Where do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

Where do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
youtube.com/watch?v=HGhP3p6lI3U
youtube.com/watch?v=VXBWM6oOBFc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>artist draws the hero as an unlikable faggot
Really activates my almonds

Everything is hate speech

Only when they mean Angry When they talk about yan Pawłak the drógi

Statements about individuals vs statements about groups.

Former should be punishable, latter should be allowed.

I should be able to say "Fuck niggers, I hope they will be gassed in the next racewar", but not "Fuck Donald Trump, I am going to kill him next weekend".

>not wanting to entertain mental delinquents
>being threatened with murder by the same
S'd

When you explicitly call the general public for committing a crime.

I.e. go to the neighborhood of X and kill them all

stating you don't consider x worthy of respect or even a human is not hate speech

There's no such thing as hate speech once you're older than 13.

Actual adults don't recognize it

Right at where my feelings begin.

in America inciting violence is one of the only ways you get arrested for speech.

there is no line.

this is shitty art,

if you cant master any form of art your opinion is worth less than dirt.

>soliciting to murder
>free speech

k

a real American response would be "Come and get me" while flashing your sidearm.

US supreme court settled it brilliantly. Whoever made that comic is a pure, undiluted retard.

There is no line you faggot.

Direct calls for violence and action are incitement not speech. Anything else is fine. You can sit around all day saying how some people should die, but the second you attempt to convince others to commit violent acts...that's different.

Nothing should be off limits. But I'm willing to settle for credible threats of violence and slander being criminal.

Easy. Promoting violence

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
>The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The individual in the kiss outfit there would be committing a crime in this instance, while the gentlemen in the suit would not.

You deserve being raped by the pedophile worshipers.

There is no line. That faggot is free to tell his audience to kill his guest and his guest is free to shoot them if they attack him.

Free speech is absolute. You can say anything. There are other laws in place that don't have anything to do with free speech.
It's this weird thing where leftists focus on words more than actions, like if someone shouted NIGGER at a nigger before punching him and it would be considered a hate crime, and he would get 20 years in jail, but if the same person yelled I LIKE BLACK PEOPLE before punching a nigger it gets treated as assault and you get a small fine.

You can say anything, that's free speech. It's the protection of unpopular opinions. That doesn't invalidate other laws. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean fraud laws don't apply to you.
Having a second amendment doesn't allow gun owners to go on killing sprees. A right doesn't override laws.

Hate speech is the modern version of a thought crime

It's the modern version of blasphemy.

This

tbqh this is the best solution. We must also add that proper society wouldn't go and maul somebody just because somebody else told them to.

youtube.com/watch?v=HGhP3p6lI3U

There is no such thing as hate speech, it's just nonsense made up by idiots

Anyway, in the cartoon the creature isn't expressing free speech, it's encouraging murder and that is a problem

This comic assumes that the Paul Stanley wannabe bitch's words have weight. The other guy could just as easily call for her rape, so in the end, lawfully it doesnt matter. Laws shouldnt apply to this issue, manners and having good taste is enough.

>Fascism is OK but trying to fight it is not

You are taking my examples out of context.

Fascism IS ok

this would totally be ok. as long as they didnt kill him. I would reply "Right wing death squads"

hate speech? what the hell is that?

hate speech is free speech.

There is no line because hate speech doesn't exist.

Stupid example

Incitement is not free speech.

No, your statements are all there. They are in the same thread and anyone can read them. I'm not taking them out of context, I'm putting them into context.

...

...

wtf i hate free speech now

Additionally, free speech is about reveal your opinion, not telling someone to do something.

"I you are not a humen and you should be killed by the audiance." Would be okay.

"Kill him!" Is not okay.

and of course Muslims can say what they like about the kuffar


youtube.com/watch?v=VXBWM6oOBFc

...

if its factual, not advocating for violence, (outside VERY extreme circumstances, which need immense justification) and is not harrassing those who do not want to be engaged.

If its a lie, calling for pointless violence, or is harassing / disturbing others with no point to be had (like blowing air-horns at people) then protections shouldn't be in place.

Hate speech isn't a thing. Conspiracy and solicitation are though.

"Everybody kill this guy" or "Hey, everyone light this building on fire and ransack it" are pretty obviously not allowed, but they're not "hate speech." They're just direct incitements to criminal action. "Fuck that guy" or "Fuck that guy's race" or "Fuck that ugly-ass building" are all hate speech, and they should be protected.

There is no line. If I want to say somthing that's my right, however "hateful" it may seem. Weather or not you agree, object or find insulting what I said is up to you. There are plenty of intelligent human beings that don't have emotional reactions because I've said somthing even if it's intentionally incinediary. Labeling something as hate speech is just an other way to control a dialogue/debate.

There is no such thing as "hate speech". Incitement to violence and libel are already covered by the law. Anything beyond them is simply free speech someone doesn't like.

if hate speech were illegal the ADL's revenue stream would be cut off and that would be worse than ten holocausts

You dont.

"Hate speech" is made up bullshit invented by jews to prevent White people from talking about evil stuff done by niggers and kikes.
Fuck your 'hate speech' faggot.

Free speech is when I'm being a cunt, hate speech is when some mutters a response to my diatribe.

Keeps it simple.

That's not free speech, that's a call to action...

The image illustrates a call to action, not free speech.

A person could be arrested for that; but I don't figure a degenerate web-comic artist to know that.

I don't, it's not free speech if you just ban anyting you deem hateful

> Outright calling for violence
This is not protected by the first amendment

The debate is meaningless anyway. Communists used free speech until they could control discourse, now they're de facto banning it.

Ultimately both sides recognise that it's a safety net for the opposition, so the right will turn on it quick smart when power properly changes hands.

who cares anyway?

Why does the "protagonist" look like a raging faggot?

>Calling for violence
Gee I wonder where the line is drawn.

This deserves a (you)

They're the same thing.

Incitement to action is different than idealised, inflammatory opinion, which was his point.
Faggot.

A call to action. That is the difference between
>we as a society should execute homosexuals
And
>hey everyone lets all kill that homosexual over there

If you don't believe in things you say enough to enact them in real life, you are a pussy and don't deserve the right for free speech.

Provocateurs and smug faggots are the worst kind - faggots send the cannon fodder while protecting themselves with "I dindu nuffin PERSONALLY".

I'm going to develop a voice activated rifle. This will allow me to kill people using my free speech.

Hmm. 8 to 15 bullets. Vs 100 crowd. Who would beat you, but when some of them will die, will go apeshit and sodomize you with your own gun.

"Come and get me", right.

Only a westerner or a jew can unironically see difference in this.

THIS.

Either lefties don't understand, or the willingly lie.

>He thinks a crowd will all try and pile on a lone gunman.
Didn't happen to Breivik did it?

/T H R E A D

What the fuck is wrong with these people? How are these levels of cognitive dissonance even possible?
They essentially take every piece of criticism and argument That runs counter to their own position as a death threat or worse.
These people are mental

>implying people don't have free agency.

>He doesn't routinely carry several hundred rounds and know that bodies piling up in a corridor impedes movement.
Come on faggot. It's not like bullets take up much space. Bumrushing a guy with a gun is the stupidest thing you can do if you aren't already in melee range.

When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people it's liberty.

Nowhere, speech can't actually hurt you snowflake !
All speech should be free

When nobody's scared it's called good government :-^)

Why is incitement to actain against a group better han incitement to action against an individual?

Like the eternal german.

The final line is in the act, not the word, because I'm not responsible for your acts nor your feelings, for anything else you can get out.

No, it's called liberty.

There shouldn't be one. Harassment is a different thing altogether.

man why did they stand in horizontal lines

Like the eternal german.

The final line is in the act, not the word, because I'm not responsible for your acts nor your feelings, and you are always invited to get out..

Free speech is protection from government, not from each other.

>but trying to fight it is not
why would you fight it?

Hate speech is free speech

There is no fucking line

Either all speech is hate speech, or none.

I take offense that you exist, you little faggot. But that is ok, as long as I don't act on it.

I could tell the audience to kill you, that is free speech.

there is none, "hate speech" is a made up concept to destroy free speech.

If somebody says he wants to kill somebody then why the fuck not. Let the police handle him if they think he's serious and dangerous.

Of course you're still bound by laws when using your free speech which means for instance you can't use your free speech to deny the holocaust in a country with holocaust laws

Because they springfield rifle wasn't invented yet and they only had shitty muskets.

To spread the volley and cover more area with each shot.
Picture a long line of bullets coming towards you

>man why did they stand in horizontal lines
volley fire
multiple columns can deliver constant shot
it's all about the musket

You don't.

and by "can't use" I mean you can say it but don't go full dindu when you face the consequences

The standard infantry arm of the time was the smooth bore musket. The weapons were just not that accurate and didn't requre much training or skill to use. It was more effective when used in volleys with close knit formations. What was learned from the French and Indian war and the Revolution is that fire from a skilled marksman with a rifle was the way of the future. It wasn't until the Civil War that the lesson really stuck.

What the fuck? Does it really thinks that the other side thinks exactly like it does?

Whats even the point of this? This is not art, just some lines in shapes and colors to resemble something, this is not satire since its not funny at all, this isn't even a political cartoon because is not even a point or something to be discussed. So in the end, no one learned anything, no debate was established and nothing was gained out of this. This was created with the sole purpose of creating a strawman for a community to hate and feel good about their ideas, pure circlejerking or masturbation if your prefer.

If this hedonistic nihilism is the future of western politics, I'm glad Trump is in office, otherwise we deserve the islamic bombings.

I see from your flag as well as your post that you are exceptionally well-protected against concussions

First step of genocide is dehumanization. perhaps they have a right to be fearful, just like whites are seeing the signs of their impending genocide/ethnic replacement.

Because it wants to kill me. And I would rather go on living.