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.

Been there, done that. No regrets, never give up on what's important. Prioritize. Happiness is all that matters.
I really like meowers but can't own any for the time being.

Software Developer with a fondness for Python & UE4. 🐱‍👤

Interested in Star Citizen? - Use STAR-PZ6J-4C62 and get us both some cool extras :3

I think this is a real informative video but there is a discrepancy I wanna point out.

He seems big on using definitions this entire video, which is good. Its important to remember how these things are defined to ensure we don't wrongly label things, but he seems to ignore it when he is talking about abolitionism and women's suffrage. He uses the argument that abolitionism could be considered an attack on whites and that women's suffrage could be considered an attack on men, but like these issues don't concern whites or men at all, its actually the opposite. These were essentially the opinion that "Black people (no one) should be slave and so therefore slaves should be free" or that "Women deserve the right to vote in governmental elections" so the idea that these things are an attack on whites or men is foolish. I can see where he is coming from with the use of the American Revolution, but I would argue that the issue wasn't the British themselves (A good chunk of people who fought in favor of American independence were born in the British Isles) but was instead speech against British RULE. That isn't to say that there aren't people who were like "Fuck the people of Britain" but that wasn't the whole vision of the movement.

I’m taking a law class and the guy said like until it become slander, libel, or defamation , or like obscene, or fighting words then like it’s not covered. So you can say all the stuff you want but like unless it’s one of those I think it should be fine, you might hurt peoples feelings but nothing else

Needy/Wanty is the best person alive tbh

Life goals:
[ ] get a dog
[ ] get a house
[ ] marry Needy/Wanty
[ ] live with Needy/Wanty, with dog, in house.

everybody should be able to voice their opinion no matter what it is....
if i would say "i hate X and they suck and shouldn't be allowed in here" than that should be ok
only thing that shouldn't be allowed is calling people or asking people to physically harm others by harrasing or beating them up or something

but what is the harm about voicing your opinion? the big problem of today's society is that people are starting to be more and more "politically correct" and if u dare to say "i believe that X should do more for the aid we give them blah blah" and all the politicians will call them out on being racist or fascist and will tell other people how wrong you are to say that. but from the moment a minority or refugees for example say anything about "we need more aid from this gouvernment, we dont get anything here and they discriminate us because we dont get jobs" and all that stuff those same politicians and random citizens will say the exact same thing and start debating about pumping more money into those minorities and aid for them without hesitating.....

so "hate speech"....i can get where it comes from and i don't agree with just trying to get people to hate others or call for violence but i do agree with people saying they don't like other people or if they think that the aid and stuff should lessen/stop. after all it's an opinion of those people and nobody should be judged for an opinion :/

SELF-CROWNED JUKE KING OF 2017
SELF-CROWNED JUKE KING OF 2018

SELF-CROWNED KNIFE KING OF 2017
SELF-CROWNED KNIFE KING OF 2018

SELF-CROWNED REBEL GOD OF 2017
SELF-CROWNED REBEL GOD OF 2018


rebeler since february 2016

we all have different lifes, different problems and different paths to take.....
but what we all wonder is: would they be proud of who i am today?

Princess Strawberry: "HEY, i know everything about Denmark , OK?
Princess Strawberry: "what kind of waffles do they eat in Denmark?"
Princess Strawberry: "OH WAIT SHIT THAT'S BELGIUM"

<16:59:31> "Eclipzx_" was banned for 10 minutes from the server by "GoopSauce" (pussy much?)

*warden*: There's 1 rebeler in garage please get him
*INBREADCATS*: It's only 1 rebeler,what can he do......oh shit it's terminator i'm coming

reboobalar: "term this is your warning because i know you're just gonna rebel"
reboobalar: "fuck this, im not going to be Ct with Term on their team"

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?

I've always been a bit indifferent about hate speech laws, but after reading more on it's a bit difficult to dictate something that so subjective. Doesn't mean I'm against them; although, it's hard to say I would support them in other words. Mainly because one, who determines what hate speech is (rhetorical btw) and two how do they determine it. And is it effective? Basically, I don't think it should remain undetected neither do I agree that it should be condoned. From what I have read regarding hate speech laws I recognised how hate speech is defined in most places are objectively wrong. I don't think we should have to define and curtail hate speech by limiting it in other categories.

As far as I know, hate speech here in the U.S. is protected by the first amendment? Just trying to find a law that counter acts that observation. Would almost imagine it'd fall under an obscenity law?

I know inciting violence isn't allowed (in the U.S) but to what point does hate speech and inciting violence align (rhetorical again). What about fighting words?

Some will argue otherwise, but according to the Supreme Court if someone is speaking in the context that encourages violence that is imminent, it would be considered incitement in others words it woulnd't be protected by the 1st amendment.

Strictly speaking, there is no legal definition of hate speech in the United States and that's the main argument people pull when saying "it's free speech", although this is the legal definition according to https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/ "Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."

Now based off that definition, would say that it's under debate that most hate speeches would, and will, insinuate violence. My main point is a lot of this is just counter-intuitive and contradicting yet still protected (to an extent).


that was something I was going to mentioned

Most hate speech is just an opinion, a despicable opinion at most, but they're not false statements of fact. To which is can't / isn't to be considered slander or libel, but at the same time

Here's a podcast by NPR that I can agree on most https://www.npr.org/2018/06/01/61608586 ... ate-speech and just about hits on every subject regarding hate speech

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.

Been there, done that. No regrets, never give up on what's important. Prioritize. Happiness is all that matters.
I really like meowers but can't own any for the time being.

Software Developer with a fondness for Python & UE4. 🐱‍👤

Interested in Star Citizen? - Use STAR-PZ6J-4C62 and get us both some cool extras :3

pretty much