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

[Baba Yaga]

There are tons of liberal Christians out there, they won't censor speech like that. Most hate speech laws are against things that the person is born with and can't be changed.

Which leads me to believe that homosexuality in particular isn't being treated in the same way as other characteristics commonly accepted to be immutable, like being black, even by the people who don't believe it's a choice. If someone were to preach from the pulpit that being black or native was wrong and sinful, nobody anywhere would think to say that they're simply expressing an unpopular opinion.

So, I guess I'll take the "extreme" position that even stating homosexuality is wrong through a public platform should constitute as hate speech. The reasons being are because the statement says much more than what the speaker thinks it does. Condemning someone for what, rather than who they are is intrinsically dehumanizing.

1) Jews aren't real people.

2) Homosexuals are sinners in the eyes of God.

The former will definitely land you in jail in a lot of places if you say it publicly, but the latter won't. Why? The statements aren't dissimilar. It doesn't make sense to me that only one is punishable for directly claiming that a group of people is lesser and in the other it can be inferred. They both have equal potential for damage, perhaps the latter even more so because of the language the New testament uses to describe unrepentant sinners - that they're children of satan, that their portion will be of the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, that Christ's sacrifice no longer applies to them, etc. I don't care if this kind of poison makes its way to someone's dinner table, but if it's said through TV, newspaper, etc. I think it's fair to implement a fine or jail time. I think the imminent threat aspect to U.S. hate speech laws definitely need to be revisited.

 

[Sadib]

As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is a sin. Now before you rip me for believing that hear me out, I'm not picketing funerals; I'm not saying go rot in hell; I'm not beating people; and I wouldn't treat a homosexual any different than I'd treat anyone else, I treat them with love and respect–I simply don't believe it's right and might mention so in a sermon if I was to preach about sin. What stops someone from including that as hate speech? That's what the woman in this case did and Ellen demanded that hate speech laws be enacted to silence the pastor woman. She literally said that said beliefs need to be punished.

Funny. I thought the bible was the one that likes to silence women.

 

[1rkhachatryan]

The giants were the spawn of demons, sir, and were hideous people.

Everyone who truly believes in God's word believes that they are ALL wretched at base level. No one is immune from sin, hence why Christ had to die for mankind. I know this is "preachy" but again we're having a debate here, allow me to relay my position. I hate what all mankind lives for bob, mankind is one of the most selfish things imaginable. Look at corporate greed, look at Wall Street, look at Washington DC–do we need anymore proof? I even hate myself for what I lived for prior to God. I find it kinda unfair that me preaching the Bible could get me imprisoned. That's what concerns me about hate speech laws, in addition to the fact that there still isn't anything stopping someone like Trump from waking up one day and saying that criticizing him is now hate speech. A dictator could step up and use those things to silence us all by rewording them. It's not unprecedented for someone to change laws to fit their agenda.

Anyways, I've said everything I wanted to say. I appreciate that we actually had a conversation here that didn't totally degrade to name calling and I appreciate you actually listened to my side even if you don't agree. It actually means a lot to me that we could have an honest discussion. You see very little of that today.

I'll tell you I love America, just the fact that we're free to have these discussions makes it a great place.

There's a difference then you being in church and preaching something and you going up to random people and preaching something. My problem is with the religious people who go out of their way to tell me I'm going straight to hell. My rule is don't preach unless you are SPECIFICALLY asked about it, otherwise leave me alone.

The issue with the Ellen thing is not really that she was preaching that stuff, it's that she was a hypocrite who was gonna go on a known lesbians show knowing full well she doesn't like her.

My issue with people using the homosexuality is a sin argument is most of the time(especially in the case with younger people), they couldn't name another bible verse if their life depended on it. I can't stand people who pick and choose which bits of the bible to follow. You either follow all or none, there is no middle ground.

I would much rather you just tell me you think gay sex is gross then try to hide behind the bible as your reasoning as there are actually people who live by the bible and it's incredibly offensive to them.

