• 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!

Why America needs a hate speech law

eman623

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2018
Messages
10,420
Reaction score
4,141
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wow. Where to begin. Is it from the hypocrisy of a former Time editor now championing censorship? Is it from the lack of faith in the marketplace of ideas? Is it from the hubris that hate speech can even be banned and if it could, then people would stop hating or something? Or is it from the sinister, "give us this power and, trust us, we'll never misuse it for our own political ends." No one gets to define what I think, or what I say. If that bothers you, then those other countries that have don't have free speech beckon.

We already have laws that prohibit speech likely to cause imminent violence. That's enough.

America does NOT need a hate speech law. And if Richard Stengal thinks otherwise then he's an idiot.

Why America needs a hate speech law

By Richard Stengel
Oct. 29, 2019 at 5:20 a.m. PDT

Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016.

When I was a journalist, I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?

It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.

It is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn’t just protect the good guys; our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society. In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral. They did. Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment.

The Russians understood that our free press and its reflex toward balance and fairness would enable Moscow to slip its destructive ideas into our media ecosystem. When Putin said back in 2014 that there were no Russian troops in Crimea — an outright lie — he knew our media would report it, and we did.

That’s partly because the intellectual underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era. The amendment rests on the notion that the truth will win out in what Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas called “the marketplace of ideas.” This “marketplace” model has a long history going back to 17th-century English intellectual John Milton, but in all that time, no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood.

Milton, an early opponent of censorship, said truth would prevail in a “free and open encounter.” A century later, the framers believed that this marketplace was necessary for people to make informed choices in a democracy. Somehow, magically, truth would emerge. The presumption has always been that the marketplace would offer a level playing field. But in the age of social media, that landscape is neither level nor fair.

On the Internet, truth is not optimized. On the Web, it’s not enough to battle falsehood with truth; the truth doesn’t always win. In the age of social media, the marketplace model doesn’t work. A 2016 Stanford study showed that 82 percent of middle schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and an actual news story. Only a quarter of high school students could tell the difference between an actual verified news site and one from a deceptive account designed to look like a real one.

Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.

more here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/
 
Wow. Where to begin. Is it from the hypocrisy of a former Time editor now championing censorship? Is it from the lack of faith in the marketplace of ideas? Is it from the hubris that hate speech can even be banned and if it could, then people would stop hating or something? Or is it from the sinister, "give us this power and, trust us, we'll never misuse it for our own political ends." No one gets to define what I think, or what I say. If that bothers you, then those other countries that have don't have free speech beckon.

We already have laws that prohibit speech likely to cause imminent violence. That's enough.

America does NOT need a hate speech law. And if Richard Stengal thinks otherwise then he's an idiot.

People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.
 
Wow. Where to begin. Is it from the hypocrisy of a former Time editor now championing censorship? Is it from the lack of faith in the marketplace of ideas? Is it from the hubris that hate speech can even be banned and if it could, then people would stop hating or something? Or is it from the sinister, "give us this power and, trust us, we'll never misuse it for our own political ends." No one gets to define what I think, or what I say. If that bothers you, then those other countries that have don't have free speech beckon.

We already have laws that prohibit speech likely to cause imminent violence. That's enough.

America does NOT need a hate speech law. And if Richard Stengal thinks otherwise then he's an idiot.

After the war, Europe's civil institutions were systematically purged of right-wingers. This enabled the passage of "hate speech" laws, which allowed prosecution of political dissidents. At the same time, American leftists were actively defending free speech because they did not yet have control of our country's institutions.

The American left has now reached the same level of institutional hegemony that the European left had after the war. It is natural that they would seek to cement their power in the same way.
 
Communist propaganda is hate speech. There is a precedent for this given that the US Communist Party was deactivated by law in the 1950s. I would be willing to tolerate hate speech laws if hating your country was included as well as all Communist/Marxist speech/association.
 
Fine idea doing away with NAZI, white supremacist, orange ape/clown...deplorables, knuckle dragging rednecks, teabaggers, toothless rightwingers...along with all other derogatory hateful terms.
 
1. The United States of America already prohibits hate speech.

2. All websites have moderators who ban hate speech.

3. The First Amendment allows people who wish to use hate speech to buy their own printing press and say anything they want. But their circulation will be miniscule, for no newsstand will sell their publication, and no one wants their postal carrier to know that s/he is a subscriber.


4. At school and at work, hate speech will result in expulsion or dismissal.


5. So there is no need to have a de jure hate speech law. There is already a de facto prohibition that 99.99% of Americans know they had better observe.
 
Last edited:
After the war, Europe's civil institutions were systematically purged of right-wingers. This enabled the passage of "hate speech" laws, which allowed prosecution of political dissidents. At the same time, American leftists were actively defending free speech because they did not yet have control of our country's institutions.

The American left has now reached the same level of institutional hegemony that the European left had after the war. It is natural that they would seek to cement their power in the same way.

:lamo
 
Fine idea doing away with NAZI, white supremacist, orange ape/clown...deplorables, knuckle dragging rednecks, teabaggers, toothless rightwingers...along with all other derogatory hateful terms.


The first two describe ideologies so ya got a fail there.
 
I would go as far to say that one can speak more freely in Cuba (at least as a tourist) than one can speak in the USA. The US restrictions are becoming increasingly strict. There are also prohibitions on political contributions and what organizations one belongs to. Face it, freedom of expression/association in the USA is over.

The next stage is COMPELLED speech, for example mandatory use of "preferred pronouns".

1. The United States of America already prohibits hate speech.

2. All websites have moderators who ban hate speech.

3. The First Amendment allows people who wish to use hate speech to buy their own printing press and say anything they want. But their circulation will be miniscule, for no newsstand will sell their publication, and no one wants their postal carrier to know that s/he is a subscriber.


