What is Jow Forums's opinion on hate speech?
>inb4 doesn't exist
Hear me out. Shouldn't the line be drawn somewhere?
I mean, if one person is calling for a certain group of people to be exterminated or hurt, (regardless of whether that group is whites, blacks, christians, or muslims) couldn't that be considered inciting violence, and could possibly end in people getting hurt or killed?
Brandenburg v. Ohio
>inciting violence
>hate speech
No need to conflate them leaf.
Sometimes the people say "I will kill you", to joke or only because they are angry, but they don't want hurt anybody. Can you arrest someone only to have that thinks for a moment? This are called crimethink is this the right way?
What’s hate speech?
Oh fuck off , that's my opinion.
There is no such thing as hate speech or hate crimes.
Hate speech is great. It pisses off liberals and upsets niggers.
P.S. FUCK NIGGERS AND KIKES
So if a black person attacks a white person because he's white, (or vice versa) that isn't a hate crime?
No. Freedom of speech is for speech you disagree with. Nobody needs freedom of speech for saying shit you like. Stupid faggot.
no, because all crime is hate crime. Its JUST CRIME
No. Just a crime. Already statutes for it.
Hate is natural and many things deserve hate. People shouldn't be bared from speaking their hate for something.
Back up the slippery slope you go, leaf.
Eat a dick you moose-fucking faglord.
>What is Jow Forums's opinion on hate speech?
It’s another tool for liberals to throw people into the slammer for saying mean things. It’s a scam. Who are to judge what is and isn’t hateful? Who am I to judge what is hateful versus what isn’t? It’s all subjective.
the line is drawn with slander(lies) and abuse(directly causing harm).
"hate speech" and those attempting to negotiate for such a term are only interested in one thing: silencing dissenting thought. It's antithetical to the purpose of the first amendment
Banning certain speech doesn't remove the sentiment, it simply forbids its expression.
The US is working really hard on censoring the internet to prevent the spread of hate speech, independent journalism, and all sorts of organic opinion. Due process later.
>Sometimes the people say "I will kill you"
if the person feels that's a reasonable threat, that's assault.
Kill yourself faggot
>Hear me out. Shouldn't the line be drawn somewhere?
If you make a (proven) factually incorrect statement, with the purpose of causing harm, then you have broken the law.
(E.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater when you know there is no fire).
If you directly call for others to commit a crime then you have broken the law.
Anything else should be fare game in my opinion. But now we aren't even allowed to present our opinions if they are (((on the wrong side of history))).
>I mean, if one person is calling for a certain group of people to be exterminated or hurt, (regardless of whether that group is whites, blacks, christians, or muslims) couldn't that be considered inciting violence, and could possibly end in people getting hurt or killed?
On that note, we have leftists calling for the deaths of whites regularly. And nobody gives a shit.
It only becomes a problem if a white male says anything others don't like.
I'll put you on my waffle, leaf.
FPBP
I can speak or I can kill. Im a reasonable man so I'm perfectly fine letting my enemy decide which.
I was gonna reply the exact fucking same thing.
The line is the bead i put on your head. I will be heard one way or another
What happens when you are offended? Nothing, exactly 0 happens.
People chose to be offended, it has to do with the subjective, personal feelings, not with any objective category. There is no objective category for the hate speech because it's all subjective and deals with emotions.
Let's say I am offended by the use of the word "Monday" and I complain and even convince some retards that "Monday " is offensive and thus is a hate speech. Should the society just bow to my (minority that chooses to be offended by a random word) will and stop using the word "Monday"? Or should the society tell me and my group of retards to fuck off and carry on?
Both are protected speech
Don't talk, do.
I HATE M*NDAYS
Not if a nigger does it.
my opinion is that all speech is free speech even the lefts hypocritical hate filled frothy mouthed speech
To be completely honest me and my family(and even some friends) started using Mondays as a substitute for the niggers, Beane's and general scum. It actually worked. "Fucking Mondays " means something much different in my home than everywhere else.
And we started this because someone said
>>Nobody likes Mondays
Beaners, fucking autocorrect.
A FUCKING LEAF
>what is Jow Forums's opinion on unicorns?
>inb4 they don't exist
>if one person is calling for a certain group of people to be exterminated or hurt, (regardless of whether that group is whites, blacks, christians, or muslims) couldn't that be considered inciting violence, and could possibly end in people getting hurt or killed?
That already is legislated against in most countries, the real question is that are you satisfied with that or do you want to expand it to things that are hurtful, not incitement?
No,fuck you.
>dude
>a leaf
>lmao
How about, just once, you try and actually retort and stop using childish insults like a 10 year old?
>calling for a certain group of people to be exterminated
>inciting violence
I imagine this might be a problem if people didn't have the free will to ignore them. Holy shit. Perhaps leftists don't actually have free will.
Anyway, without hatespeech, or extreme speech of any kind, free speech can't exist. Any objective reference for allowed-speech is mutable if enough people say it should be changed, and is therefore actually subjective. In order that my speech remain free, allowed-speech must not be dictated by the subjective opinions of others, no matter how much they may dislike it.
>hate speech?
