people become so apathetic about what really matters? It's very disturbing to me. It's easy to call for censoring others when your side is in power, but wait until the shoe is on the other foot. I will laugh.

 

[George-ananda]

What do you all think?

I am for free speech.

What is considered hate speech can be very subjective. I'll error on the side of freedom.

I think there are laws already about inciting violence and riots.

 

[ChristineM]

For something this ambiguous, no jury is fit to decide.

It may not be ambiguous. Certainly cases tried in the UK have been tried on hard evidence

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The government already regulates many aspects of citizens' lives, from taxes and health care to traffic laws and education. I don't see regulation of hate speech as fundamentally different. Ideally, a government should be made up of diverse elements representing citizens and their interests, so such regulation isn't necessarily a negative thing per se.

Besides, if someone slandered another person by baselessly accusing them of, say, being a pedophile or a murderer and ruined their career or life as a result, do you think outlawing the slander would be Orwellian or overly restrictive? The US already outlaws libel and slander, too.

Yes, the government is already far, far too big and needs a massive pruning.

Slander and libel are civil issues, not criminal ones. You can talk **** about anyone all day, every day and they can't do anything more than just sue you and try to prove that it's caused them material harm, which is very hard. Most of those are probably thrown out.

 

[Link]

It may not be ambiguous. Certainly cases tried in the UK have been tried on hard evidence

Some cases are bound to be unfair given how ambiguous the legislation is.

 

[Heyo]

The US' idea of entirely unrestricted "free speech" is an outlier among developed countries, and for good reason. It seems to me insufficiently attentive to various practical and harmful outcomes of certain types of speech.

An interesting thing about the US is that the government can't restrict speech but private entities do it in excess. Nudity can't be depicted on public TV. Movies are heavily censored to get the most lucrative rating. Even this website has a ****ing ridiculous profanity filter.

 

[ChristineM]

I am far more concerned about having my inherent rights recognized and not being trampled upon by a tyrant. When did people become so apathetic about what really matters? It's very disturbing to me. It's easy to call for censoring others when your side is in power, but wait until the shoe is on the other foot. I will laugh.

Jolly good. **** fellow humanity just so long ay you can have your reached and amendable inherent rights

When people become so self centered its really disturbing to me.

 

[ChristineM]

Some cases are bound to be unfair given how ambiguous the legislation is.

The legislation is not ambiguous

You dream it's ambiguous because you don't like it

 

[Link]

I generally like the approach in Canada's hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code, except if I had my way, we'd get rid of the special exemption for religion.

In Canada, there are two "hate speech" offenses:

- advocating genocide
- inciting hatred against an identifiable group that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

Both offenses only apply to statements communicated in public, not private conversations. There are also several defenses/exemptions:

• the person establishes that the statements communicated were true;
• in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
• the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true; or
• in good faith, the person intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

I don't think this law imposes an unreasonable burden on free speech.

This makes more sense.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, the government is already far, far too big and needs a massive pruning.

Slander and libel are civil issues, not criminal ones. You can talk **** about anyone all day, every day and they can't do anything more than just sue you and try to prove that it's caused them material harm, which is very hard. Most of those are probably thrown out.

I think too big a government easily leads to tyranny, such as in China and Iran, but too small and you get lack of law and order as well as insufficient protection for many citizens' safety.

Slander and libel may not be criminal issues, but civil cases can still bring some restitution and compensation to those harmed by such actions. I'm definitely not a proponent of making slander and libel cases overwhelmingly difficult to win. How do you think you would be affected if you were harmed by slander or libel and couldn't even find recourse in the legal system? That's not freedom; it's borderline anarchy.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Do you think that hate speech should be protected in the US? Or do you believe there should be laws against hate speech?

I've always personally been a fan of criminalizing hate speech. It can incite to riot, lead to violence and murder, and creates a dangerous environment.

What do you all think?

I agree with you. I believe that free speech should be restricted when it slanders, incites violence and bodily harm, or incites riots.

What Does Free Speech Mean?

United States free speech exceptions

The Limits of Free Speech in Social Media

 

[exchemist]

Do you think that hate speech should be protected in the US? Or do you believe there should be laws against hate speech?

I've always personally been a fan of criminalizing hate speech. It can incite to riot, lead to violence and murder, and creates a dangerous environment.

What do you all think?

There are already laws against certain defined categories of what you could term "hate speech" in the UK and other countries. The key to making it work is in defining what is not freely permitted sufficiently narrowly and clearly.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you think that hate speech should be protected in the US? Or do you believe there should be laws against hate speech?

I've always personally been a fan of criminalizing hate speech. It can incite to riot, lead to violence and murder, and creates a dangerous environment.

What do you all think?

I think the U.S. standard of following the clear and present danger rule has worked, for the most part. There are laws against incitement, threats, and harassment which can be used to quash menacing behavior without necessarily limiting freedom of speech.

Another thing to be wary of when passing laws like this is to consider how such a law might be interpreted when and where one's political opponents are in charge.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hate speech is an important right.
Why?
I don't trust government with the power to prevent it.
Just look at Trump....would you want him to have had
such power to silence opposition? Nah.