 

[ThePokemonmaster11]

Which leads me to believe that homosexuality in particular isn't being treated in the same way as other characteristics commonly accepted to be immutable, like being black, even by the people who don't believe it's a choice. If someone were to preach from the pulpit that being black or native was wrong and sinful, nobody anywhere would think to say that they're simply expressing an unpopular opinion.

So, I guess I'll take the "extreme" position that even stating homosexuality is wrong through a public platform should constitute as hate speech. The reasons being are because the statement says much more than what the speaker thinks it does. Condemning someone for what, rather than who they are is intrinsically dehumanizing.

1) Jews aren't real people.

2) Homosexuals are sinners in the eyes of God.

The former will definitely land you in jail in a lot of places if you say it publicly, but the latter won't. Why? The statements aren't dissimilar. It doesn't make sense to me that only one is punishable for directly claiming that a group of people is lesser and in the other it can be inferred. They both have equal potential for damage, perhaps the latter even more so because of the language the New testament uses to describe unrepentant sinners - that they're children of satan, that their portion will be of the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, that Christ's sacrifice no longer applies to them, etc. I don't care if this kind of poison makes its way to someone's dinner table, but if it's said through TV, newspaper, etc. I think it's fair to implement a fine or jail time. I think the imminent threat aspect to U.S. hate speech laws definitely need to be revisited.

Christ's sacrifice only becomes impossible to accept upon death. Anyone who is currently alive can accept Christ at anytime, that statement you made was false. Tell me how your example was even comparable, no true Bible believing Christian says that someone is inferior simply because they sin.

 

[chess-z]

Christ's sacrifice only becomes impossible to accept upon death. Anyone who is currently alive can accept Christ at anytime, that statement you made was false. Tell me how your example was even comparable, no true Bible believing Christian says that someone is inferior simply because they sin.

Not consciously.

But they do. That's kinda how microaggressions and similar bigoted acts work. Of course microaggressions are hard to punish so I suppose I shouldn't've brought them up in the first place.

Anyway, subconscious biases can quickly spiral outward into bigoted speech. I'm not above my subconscious biases, and neither are you.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Christ's sacrifice only becomes impossible to accept upon death. Anyone who is currently alive can accept Christ at anytime, that statement you made was false. Tell me how your example was even comparable, no true Bible believing Christian says that someone is inferior simply because they sin.

“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment.”
(Hebrews 10:26-27)

The new testament is pretty clear about the inferiority of the sinner, the only thing it promises is that all sinners have equal opportunity to be made righteous through Jesus Christ. When someone says homosexuality is wrong through a public platform, a huge portion of their audience will also come to the conclusion that they are the "chafe" that will be separated from the wheat and cast into the fire on judgement day. Can you explain to me how that doesn't communicate inferiority? Further, if you're claiming that someone is a sinner for something they cannot change, that entails you believe they could change if they simply tried hard enough or had the will power. The implication being that homosexuals are just too weak minded or ill-disciplined to see the light, that you obviously have something they don't.

Unless you intend on performing a wildly creative dance of interpretation or offer up competing scripture that would suggest otherwise, nobody can say that this is an avenue taken by inherently hateful people but rather its a natural conclusion that anyone could arrive at due to how the new testament reads.

I want to show them they have something to live for. I want to tell them Christ died for them and for mankind's sin–that there's a community of Christians that care about them. How's that hate speech? That's love.

I know only religion that can pervert someone's concept of love this badly.

 

[ThePokemonmaster11]

“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment.”
(Hebrews 10:26-27)

The new testament is pretty clear about the inferiority of the sinner, the only thing it promises is that all sinners have equal opportunity to be made righteous through Jesus Christ. When someone says homosexuality is wrong through a public platform, a huge portion of their audience will also come to the conclusion that they are the "chafe" that will be separated from the wheat and cast into the fire on judgement day. Can you explain to me how that doesn't communicate inferiority? Further, if you're claiming that someone is a sinner for something they cannot change, that entails you believe they could change if they simply tried hard enough or had the will power. The implication being that homosexuals are just too weak minded or ill-disciplined to see the light, that you obviously have something they don't.