Tell me what it is and I'll tell you what I think of it.
This
John Stuart Mill answered this question 150 years ago
"No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard."
If the group is innocent, the guy speaking against them will be ignored or treated as a madman.
Hate speech works because it speaks the truth that people already know in the back of their heads.
You can try and contain it for a while but it keeps building up in people's minds regardless.
Where does the line get drawn though, when does openly offering a few grand to off your wife become soliciting for an assassin?
Or does the speech just become evidence of some other nefarious intent?
I think the whole argument about Freedom of speech is wrong, WHERE something is said is more important then WHAT is said. For some reason people don't understand that. It would be unfair to stand outside a Mosque remonstrating against Islam, but it's acceptable to air this view to people on a forum who wish to discuss it.
Free speech should always be allowed, no topic should be beyond reproach or so sancrosanct, it cannot be spoken of; it's a safety valve and serves a greater purpose, than you know. In the cacophony of today's voices and information, the greater the freedom we have to speak our minds the better the market place of ideas will be and the less chance more dangerous ideas will gain traction. I don't buy the notion that people's ideas and speech left unchecked coalesces into the most virulent and extreme forms; except where there is a monoculture. See here and Twatter or Islam.
As for influencing people, the people with the proclivity to shoot up a mosque, synagogue or school on the 'far right' would find another reason do to it anyway. Usually they do this, because they feel disenfranchised and have no means of redemption i.e. they have nothing going on in life.
As for 'Hate Speech' I personally don't like Islam and shariah law, and I find multi-ethnic societies reprehensible, except, where there is an assimilatory culture which subsumes and binds all it's inhabitants together -like America. America has an assimilitory culture with the same shared observances and rights in the constitution, flag, national pride, sports, 4th of July, military, work ethic, politeness, Christianity etc; although it's being increasingly watered down.
>openly offering a few grand to off your wife become soliciting for an assassin?
The person should be allowed freedom of speech, to talk to the assassin faggot. The illegal part is the conspiracy to kill his wife.
I swear to Jebus, if we get Freedom of Speech wrong we're fucked forever, and we're getting ever closer to destroying it.
>if one person is calling for a certain group of people to be exterminated or hurt
This usually doesn't, and shouldn't, have any traction. It only works if the person spoken about is that way. Or the listeners are ignorant, which seems more likely.
>inciting violence
I've only ever seen that law used to prosecute people the state disagrees with. It does nothing to actually prevent anything. If someone wants to commit acts of violence against others, or encourage others to do so, a silly law like that isn't going to stop them. It's just a law designed to prosecute anyone who pose a threat to the (((status quo))) of politics.
And he was wrong on this.
>CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING
Where and to whom something is said is of far greater import, than what is said -which should be left unchecked. If I'm in a private group joking in a racist manner, that's my business and should be allowed. If I walk up to a black man and call him a nigger, then that should be checked.
Saying God hates homosexuals
>outside a gay wedding, is WRONG.
>during Sunday school is FINE.
Based. I will adopt this.
no the line will always be redrawn. calls for violence can even be a slippery slope
We got Freedom of Speech right 230+ years ago, we understood that context where and to whom is everything, forget what is said and leave it unchecked; but now thanks to mass electronic communications it's a problem because idiots can't define what is 'public' online.
Public
>Faceberg
>Twatter
Private
>private Faceberg page
>private Twatter group
Why is that so hard to understand?
>Shouldn't a line be drawn somewhere?
No Free Speech is all speech.
>It would be unfair to stand outside a Mosque remonstrating against Islam
>Saying God hates homosexuals
>outside a gay wedding, is WRONG.
>during Sunday school is FINE.
This sounds like you advocate for self censorship, exactly what people are currently doing to keep their social media accounts unbanned, you seem to have accidentally cucked yourself
>if we get Freedom of Speech wrong we're fucked forever
but not here.
>You can say what you like if no one is listening
Isn't the point, when everyone is listening IS the point.
People who believe it in censoring "hate speech" should be subjected to the ultimate form of censorship itself. Make the world a more civilised place.
Hate speech is the most important kind of speech
>one post from leaf OP
like pottery
>self censorship
Do you tell your mum about the time you shagged your misses up the arse, or your first blow job?
No didn't think so.
Ooops, you've cucked yourself.
Context is everything, WHERE something is said more important to WHAT is said.
What is said should be free
>Hear me out. Shouldn't the line be drawn somewhere?
no
No such thing. Just a buzzword to fool low agency dipshits into giving up their rights.
The problem is what is hate speech?
Is there such a thing as dislike speech or maybe apathy speech?
Is it wrong to hate something or someone?
Didn't Ghandi hate the British?
The problem with hate speech laws is how ambiguous it all is. It can be any position contrary to yours. You just fill in the gaps how ever you want, because it's not clearly defined.
Try it. It works surprisingly well. Monday changes meaning.
This is why the "Hate speech" is a complete bullshit, we can adapt literally any word to be offensive, like we did in my house, and as long as the people don't know what we mean, is the word "Monday" offensive? It is not. If niggers found out that I call them Mondays as a substitute for niggers, would they want to stop the use of the word Monday? Probably. How well would that shit work though? How can you ban a word like Monday.
