• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews?

Is hate speech against Jews free speech? Should this be allowed on Twitter?


  • Total voters
    34

Spunkylama

Requested Profile Delete. Bye
Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
2,381
Reaction score
2,028
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Shaun King
@shaunking

Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.
 
Shaun King
@shaunking

Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.
All speech is free speech...even speech one person/group or another doesn't like.

Where I draw the line is with action...and speech is not action.

Look, if some nutjob is standing on the street corner spouting what you call hate speech, do you think that person should be forced to stop? Or, does that person have the right to say whatever they want? I say it's the latter. If I don't want to hear what that person is saying, I'll move on or ignore the nutjob.

Now...if that nutjob starts physically attacking people they don't like...THEN something needs to be done.
 
Take a deep breath.
 
Pedophiles... Neo Nazis... Domestic terrorists threatening politicians... All of that and more will be a headache for Musk..

Musk is rich, so he can afford the army of lawyers he will need to fend off the lawsuits...

Honestly I think Musk is going to make a bunch of comments about opening it up, and free speech and all of that... But when the shit starts hitting the fan, he'll back away... And tell the people actually running Twitter to toughen up the TOS, AND enforce it...
 
These are two different questions. The whole point of free speech is that it doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. Should a private corporation that has no legal liability for content allow it? Sure.
So twitter will be the new 4 chan?
Nice very nice
 
Shaun King
@shaunking

Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.
Once again, free speech only refers to government restrictions on speech. As a private corp, Twitter has no impact on free speech. There are 10 (I think) types of speech that are not protected (hate speech is not one of them). Twitter should make sure none of those types of speech are allowed. If they allow it, the DoJ should use all of their powers to prevent, or punish those responsible for posting it (Twitter and the tweeter).
 
Antisemitic speech would fall under free speech. If you demand free speech in Twitter. It would have to include Jewish hatred.
 
Shaun King
@shaunking

Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.

Yes, it should be allowed.
 
If they allow it, the DoJ should use all of their powers to prevent, or punish those responsible for posting it (Twitter and the tweeter).

I’m pretty sure the government can’t stop speech.
 
Shaun King
@shaunking

Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it. Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews? Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.

Free speech doesn’t mean all speech.
 
Once again, free speech only refers to government restrictions on speech. As a private corp, Twitter has no impact on free speech. There are 10 (I think) types of speech that are not protected (hate speech is not one of them). Twitter should make sure none of those types of speech are allowed. If they allow it, the DoJ should use all of their powers to prevent, or punish those responsible for posting it (Twitter and the tweeter).
The founders didn’t envision a world in which corporations amass so much power that they have a chilling effect on constitutional rights, but that’s the world we live in. I also don’t like the idea of creating a loophole in which the government can do that via a corporation - which is essentially what has happened.
 
Free speech doesn’t mean all speech.
Not in Canada. They have hate speech laws that I personally think America should adopt.
 
Yes, our right-wing friends are titillated by the prospect if Twitter accepting content about whacky conspiracy theories and hate speech, but the content provider is going to have to I do some moderating if they don't want their business to go down in the sewer. Maybe they think the success story of Fox News, with its nutty, racist content is a success story model fir Twitter, but Fox News is slick and with professional infotainers. I'm not sure they can bring that slick level of propaganda to Twitter.
 
I suspect many of our right-wing friends would be fine with Musk simply running it into the ground.
 
Yes, are right-wing friends are titillated by the prospect if Twitter accepting content about whacky conspiracy theories and hate speech, but the content provider is going yo have t I d I moderating if they don't want their business to go down in the sewer. Maybe they think the success story of Fox News, with its nutty, racist content is a success story model fir Twitter, but Fox News is slick and with professional infotainers. I'm not sure they can bring that slick level of propaganda to Twitter.
Oh there is enough of them to flood twitter with their insanity. It will devolve into the new 4 chan for racists and bigots.
 
I’m pretty sure the government can’t stop speech.
They can, but prior restraint has a very high bar before it is allowed.

I wasn't talking about preventing speech, I was talking about punishing unprotected speech.
 
The founders didn’t envision a world in which corporations amass so much power that they have a chilling effect on constitutional rights, but that’s the world we live in. I also don’t like the idea of creating a loophole in which the government can do that via a corporation - which is essentially what has happened.
?
 
The question is badly worded.

For me, it depends on what you mean by targeted and hate speech.

If the targeted hate speech amounts to harassment, intimidation, threats of violence, that kind of thing, then sure.

If what we're talking about is holocaust denial, general bigotry to suggest Jews are cheap or otherwise stereotyping, or claims that Jews have an inordinate influence in Hollywood or in banking, or criticisms of Israel as a country, Judaism as a religion, or whether Jews have a right to live in Israel, etc. etc., I would say those things should be allowed, even if someone considers them to be targeted or hate speech.

The trouble with the question is in the vagueness of the wording. Obviously, thinks it's a good to "target" people with "hate speech," but the Devil is in the Details and the definitions.
 
The founders didn’t envision a world in which corporations amass so much power that they have a chilling effect on constitutional rights, but that’s the world we live in. I also don’t like the idea of creating a loophole in which the government can do that via a corporation - which is essentially what has happened.
How so?
 
Your response is unclear, I couldn't figure out your point.
It was a response to your assertion that free speech only applies to the government. My response was that the bill of rights shouldn’t be interpreted that way in the 21st century with corporations wielding power to silence and the government acting through those corporations.
 
Back
Top Bottom