Why America needs a hate speech law

[DarthPedant]

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.

That's an interesting perspective: maybe everyone had a strong capacity to become a fascist if given the chance. It's like how when America was mostly Presbyterians and Unitarians, the Catholics and Evangelicals were the strongest advocates of the separation of church and state, but now that they have some numbers on their side, they constantly want to blur the distinction.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

 

[AmNat]

That's an interesting perspective: maybe everyone had a strong capacity to become a fascist if given the chance. It's like how when America was mostly Presbyterians and Unitarians, the Catholics and Evangelicals were the strongest advocates of the separation of church and state, but now that they have some numbers on their side, they constantly want to blur the distinction.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

Public neutrality is always the demand of those without power. No faction ever upholds it for a long time after obtaining power. Why would they?

As for the Catholic Church, it has always rejected disestablishmentarianism in principle, even when Catholics were a small minority of the population (e.g. Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on Catholicism in the United States).

 

[Obscurity]

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.

Methinks you are stuck in McCarthy's era and are totally absorbed in your red scare hysteria.

 

[bomberfox]

Suppose legislation entered the pipeline that criminalized "improper pronoun use" at the state or national level. This would include persons using gender-neutral pronouns such as "they" or avoiding pronoun use due to moral misgivings about calling a biological man a woman and vice versa.

The punishment wouldn't necessarily be jail time, but a fine of up to $7,500 per infraction, with jail time substituted if a defendant was unable to pay. Furthermore, the legal costs for any defendant contesting the charges could easily run into the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Would you actively support such legislation, actively oppose such legislation, or would you sit back and let other people deal with it?

I’d oppose it.

 

[bomberfox]

Amen to that. Many in the pro-gay community want to ban various types of religious free speech. They apparently don't want their feeble consciences tweaked to the point they might get convicted of their sins and saved.

:lamo wont somebody get me a tissue for the persecuted christians?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The only people who think America needs a hate speech law are the people who hate speech.

Period.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Amen to that. Many in the pro-gay community want to ban various types of religious free speech. They apparently don't want their feeble consciences tweaked to the point they might get convicted of their sins and saved.

Or they're just sick of hearing your bigoted ****.

 

[Hamish Howl]

:lamo wont somebody get me a tissue for the persecuted christians?

With "persecution" being defined as "they don't get to tell people how to live their lives."

 

[Phys251]

we are entitled to hate speech. Look at the First Amendment.

Show me exactly where in the First Amendment that says that all hate speech must be considered free speech.

 

[Phys251]

Europe is an textbook case in the failure of hate speech laws, unfolding in real time.

Nations are finding themselves overrun by lawless immigrants engaged in everything from organized rapes to de facto Sharia Law, but everyone from the laypeople to the politicians have been forbidden by the courts to speak out against Islam, immigrants and immigration. Not surprisingly, huge (and growing) nationalist populist movements have arisen in virtually all European states--including, BTW, a huge win for the AfD in Germany this year--fueled by people sick to death of watching Europe eaten away while self-righteous Eurocrats forbid any recourse but playing the fiddle.

If you want to witness the end game of hate speech laws, you need only behold the rise of unrestrained, unrepentant nationalism, antiestablishmentism, and (yes) racism in Europe over the coming decade. What's worse, it will arise as a matter of self-preservation, making it the distinct lesser evil.

 

[COTO]

You're a physicist, aren't you? A learned man of reason? I seem to recall you've said so in the past.

Craft rebuttals worthy of a man of reason, or don't bother. Appeals to incredulity need not apply.

 

[Harshaw]

Show me exactly where in the First Amendment that says that all hate speech must be considered free speech.

You're the one arguing for the exception. Where's that to be found in the First Amendment?

I'll provide it for you:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Please color-code the exception.

 

[CLAX1911]

Show me exactly where in the First Amendment that says that all hate speech must be considered free speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Is hate speech speech? If so it says it right there.

 

[Phys251]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Is hate speech speech? If so it says it right there.

As expected you did not answer the question. :shrug: Where SPECIFICALLY does the First Amendment say that ALL hate speech must be considered free speech?

 

[Phys251]

You're a physicist, aren't you? A learned man of reason? I seem to recall you've said so in the past.

Craft rebuttals worthy of a man of reason, or don't bother. Appeals to incredulity need not apply.

So soon with the argumenta ad hominem? I would have at least expected you to put up a fight this time. Oh well. :shrug:

 

[Integrityrespec]

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.

Hate speech may be ugly. but, Hate speech is free Speech. and because you don't like it or disagree you don't have a right to control my speech.

 

[CLAX1911]

As expected you did not answer the question. :shrug: Where SPECIFICALLY does the First Amendment say that ALL hate speech must be considered free speech?

It's speech. Presented the first amendment in the clause that talks about speech.

just because you hate people speech doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it.

 

[Phys251]

It's speech. Presented the first amendment in the clause that talks about speech.

just because you hate people speech doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it.

By your logic, incitements of violence should be considered free speech.

 

[CLAX1911]

By your logic, incitements of violence should be considered free speech.

No. Incitement to violence interfere with other people's freedoms.

 

[Phys251]

No. Incitement to violence interfere with other people's freedoms.

That raises the question of what freedom is, doesn't it? A topic we could be going round and round over for a long time.

 

[CLAX1911]

That raises the question of what freedom is, doesn't it? A topic we could be going round and round over for a long time.

No it doesn't. But the question of what is freedom it's not really that big of a minefield.

 

[Phys251]

No it doesn't. But the question of what is freedom it's not really that big of a minefield.

Really? What freedom is can just be decided by a bunch of robots? No. That's what our court system is for, to make lawful judgments on questions such as when a citizen's freedom has been violated.

 

[CLAX1911]

Really? What freedom is can just be decided by a bunch of robots? No. That's what our court system is for, to make lawful judgments on questions such as when a citizen's freedom has been violated.

The first sentence in this post didn't make much sense.

Courts are there to be arbiters. With regard to freedoms they are there to decide who is correct and who is not. They are not really there to decide what freedom is.

 

[Phys251]

The first sentence in this post didn't make much sense.

Courts are there to be arbiters. With regard to freedoms they are there to decide who is correct and who is not. They are not really there to decide what freedom is.

If they can't decide that then what's the point of the courts at all? I sense that you mean that they have no place restricting freedom, but they have to come up with a working definition and examples of what freedom is.

 

[CLAX1911]

If they can't decide that then what's the point of the courts at all?

the courts are arbiters who is correct that's their purpose. Their purpose in no way has ever been to discuss the philosophical.

I sense that you mean that they have no place restricting freedom, but they have to come up with a working definition and examples of what freedom is.

No I know what I meant to say much better than you do. The question of what is freedom is a philosophical one it's not even constitutional question. That is not the courts purpose. It never has been and it never will be. Again for the third time the courts purpose is to be an arbiter.