Unless you intend on performing a wildly creative dance of interpretation or offer up competing scripture that would suggest otherwise, nobody can say that this is an avenue taken by inherently hateful people but rather its a natural conclusion that anyone could arrive at due to how the new testament reads.



I know only religion that can pervert someone's concept of love this badly.

Hebrews speaks of those that reject God and Jesus' finished work on the cross, in other words they sin willfully by rejecting God. You're right, no one can change their lifestyle and overcome their sin nature, the world, the flesh, or the devil. Only by placing faith in Christ and His sacrifice on the cross can one attain victory over any sin.

Do not confuse love and license, license is the parent that congratulates the child for running out into the street. Love is telling the child that their actions will hurt them.

I also fail to see the constitutional argument for hate speech laws. All I hear is shallow promises that people won't be able to use hate speech laws to prosecute their enemies, but remember that the Nazis claimed concentration camps were good for the Jews.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I didn't see any mention of rejecting God, that seemed like a personal injection.

Unless you intend on performing a wildly creative dance of interpretation

So you went with this one. Not shocking, but whatever.

Do not confuse love and license, license is the parent that congratulates the child for running out into the street. Love is telling the child that their actions will hurt them.

I am not confusing anything. I am saying that implying gay men and women don't have anything to live for unless they accept that their inclinations are somehow evil or that they aren't complete human beings without capitulating to a higher authority is an extremely sickening idea of love.

We might be getting off track though. My point is that whatever interpretations you have of the new testament, one must admit that the language that exists in it can very easily be used to reinforce and magnify hatred of homosexuals if people are allowed to have large platforms to preach that it's wrong or immoral. This why I think publicly condemning homosexuality should be considered hate speech, while "imminent threat" may be impossible to prove, it without a doubt brings us closer to it. Whether you light a match to get a blazing inferno or steadily stoke the flames, the end result is still the same.

 

[ThePokemonmaster11]

I'm not the one dancing around wildly with interpretations. I actually study the Bible daily and use Bible commentaries any good commentary would tell you that what I said is true. Your interpretation was a personal injection of your own, not mine.

Nevertheless back on the topic, I will ask once more where is the constitutional basis for elimination of free speech and what prevents a usurper from assuming office and using hate laws to prosecute their enemies? Eliminating speech is a dangerous and slippery slope. When you create laws like that they can be reworded. Read Animal Farm by George Orwell and perhaps you'll see my secondary point.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I'm not the one dancing around wildly with interpretations. I actually study the Bible daily and use Bible commentaries any good commentary would tell you that what I said is true. Your interpretation was a personal injection of your own, not mine.

This is the debate equivalent of "I know you are but what am I." Good job.

Scholar Pokemonmaster11 speaketh.

 

[ThePokemonmaster11]

This is the debate equivalent of "I know you are but what am I." Good job.

Scholar Pokemonmaster11 speaketh.

No, it was my response to your claim. This is a debate and I simply said that your sources are wrong. Might I suggest the Jack Hayford Bible Handbook. Good reading, it has truly helped me understand the Bible so much more.

I still have yet to see an answer about the constitutional aspects of hate speech laws and any detailed rebuttals to my point about people using the laws for political gain to prosecute foes. Giving large amounts of power to government can come back to harm you. What prevents an Inquisition style witch hunt from happening, other than people's word that it will never happen? We already see a form of it with the fake news stuff.

 

[Baba Yaga]

"Your wrong, go look it up" isn't a response, dude. It's pretentious dickery.

Slippery slope arguments are usually bullshit unless you can demonstrate historical precedent. You are the one claiming that hate speech laws will allow politicians to jail their opponents, it's not my responsibility to argue why that won't happen but yours to argue why it will. Can you provide even one example of how someone has used hate speech laws for the kind of malevolent intent you're talking about?

