Hate speech laws - It is good for Nazis to be terrified

[ThePokemonmaster11]

Recently, Ellen Degeneres got into a tiff with a Christian singer about the issue of homosexuality and suggested that hate speech laws be enacted. Which brings up this debate, do you believe that said laws should be enacted in the US and do you believe that they would be constitutional?

 

[chess-z]

There will always be a tention between "Free Speach" and protecting minorities. You will have to decide which one you value more.

We have established that there are somethings that you can't say (screaming "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater for example). I personally believe that it is entirely fair to protect people using hate speach laws. Constitutional is another thing, but there is room to protect people within it.

Amd to clear up something preemptively, free speach means that the government can't censor you. With that definition, this is, just a tiny bit, censorship. Of course I would have to wonder what kind of person you are if you get called out on hate speach charges (what's legal isn't not always morally right).

 

[Swordsman4]

There will always be a tention between "Free Speach" and protecting minorities. You will have to decide which one you value more.

We have established that there are somethings that you can't say (screaming "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater for example). I personally believe that it is entirely fair to protect people using hate speach laws. Constitutional is another thing, but there is room to protect people within it.

Amd to clear up something preemptively, free speach means that the government can't censor you. With that definition, this is, just a tiny bit, censorship. Of course I would have to wonder what kind of person you are if you get called out on hate speach charges (what's legal isn't not always morally right).

I've never understood the argument for hate speech laws. Last time I checked the First Amendment protected the right to free speech and the right to religious freedom. The incident that the poster is talking about was a preacher/singer who preached a sermon at her church about marriage and in passing mentioned in said sermon that homosexuality is wrong. I see nothing wrong with this, she's not hurting anyone, she isn't threatening anyone. She isn't picketing funerals like the disgusting so-called Christian Westboro Baptists, the pastor spoke her religious beliefs in a sermon at church. She's no more guilty of hate speech than a professor at a college that teaches something to their students.

 

[chess-z]

I've never understood the argument for hate speech laws. Last time I checked the First Amendment protected the right to free speech and the right to religious freedom. The incident that the poster is talking about was a preacher/singer who preached a sermon at her church about marriage and in passing mentioned in said sermon that homosexuality is wrong. I see nothing wrong with this, she's not hurting anyone, she isn't threatening anyone. She isn't picketing funerals like the disgusting so-called Christian Westboro Baptists, the pastor spoke her religious beliefs in a sermon at church. She's no more guilty of hate speech than a professor at a college that teaches something to their students.

Clearly you don't understand how microaggresions work. Hate speech is a cumulative effect, so it can be very hard to see how it hurts people. You probably are white, cis, heterosexual and male, so I'll bet that you havent ever been on the recieving end of any form of hate crimes. Think of it like being bullied by all of society. (Speaking of, isn't verbal abuse illegal?) At any rate, try to be more sympathetic to people not like yourself.

 

[Swordsman4]

Clearly you don't understand how microaggresions work. Hate speech is a cumulative effect, so it can be very hard to see how it hurts people. You probably are white, cis, heterosexual and male, so I'll bet that you havent ever been on the recieving end of any form of hate crimes. Think of it like being bullied by all of society. (Speaking of, isn't verbal abuse illegal?) At any rate, try to be more sympathetic to people not like yourself.

I find your explanation quite hateful. You just labeled whites, heterosexuals, and males with a stereotype. Isn't that stereotyping and therefore a bigoted assumption?

Microaggression? Really? That's the best you can come up with. I find things that liberals say about Christian conservatives offensive, but it isn't hate speech. People rail on Christians daily so by your definition I've experienced a hate crime by hearing something that I don't agree with.

 

[bobjr]

It's almost like Christians can't handle that people want to say and do things they disapprove of, and when people criticize it they act like they're the persecuted group.

 

[chess-z]

I find your explanation quite hateful. You just labeled whites, heterosexuals, and males with a stereotype. Isn't that stereotyping and therefore a bigoted assumption?

Microaggression? Really? That's the best you can come up with. I find things that liberals say about Christian conservatives offensive, but it isn't hate speech. People rail on Christians daily so by your definition I've experienced a hate crime by hearing something that I don't agree with.

stereotyping cishet white guys is just as bad as the people they oppress uwu

I might be passive agressive and sarcastic, but I do know what I'm talking about. Try reading the wikipedia page on something before dismissing it out of hand. Heck, I'll even link it, alomg with a few studies that I know you won't read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory
http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/02/microaggression.aspx

But hey, we live in a post-truth soceity, so take these actual facts with a grain of salt.

 

[Swordsman4]

Anyone can pull a term out of their ear and defend it. Personally, I believe in free speech. We don't need the government becoming the thought police.

 

[bobjr]

But we need a government to protect the rights and freedoms of minority groups.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

But we need a government to protect the rights and freedoms of minority groups.

As long as the person isn't doing anything that would harm someone or attack the rights of those minority groups, it shouldn't matter whether someone is saying that homosexuality is morally wrong or anything of that nature as long as it doesn't incite violence, as merely saying something is not violating someone's rights. Hate Speech laws should only be enacted on those who are inciting violence against others.

Now, if it's a private institution, that's different, but the government shouldn't have the ability to censor people over racial insults/other slights in public forums or the internet.

 

[U.N. Owen]

I find it hilarious that people seem to pull the freedom of speech card so much yet refuse to acknowledge the backlash. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. You can certainly yell threats about shooting up schools, malls, and churches, but that does not deny you the consequences of your actions. It honestly feels like some people think free speech means freedom from consequences.