Now I had an epiphany, what if Jow Forums started using Monday as a substitute as well? How fast would Monday became Nazi?
>Shouldn't the line be drawn somewhere?
it is drawn somewhere, at direct threats and encitement
>I mean, if one person is calling for a certain group of people to be exterminated or hurt, (regardless of whether that group is whites, blacks, christians, or muslims) couldn't that be considered inciting violence, and could possibly end in people getting hurt or killed?
Not in general, people have agency and decide to do things on their own.
Com'on me ol' mucker, did you tell ya ma about the time you went down on a bird and made her orgasm??
Do you see me point sunny Jim?
Where and to Whom it's said is what matters; What is said is irrelevant.
Free-speech absolutism
End of story.
Short of actiobable calls to enact immediate violence, everything is free speech.
Free speech doesn't allow you to commit crime via speech and have it be protected because it is speech.
>The problem is what is hate speech?
Directly causing someone to fear, harrassment or offence. Emphasis on the DIRECTLY. If I said Fuck all dirty sandnigger Muslims and fuck low life snownigger Russians here, it should make NO difference.
If I said that in Saudi Arabia, or in Russia, they I'd expect to be dealt with.
I thought that the US had plenty of exceptions to the first amendment. Fighting words, libel and slander, incitement to crime, perjury, blackmail, child pornography, and threats aren't at all covered by the first already. Why "he said a euphemism to make me feel bad" need to be a law when harassing someone already can constitute the basis for assault and a breach of peace?
>inciting violence
What kind of cuck shit is that? You're the one responsible for your actions and noone else.
Poverty of thought here, lots of real retards. Why am I the only one WHERE it's said is what matters and not WHAT?? This is an example of WHY freedom to say what you want should be left completely unchecked, but WHERE it's said matters.
I think people just vent. I don’t give a fuck if someone wants to kill me because I’m a conservative. In fact, I’d think less of myself if they didn’t. I’m glad they hate me. You want to pick up guns and start a war? I’m game for that too. Just don’t go crying back to your daddy in govt to save you once it starts because our goal will then be to kill you in the most cruel and unusual ways possible and we’ll make you watch your families go first, bitches. Vent all you want but when you pick up the gun you just escalated and all rules go off the table.
Define hate speech maple nigger?
Because to most of the left White people who don't want to go extinct are biggots. But pic related is moral justice and good for tolerance.
>What is Jow Forums's opinion on hate speech?
What the fuck do you think
If you allow WHERE to influence WHAT you've missed the point.
Strawmanning and self preservation aside, can you not see this?
Who gets to define WHERE, because by doing so they have also decided WHAT.
>The white race is the cancer of human history
>Susan Sontag
I can't think of anything more racist, more absurd or plainly wrong.
If she said that in front of white alumini, I think she should have been charged with a 'hate crime' If said that in the Synagogue I don't give a shit.
>If you allow WHERE to influence WHAT you've missed the point
So have you told your ma, about shagging that bird up the arse?
It's too arbitary.
>Still ignoring the question
>So have you told your ma, about shagging that bird up the arse?
Nah, but I'll call her now if you'll stop being a retard and answer the question who gets to define WHERE.
If you think talking about salacious aspects of your sex life at a funeral is ok, I suggest you're a few spanners short lad.
>I don't agree with the fact that Israel has been pushing their borders further and further into Pales--
>THAT'S HATE SPEECH YOU BIGOT! IT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!
>Still ignoring the question
I also answered the question, by showing you, that you do self censor because WHERE is more important than WHAT is said.
Checked.
Yes of course, but if something hurt you (and it isn't a threat) there isn't a reason to arrest someone only because there is a "hate speech".
user, you whine about no one engaging with you then sperg out on a straw man spree when they do
>Still failing to answer a direct question
Your a destiny fan aren't you?
Hate speech does not exist. You have the right to voice your opinion, just as others have the right to tell you how shitty it is.
There's free speech or hate speech, you can't have both.
t. corn dealer
>destiny
What's Destiny weren't that a Yank show in the 80s?
It's not a strawman, I'm pointing out to you big boy, that you and I already self censor. Nobody gets to decide WHERE, it's just common sense. Know your audience. Treat others as you want to be treated. Do flaming homosexuals want to be told they're going to hell or fucking a man's shitty arse is disgusting ? No of course not, but would I have that discussion down the boozer (I don't drink) yeah, probably if the banter was in that vein.
When you act.
Threats are already illegal. How you leftards can't understand basic laws?
Sorry I was thinking of Dynasty.
One Day in the Not So Distant Future
it will be "Hate Speech" to call Hate Speech Against Whites "Hate Speech" because it wont fit the New Think Definition of "Hate Speech"
White People Defending Themselves will be called Racist Dog Whistles
No they arent. Only imminent actionable threats.
hate speech laws are ultra vires and unenforceable unless there is a breach of the peace, and even then its just a breach of the peace and charges above and beyond that would be thrown out or the statues would be nullified
If you say you will bomb a school, you will be jailed. Idiot.