 

[Thepowaofhax]

"Your wrong, go look it up" isn't a response, dude.

Slippery slope arguments are usually ******** unless you can demonstrate historical precedent. You are the one claiming that hate speech laws will allow politicians to jail their opponents, it's not my responsibility to argue why that won't happen but yours to argue why it will.

I don't see why we should have hate speech laws unless it is for speech that incites violence. Let the radical Christians have their protests over ludicrous stuff as long as they aren't trying to incite violence.

Historically though (from what I've understood), when speech from one side is censored, it leads to that side growing like a cancerous tumor. A good bit of my family was still in Italy during the days of Fascism, where the Partisan movement flourished under heavy state censorship, and while anecdotal evidence is necessarily the greatest thing in the world, it could shed in some light. It could easily go the other way, but instead of the Partisans and Marxists, it's the Christian/Islamic extremists, Fascists, and the National Socialists/Strasserists that could potentially grow. While they're speech is often a cancer in its own right, their speech should be defended just like the Marxists and Anarchists if they do not incite violence and ridiculed for the morons they are by normal people.

 

[bobjr]

Besides, there are dozens of versions of the bible, there's no one true take. Are we talking the King James version, the New Revised Standard edition, the International Standard Edition? Are we comparing other historical sources that too place around the same time? Taking one bible and saying that is the one way is historically dishonest.

But when you put the law at only things that aren't a choice to have and people can't just change/choose differently. Like inherent biological factors. If they want to believe being LGBT is a choice that's fine but they're still wrong about it.

Also, wouldn't a dictator coming in and changing the law to fit his rule happen regardless? Like no matter the precedent they can make the law whatever they want if that's the case, having the proper law now won't change anything.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

I don't think freedom of speech should be absolute, no freedom should, and that's something I think a lot of people in this country need to understand. If someone uses their freedom to harm someone else then you're infringing on their freedom, and you're not facilitating an environment where people can express themselves. With that in mind, absolutely, hate speech should be criminalized. Hate speech is basically verbal persecution, and persecution is something that this country was specifically founded to get away from. So allowing this kind of behavior is downright un-American.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Besides, there are dozens of versions of the bible, there's no one true take. Are we talking the King James version, the New Revised Standard edition, the International Standard Edition? Are we comparing other historical sources that too place around the same time? Taking one bible and saying that is the one way is historically dishonest.

Different versions just make the work of interpretation more tedious. Pretending that every single passage in the bible or any religious text is vacuous and a freaking free for all is equally dishonest. There are wrong interpretations. In this case Pokemonmaster11 was clearly inserting something implied nowhere within the passage to avoid confronting its uncomfortable conclusions. If there's an equally valid alternate interpretation like he mentions, he should provide the version he's talking about or some other kind of evidence that supports him, or quiet down.

Historically though (from what I've understood), when speech from one side is censored, it leads to that side growing like a cancerous tumor. A good bit of my family was still in Italy during the days of Fascism, where the Partisan movement flourished under heavy state censorship, and while anecdotal evidence is necessarily the greatest thing in the world, it could shed in some light. It could easily go the other way, but instead of the Partisans and Marxists, it's the Christian/Islamic extremists, Fascists, and the National Socialists/Strasserists that could potentially grow. While they're speech is often a cancer in its own right, their speech should be defended just like the Marxists and Anarchists if they do not incite violence and ridiculed for the morons they are by normal people.