 

[Eternalserenity]

Freedom of speech is only protected up to the point of slandering other people and violating their civil rights. Slander in itself is not illegal, but it does make one a viable candidate for a lawsuit. But the question is, at what point does slander against a minority group, be they of an ethnicity difference, religious difference, or in the LGBT community become admissible as a hate crime in the court of law? Another equally important question these days is this: Where should the line be drawn between the freedom to practice religion versus the ability to use your religion as a weapon to openly discriminate against others?

Since slander is not a crime, it also cannot be considered a hate crime. However, it can be considered a motivating factor for other crimes to occur, such as acts of physical and sexual violence, theft, damage of property, and murder. Evidence of what slander is capable of can be found in the escalation of criminal offenses against minorities following Donald Trump's electoral victory against Hilary Clinton.

Should slander be legal? I believe the answer is a grey area of yes and no. It should be legal on the basis of the freedom of speech. There's even a point to having it for the indirect benefit to society. However, should that slander lead to a crime against someone, then the slanderer should be charged with criminal offenses appropriate to being a co-conspirator of that crime, should evidence of the hate speech against the victim(s) exist. This should be applied to everyone, including government and religious officials. Under this system, slander would still be legal and no one is censored, but people would be deterred from engaging in the action for the negative consequences that could follow. Hate speech is not victimless, so people should not be permitted to engage in it without having to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Swordsman4]

As long as the person isn't doing anything that would harm someone or attack the rights of those minority groups, it shouldn't matter whether someone is saying that homosexuality is morally wrong or anything of that nature as long as it doesn't incite violence, as merely saying something is not violating someone's rights. Hate Speech laws should only be enacted on those who are inciting violence against others.

Now, if it's a private institution, that's different, but the government shouldn't have the ability to censor people over racial insults/other slights in public forums or the internet.

Bingo, I couldn't have said it any better. And let me remind detractors that the First Amendment also confirms this view.

 

[chess-z]

Anyone can pull a term out of their ear and defend it. Personally, I believe in free speech. We don't need the government becoming the thought police.

:/

I didn't just pull this term out of my ear, and if you had read literally any of the article I linked, you would have known that. Please stop being wilfully ignorant.

 

[Zora]

stereotyping cishet white guys is just as bad as the people they oppress uwu

I might be passive agressive and sarcastic, but I do know what I'm talking about. Try reading the wikipedia page on something before dismissing it out of hand. Heck, I'll even link it, alomg with a few studies that I know you won't read.

[removed wikipedia article; it's not the link I'm focusing on. -zora]
http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/02/microaggression.aspx

But hey, we live in a post-truth soceity, so take these actual facts with a grain of salt.

For someone who complains about a post-truth society and citing studies you won't read, you could possibly consider reading the paper yourself.

Both the APA article and the PDF you are quoting from refer to Sue's article on microaggression. Sue's 2007 paper, by itself, did not actually research if microaggressions are an issue--the abstract itself refers to the paper as a taxonomy. I.e. the purpose of the paper was to introduce, define, and illustrate terminology and ideas for future research projects.

I'd be very interested in seeing what studies have been done since 2007 that document microaggressions impact. A quick read-over of the wikipedia's effect tab, however, suggests nothing has outright disproved the theory but the field hasn't exactly found its "silver bullet" study either. If there's a particular study I should be focusing on, however, I'm all ears!

 

[chess-z]

For someone who complains about a post-truth society and citing studies you won't read, you could possibly consider reading the paper yourself.

Both the APA article and the PDF you are quoting from refer to Sue's article on microaggression. Sue's 2007 paper, by itself, did not actually research if microaggressions are an issue--the abstract itself refers to the paper as a taxonomy. I.e. the purpose of the paper was to introduce, define, and illustrate terminology and ideas for future research projects.

I'd be very interested in seeing what studies have been done since 2007 that document microaggressions impact. A quick read-over of the wikipedia's effect tab, however, suggests nothing has outright disproved the theory but the field hasn't exactly found its "silver bullet" study either. If there's a particular study I should be focusing on, however, I'm all ears!

Yeah, you got me. I was hoping to inteoduce him to the basics of microaggression theory by baiting him (which didn't work cause he didn't read anything), but it's clear that it's no where near as researched as it should be. I've been meaning to do some deeper research into it.

Thank you by the way, it's been too long since anyone has called my sources into legitimate question.

 

[bobjr]

As long as the person isn't doing anything that would harm someone or attack the rights of those minority groups, it shouldn't matter whether someone is saying that homosexuality is morally wrong or anything of that nature as long as it doesn't incite violence, as merely saying something is not violating someone's rights. Hate Speech laws should only be enacted on those who are inciting violence against others.

Now, if it's a private institution, that's different, but the government shouldn't have the ability to censor people over racial insults/other slights in public forums or the internet.

Of course there are limits, but there should be the freedom to prosecute hate speech if the private company sees fit. Treat the public offender like the joke they are, but treat the private offender like the bigot they show themselves as.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Of course there are limits, but there should be the freedom to prosecute hate speech if the private company sees fit. Treat the public offender like the joke they are, but treat the private offender like the bigot they show themselves as.

No. The government should not be given the power to prosecute people over something perceived hate speech in a private institution; the institutions already has the power to deal with them as they see fit as long as it's within legal guidelines, such as with colleges.

 

[bobjr]

Yeah, prosecute is probably the wrong word, but the private institutions should be able to punish reasonably for hate speech.

However when certain aspects of hate speech are getting too strong the government should look into causes and how to fix it. This stuff shouldn't just be brushed under the rug.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Yeah, prosecute is probably the wrong word, but the private institutions should be able to punish reasonably for hate speech.

However when certain aspects of hate speech are getting too strong the government should look into causes and how to fix it. This stuff shouldn't just be brushed under the rug.

If it gets down to the speech inciting violence, then hate speech laws could be enacted, as that is a threat to peoples' lives. The government only needs to step in when is threatens the lives or rights of others.