What is hate speech?

Author: Alec ,

Posts

Total: 26
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
Feel free to define it here.  The Burden of definition is on the proponents of banning "hate speech" to differentiate it from free speech.  Otherwise, they are the same.

dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,020
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Alec
So if we were to play this definition out consistently, then me saying we shouldn't allow Muslims into the country in order to reduce terrorism, which is an ideology that many people have, would be hate speech.  If sex/gender is a protected group, then would me being pro life be classified as a hate crime?  Would being pro choice be a hate crime because it is threatening to the fetus?  Would saying something anti gun be hate speech since guns do reduce rape?

Unless you can come to a definition of hate speech that is respectful to everyone who peacefully preaches what they believe, then hate speech should count as free speech.

I think you can preach whatever you want as long as it's peaceful.
The Muslim example is fairly typical for hate speech.
You'd have to be more specific with the examples. Having a particular opinion isn't hate speech. Saying something anti-gun isn't hate speech as guns aren't a group of people.

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @dustryder
The Muslim example is fairly typical for hate speech.
Many Americans believe that Muslims are a threat to the west(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/).  By punishing these people with jail for preaching "hate speech", you are basically preaching one party rule on at least some ideologies.

I think the ideologies are clear enough.  If I were to say something pro life, would it be hate speech/harassment towards women who have had abortions?  If so, then what is free speech?  Only the stuff you agree with?  If so that seems very similar to tyranny.

Would being anti gun be anti women/sexist since guns do statistically reduce rape?

How do you propose on punishing people who say hate speech?
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,020
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Alec
Many Americans believe that Muslims are a threat to the west(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/).  By punishing these people with jail for preaching "hate speech", you are basically preaching one party rule on at least some ideologies.
I mean.. that is how governments tend to function. People vote for the party which most closely aligns to their values. That party implements rules and regulations that the majority agree with and the minority do not. Personally I think people should be treated kindly regardless of their religion.

If I were to say something pro life, would it be hate speech/harassment towards women who have had abortions?
Most definitions of hate speech would say no.

If so, then what is free speech?  Only the stuff you agree with?  If so that seems very similar to tyranny.
I mean if you can't act like a decent human being and are screaming profanities at every minority in the streets I can certainly see how that person might view the government as tyrannical.

Would being anti gun be anti women/sexist since guns do statistically reduce rape?
Are you implying that only women can be raped?

How do you propose on punishing people who say hate speech?
Such matters are for the governments to decide. Accordingly, each government has it's own set of rules of punishments for hate speech


TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,373
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Alec
it other countries they may define it anyway they wish, they do not have a right to free speech, there can be no hate speech laws or compelled speech laws in the U.S. so long as the 1a exists.
Without the protection and acknowledgment of rights like freedom of speech, imagine, should a religious group gain control in oh I dunno some European country, then they would make the speech laws and there would be no way to stop them.  Don't forget it doesn't just stop at speech but expression too, like what you can and can't wear.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @dustryder
 That party implements rules and regulations that the majority agree with and the minority do not. Personally I think people should be treated kindly regardless of their religion.

Just as religious freedom exists in the country, ideological freedom should exist as well.  Should I be allowed to call a Muslim a terrorist?  I should because it is free speech and in the mind of the speaker, it is defense of a nation.  Who cares if it's racist if it saves lives?  Terrorism kills.  I don't agree with the people who want to ban Muslims, but they believe that Muslims are motivated by the Quran.

Most definitions of hate speech would say no.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/manitoba-bubble-zone-law-would-ban-pro-life-harassment-that-doesnt-even-exi states that Manitoba has 150 meters of buffer room that prohibits pro life speech.  When the concept of hate speech gets implemented, anything can be classified as hate speech.

I mean if you can't act like a decent human being and are screaming profanities at every minority in the streets
If you want to be mean to people because of their race, that's something you should be allowed to do.  They can hate you for it, but you should be allowed to do it.

Are you implying that only women can be raped?
Women make up an overwhelming majority of rape victims.