4. At school and at work, hate speech will result in expulsion or dismissal.


5. So there is no need to have a de jure hate speech law. There is already a de facto prohibition that 99.99% of Americans know they had better observe.
 
The marketplace of ideas is all fine and good however we should be aware what the currency is within the larger media scape. The currency is unfortunately not good ideas but attention as we see on social media. This is how bad faith actors win and it is how reactionaries have been able to use liberal values of free speech to end it. Lets not kid ourselves, good ideas is not the currency in this marketplace.
 
I would go as far to say that one can speak more freely in Cuba (at least as a tourist) than one can speak in the USA. The US restrictions are becoming increasingly strict. There are also prohibitions on political contributions and what organizations one belongs to. Face it, freedom of expression/association in the USA is over.

The next stage is COMPELLED speech, for example mandatory use of "preferred pronouns".

Which isnt happening. Jordan Peterson and those like him are lying.
 
A simple web search will provide you with numerous examples.

Which isnt happening. Jordan Peterson and those like him are lying.
 
The next stage is COMPELLED speech, for example mandatory use of "preferred pronouns".




We had better say something like "Every person has their favorite flavor of ice cream." Being 82 years old, I absolutely refuse to say such a monstrosity. So I resort to "his/her." Of course, I would never dare use "his" alone.

I have noticed, however, the grammar police are as silent as a mouse when a few "woke" writers/speakers use "she" or "her" as a gender-neutral pronoun throughout an article or speech: "Every person has her favorite flavor of ice cream, but sometimes she will try another flavor."
 
Wow. Where to begin. Is it from the hypocrisy of a former Time editor now championing censorship? Is it from the lack of faith in the marketplace of ideas? Is it from the hubris that hate speech can even be banned and if it could, then people would stop hating or something? Or is it from the sinister, "give us this power and, trust us, we'll never misuse it for our own political ends." No one gets to define what I think, or what I say. If that bothers you, then those other countries that have don't have free speech beckon.

We already have laws that prohibit speech likely to cause imminent violence. That's enough.

America does NOT need a hate speech law. And if Richard Stengal thinks otherwise then he's an idiot.

He's an idiot for saying that the social media is destructive to free speech?
 
After the war, Europe's civil institutions were systematically purged of right-wingers. This enabled the passage of "hate speech" laws, which allowed prosecution of political dissidents. At the same time, American leftists were actively defending free speech because they did not yet have control of our country's institutions.

The American left has now reached the same level of institutional hegemony that the European left had after the war. It is natural that they would seek to cement their power in the same way.

Thanks for the laugh. I really needed it.
 
People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.

People who want to outlaw hate speech want to so they can define whatever they want as "hate speech" and outlaw it. They do not do so because they support civility and decorum. Otherwise they'd be firstin line to decry loud and raucous campus shutdowns of conservative speakers.

See how easy it was to lampoon your silly, unsubstantiated, self-serving broad brush?
 
People who want to outlaw hate speech want to so they can define whatever they want as "hate speech" and outlaw it. They do not do so because they support civility and decorum. Otherwise they'd be firstin line to decry loud and raucous campus shutdowns of conservative speakers.

See how easy it was to lampoon your silly, unsubstantiated, self-serving broad brush?

An interesting but pathetically bad attempt at satire. Feel free to demonstrate with your actions how to do it right. :)

DISMISSED
 
An interesting but pathetically bad attempt at satire. Feel free to demonstrate with your actions how to do it right. :)

DISMISSED

Well yeah, the bigger your bolded text, the more potent your reply. Have a good one.
 
After the war, Europe's civil institutions were systematically purged of right-wingers. This enabled the passage of "hate speech" laws, which allowed prosecution of political dissidents. At the same time, American leftists were actively defending free speech because they did not yet have control of our country's institutions.

The American left has now reached the same level of institutional hegemony that the European left had after the war. It is natural that they would seek to cement their power in the same way.

in the 60s, lefties, using the Nam Debacle (which was mainly instigated by the Democrats' American Primacy doctrine) used the failure of the system to demand inclusion in the management of institutions of higher learning,. once they got control, they basically shut out conservatives from having positions of influence. A couple years ago, Yale Law's top professor, Akhil Reed Amar-a committed liberal and a huge hater of Trump-noted that the permeation of leftist intolerance of competing ideas had "poisoned the intellectual atmosphere" at the top universities. Another noted liberal, Harvard Law's famous Allan Dershowitz, has said the same thing. Leftwing authoritarianism does not do well in the marketplace of ideas.
 
People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.
Hate speech is, well, hateful, disgusting and repellent; but I think it's necessary that we hear it so we can be aware of what's going on out there. You can oppose and fight what you don't know exists.
 
You have put up with society's bullcrap for eight decades. You've EARNED the right to use "his" alone.

We had better say something like "Every person has their favorite flavor of ice cream." Being 82 years old, I absolutely refuse to say such a monstrosity. So I resort to "his/her." Of course, I would never dare use "his" alone.

I have noticed, however, the grammar police are as silent as a mouse when a few "woke" writers/speakers use "she" or "her" as a gender-neutral pronoun throughout an article or speech: "Every person has her favorite flavor of ice cream, but sometimes she will try another flavor."
 
FFS, “hate speech law” is the worst idea imaginable.
 
Hate speech is, well, hateful, disgusting and repellent; but I think it's necessary that we hear it so we can be aware of what's going on out there. You can oppose and fight what you don't know exists.

That's exactly what the fascists want us to believe.
 
You have put up with society's bullcrap for eight decades. You've EARNED the right to use "his" alone.

giphy.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom