Doldol wrote:
Mr. Simplistic wrote:
Doldol wrote:
Well hate speech doesn't equal free speech for sure, hate speech is an expressed opinion and free speech is a concept/ideal.
Hate speech is also not well defined.
Philosophically, IMO hate speech as defined as a form of speech inciting direct violence without reasoning or with factually incorrect reasoning, should not be allowed.
Idealistically it probably should be "Hate speech as defined as a form of speech inciting direct violence, should not be allowed."
Everything else should be considered acceptable otherwise you impede free speech.
so in your definition would you consider it hate speech if someone said "the jews are all money hungry thieves responsible for all the the worlds problems including 9/11, every war, and losers not being able to find girlfriends"
but did not directly say to kill/harm them?
No, you're not directly inciting violence.
Completely besides the topic though, but I've been getting more convinced that what society should really attempt to ban is the (intentional) misrepresentation of factual evidence (in public forum) and I think that would also solve speech inciting direct violence. But that'd be for sure impeding free speech. And idk if it's practical to implement.
Oh that would be paradisebut yea i dont think there a way to implement it right now. Just think about how many ppl call “straw man” already when they have no idea what they’re talking about
Mr. Simplistic