No one should get punished for speaking what they believe.

dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,020
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Alec
Just as religious freedom exists in the country, ideological freedom should exist as well.  Should I be allowed to call a Muslim a terrorist?  I should because it is free speech and in the mind of the speaker, it is defense of a nation.  Who cares if it's racist if it saves lives?  Terrorism kills.  I don't agree with the people who want to ban Muslims, but they believe that Muslims are motivated by the Quran.
I mean.. how does calling Muslims terrorists save lives or defend the nation? The person called a terrorist is most likely not a terrorist. The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Terrorism is not even restricted to Muslims. There are plenty of white nationalist terrorists. I just can't see the benefit.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/manitoba-bubble-zone-law-would-ban-pro-life-harassment-that-doesnt-even-exi states that Manitoba has 150 meters of buffer room that prohibits pro life speech.  When the concept of hate speech gets implemented, anything can be classified as hate speech.
No, it states that a politician is trying to push through legislation that will achieve this. I assume that other politicians will vote on this based on what their constituents want. If their constituents want to protect pregnant women from harassment, I certainly would have no objections

If you want to be mean to people because of their race, that's something you should be allowed to do.  They can hate you for it, but you should be allowed to do it.

No one should get punished for speaking what they believe.
Why? What benefit is there in allowing people to be assholes?
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
4
--> @Alec
"Hate speech" is a societally engineered term used to describe an aspect of speech that is derogatory toward a person or group of people. It falls under free speech. Just because someone is a big meanie doesn't mean we should punish them with jail time or community service. Society doesn't like people like that, so being cast out and hated by everybody is punishment enough.

Uttering threats or provoking violnece through speech is already illegal and does not fall under the category of free speech, and should/is punished accordingly.

People need to understand that there is a difference between saying something mean and saying something threatening. The latter should be punishable, the former should not, as it takes away from our constitutional rights.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @dustryder
I mean.. how does calling Muslims terrorists save lives or defend the nation?
Banning Muslims and advocating for the banning of Muslims saves lives because it prevents terror attacks in the US.  It defends the nation because if Muslim immigration gets too out of control, then Islam replaces Christianity in the west.  It means shariah law, which Linda Sarsour supports(https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/25/womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour/)  I'm not saying ban all Muslims.  We must assimilate all Muslims entering western countries in order to prevent the spread of Shariah law, which is actually sexist and homophobic and this is why many Muslim countries behave the way they do.  I am saying that this is the logic that people who are against Islamic immigration tend to use.

If their constituents want to protect pregnant women from harassment, I certainly would have no objections
This so called harassment is just pro life free speech.  If you ban that, you might as well ban all pro lifers.

What benefit is there in allowing people to be assholes?
It's free speech.  Many people like mustardness think I'm an asshole.  If this is harassment, would it be grounds to censor all those that mustardness deems offensive(basically anyone right wing)?  Or should someone more rational decide?  If someone more rational should decide, who is rational enough to decide what is and isn't hate speech?  A right winger would generally say that burning the American flag is hate speech and should be banned (I don't advocate this position.  If someone wants to burn the US flag, or a gay flag they should be allowed to do it as long as it is safely done).  A left winger would probably say that burning the gay flag is hate speech and that saying a n word variation is hate speech.  The right tend to have no problem with this.  If someone rational decides what is and isn't hate speech, who is rational enough to decide?  No one.  Not even God is rational enough to decide.  Otherwise, atheists would be bearers of hate speech and would be punished for their belief.

If God isn't rational enough to decide what is and isn't hate speech, then no one is.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @dustryder
I sent you a friend request.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @Mister_Man
as it takes away from our constitutional rights.

They have constitutional rights to free speech in Canada?  I thought they censored in Canada.  I might be wrong.
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
4
--> @Alec
Good point. We have some form of "freedom of expression," but it really doesn't mean shit. The American constitution is by far the best national constitution worldwide.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,020
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Alec
Banning Muslims and advocating for the banning of Muslims saves lives because it prevents terror attacks in the US
So you have to be a little careful here. Banning muslims isn't hate speech. Simply advocating for the banning of muslims of muslims I wouldn't describe as hate speech either. At least, not in itself.

So the question remains, if a muslim is walking down the street and I walk past him and I say to him "Go back to your own country you terrorist", how does this help in anyway?


This so called harassment is just pro life free speech.  If you ban that, you might as well ban all pro lifers.
I mean.. free speech and harassment aren't mutually exclusive. And once you admit that it is harassment then it's just a matter of determining of whether that harassment is appropriate.

It's free speech.
Which is not a good enough reason for allowing people to be assholes. Now, I understand your point. In that who has the right to determine whether they are actually being an asshole or not.

And as unsatisfying as the answer is, the people of each country have simply decided that there are handful of uncivilised behaviours that need to be stomped out. That these behaviours are socially unacceptable and should be punished. And while you may not like it, the majority does rule.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @dustryder
So the question remains, if a muslim is walking down the street and I walk past him and I say to him "Go back to your own country you terrorist", how does this help in anyway?
If someone calls a Muslim a terrorist, the Muslim could demand proof.  If their religion is cited as evidence for terrorism, the muslim could accuse the perpretrator of moving the goalposts since most muslims don't commit terrorism.  From there, they could have a debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.  Then both parties learn something.  So free speech is helpful, even when applied to the KKK because it allows both parties to learn about the other.  Both people get more informed as a result of free exchange of ideas.

I mean.. free speech and harassment aren't mutually exclusive. And once you admit that it is harassment then it's just a matter of determining of whether that harassment is appropriate.
What is the difference between free speech and harassment in a political context?

And while you may not like it, the majority does rule.
If whatever the majority says is what the laws should be, then http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ states that most Americans support hate speech legalization.  So this means that the KKK are allowed to hate on the blacks, that Westboro is allowed to hate on the LGBT community and so on.  They should be allowed to do this.  This is America.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
The US is in greater danger of becoming a theocracy than any European country.
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Alec
Hate speech is any speech the left does not like.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,020
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Alec
If someone calls a Muslim a terrorist, the Muslim could demand proof.  If their religion is cited as evidence for terrorism, the muslim could accuse the perpretrator of moving the goalposts since most muslims don't commit terrorism.  From there, they could have a debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.  Then both parties learn something.  So free speech is helpful, even when applied to the KKK because it allows both parties to learn about the other.  Both people get more informed as a result of free exchange of ideas.
You enter into discourse with people who are willing to talk. Someone who shouts irrational expletives down a street is not someone who is willing to talk.

What is the difference between free speech and harassment in a political context?
Free speech is the ability to freely say what you wish without intervention from the government. Harassment is just behaviour that is intimidating or aggressive. Free speech could include speech that can be considered harassment. In this case, shouting at pregnant women that they are murderers is both an example of free speech and harassment.

If whatever the majority says is what the laws should be, then http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ states that most Americans support hate speech legalization.  So this means that the KKK are allowed to hate on the blacks, that Westboro is allowed to hate on the LGBT community and so on.  They should be allowed to do this.  This is America.
I didn't say it should be otherwise. Different nations do different things 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,373
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Stronn
pretty much, then they shout so they can't speak anyway, at least they aren't willing to kill babies outside the womb...oh wait......look at the conservative speakers banned, threatened and protested, doesn't seem to happen nearly as often as liberal speakers, perhaps they don't give speeches, yeah right
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,596
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
Hate speech is a pretext to censorship and legislated thought control.
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
Holy crap Greyparrot. Good to see/hear from you again.

I dont think Hate speech is really a thing. In a legislative context I mean. I suppose people can say it exist but not in any meaningful way. IMO
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
That's because left wing speakers aren't batshit crazy like wingnuts.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Greyparrot
The idiot right have nothing to fear then since THOUGHT is an ability they don't possess.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @WyseGui
I suppose people can say it exist but not in any meaningful way. IMO
The point I made in #22 is demonstrated admirably by this post.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,596
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @WyseGui
That's mostly true. Prosecuting someone on the intent of their actions using words only is difficult, and the SCOTUS has struck down nearly all cases involving "Fighting Words"

These battles are mostly waged in the media to polarize the country into good guys and bad guys.
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
--> @disgusted
Almost everyone of your replys to me have been insults. Getting kind of old. Dont know who you are calling an idiot but the supreme court has ruled mutiple times that hate speech is protected speech. Most recently in 2017 Matal v Tam. As i said in that post you nitpicked in a legislative context it has no ppwer. Feel free to pose a counterpoint.