I don't really know much of the history that you're referring unfortunately, but in order for this to carry weight I think that you would need to show me which existing laws the Italian government used to censor their opposition and they would have to be more or less equivalent to modern hate speech laws. If there are any modern or historical examples of how hate speech laws or laws similar to them have been used under false pretenses to seize power, I will retract my argument. Otherwise, it just looks like an invisible boogey man to me.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I don't really know much of the history that you're referring unfortunately, but in order for this to carry weight I think that you would need to show me which existing laws the Italian government used to censor their opposition and they would have to be more or less equivalent to modern hate speech laws. If there are any modern or historical examples of how hate speech laws or laws similar to them have been used under false pretenses to seize power, I will retract my argument. Otherwise, it just looks like an invisible boogey man to me.

Under the current Italian government, there is no such laws in which the opposition is quashed, however, during the time during the reign of Benito Mussolini, censorship was used to instate a police state in Italy in which those who oppose the regime were punished unjustly.

To give you an idea, people who did not confirm to Fascist ideology were quashed by the secret police (OVRA), all other political parties and any labor unions were banned in Italy, literature that did not conform to the Fascist ideology were denied publishing, etc. This is no "boogey man"; Fascists used anything in their power to repress non-Fascists in Italy, and by repressing those people and supporting Nazi Germany, a large Partisan movement grew. The same went with the Marxist government of the USSR and other ruthless regimes in the past. We do not need to cause the growth of the same cancerous movements that would attack the minority groups these laws would protect.

And by the way, with the current way a lot of people think, it would easily not be persecuted equally. While this is two different countries, it is ludicrous to think someone should get 12 months for leaving a bacon sandwich at a mosque while someone gets away scott-free (for hate crime, not arson) for BURNING DOWN A SYNAGOGUE AS CRITICISM TO ISRAEL.

 

[ThePokemonmaster11]

Under the current Italian government, there is no such laws in which the opposition is quashed, however, during the time during the reign of Benito Mussolini, censorship was used to instate a police state in Italy in which those who oppose the regime were punished unjustly.

To give you an idea, people who did no confirm to Fascist ideology were quashed by the secret police (OVRA), all other political parties and any labor unions were banned in Italy, literature that did not conform to the Fascist ideology were denied publishing, etc. This is no "boogey man"; Fascists used anything in their power to repress non-Fascists in Italy, and by using repressing those people and supporting Nazi Germany, a large Partisan movement grew. The same went with the Marxist government of the USSR and other ruthless regimes in the past. We do not need to cause the growth of the same cancerous movements that would attack the minority groups these laws would protect.

And by the way, with the current way a lot of people think, it would easily not be persecuted equally. While this is two different countries, it is ludicrous to think someone should get 12 months for leaving a bacon sandwich at a mosque while someone gets away scott-free (for hate crime, not arson) for BURNING DOWN A SYNAGOGUE AS CRITICISM TO ISRAEL.

My point exactly. Many of our courts are just insane and continues to prove my point about hate crime/hate speech laws. Someone like me preaching and mentioning homosexuality as wrong is not the same as Westboro picketing funerals and shouldn't be treated as such, anymore than someone leaving a bacon sandwich shouldn't be treated like someone committing freaking arson in an actual hate crime. Also it only takes one dictator that rises to power outlaw speech.

 

[chess-z]

Last time I checked, laws against hate speech are no where near what Mussolini did. This is a slippery slope.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Last time I checked, laws against hate speech are no where near what Mussolini did. This is a slippery slope.

One could assume if we have hate speech laws, literature containing hate speech and political parties that spout hate speech would be banned as well, since that contains hate speech. The only thing that wouldn't be as extreme is how it would be dealt with on a person by person basis, but we're still looking at people going to jail for saying something hateful. You cannot repress a group and expect it not to grow.

Surprisingly enough, if you read what I'm saying, I'm not saying we're going to have a Politically Correct Mussolini goose-stepping on top of everyone who says something hateful. I'm saying that historically, when the speech of a group is repressed, that group will grow albeit slowly depending on the conditions. It happens this why because those people would easily be able to garner sympathy because big bad government decided to give someone in their group 12 months hate speech.

Plus, it would waste money on police resources because they need to deal with a bunch of people crying wolf on Twitter in regards to hate speech. Yay.