- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,099
- Reaction score
- 19,742
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
As of late I've heard the term "hate speech being thrown around a lot. So, my question is, doesn't the first amendment protect speech regardless of its emotional motivations?
The more I see this word tossed around the more it seems that people think it isn't protected.
Your thoughts?
As of late I've heard the term "hate speech being thrown around a lot. So, my question is, doesn't the first amendment protect speech regardless of its emotional motivations?
The more I see this word tossed around the more it seems that people think it isn't protected.
Your thoughts?
As of late I've heard the term "hate speech being thrown around a lot. So, my question is, doesn't the first amendment protect speech regardless of its emotional motivations?
The more I see this word tossed around the more it seems that people think it isn't protected.
Your thoughts?
You can say what you want, but if you start yelling N-word this and N-word that while shooting black people, you're going to be charged with a hate crime. Same applies for pretty much any group you do that to, including whites.
As of late I've heard the term "hate speech being thrown around a lot. So, my question is, doesn't the first amendment protect speech regardless of its emotional motivations?
The more I see this word tossed around the more it seems that people think it isn't protected.
Your thoughts?
As of late I've heard the term "hate speech being thrown around a lot. So, my question is, doesn't the first amendment protect speech regardless of its emotional motivations?
The more I see this word tossed around the more it seems that people think it isn't protected.
Your thoughts?
Which shows that our laws against murder arent strict enough or that hate crime legislation is a bull of liberal bull**** that is an end around to curbing free speech.
Hate speech is free speech. It is most definitely protected under the 1st Amendment, despite how much others don't want it to be.
The line for me is when hate speech crosses over into incitement to violence. I have a major issue with allowing that.
He's not American but Anjem Choudary springs to mind here. I support his incarceration.
The line for me is when hate speech crosses over into incitement to violence. I have a major issue with allowing that.
He's not American but Anjem Choudary springs to mind here. I support his incarceration.
The line for me is when hate speech crosses over into incitement to violence. I have a major issue with allowing that.
He's not American but Anjem Choudary springs to mind here. I support his incarceration.
Of course. We can't have someone preaching death to whites or blacks or Muslims or Christians or gays, finding a following and then sending them off on Manson like attacks on whatever chosen group his band of brainwashed followers are directed to eliminate.
You can say what you want, but if you start yelling N-word this and N-word that while shooting black people, you're going to be charged with a hate crime. Same applies for pretty much any group you do that to, including whites.
And yet at the time of the Choudary discussions, there were posters suggesting that freedom of speech pretty much trumps all.
Edit to add: Just saw Matchlight's post. There's another example.
That's because they don't. They don't think ignoring preferences is free speech, they don't think that being mean to someone is free speech, and they don't think that using slurs is free speech. All of those are free speech of course, but who you're talking about don't see it that way.
I disagree. State of mind is an aggravating factor when committing crimes.
If someone kills their wife for a large insurance payout, it's usually punished more severely than if he put a bullet in her head when catching her in bed with a neighbor. Same applies to hate. If a person kills someone or beats them up due to ideological idealism, it's punished more severely than if they did it because they were just having a bad day.
That's why we have already have different classes of murder, I see no need for an extra "hate crime" legislation because we already have a very tough top level murder law
As of late I've heard the term "hate speech being thrown around a lot. So, my question is, doesn't the first amendment protect speech regardless of its emotional motivations?
The more I see this word tossed around the more it seems that people think it isn't protected.
Your thoughts?
You can say what you want, but if you start yelling N-word this and N-word that while shooting black people, you're going to be charged with a hate crime. Same applies for pretty much any group you do that to, including whites.
People use the term "hate speech" to shut down free speech. The perception of what constitutes hate from others is completely subjective. You can think that I hate you, but only I know if I really do. You may think that because of something I said, that I hate you, but only I know if I really do. You may think that because I say something to you or about you that sounds brutal, but it may not be hateful, just brutally honest.
Subjectivity makes it impossible to define hate speech objectively.
I think "Hate Speech" is more about hating whole, definable groups, not just one person.
How about those folks that holler "Call the snack bar" while killing folks?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?