Is hate speech free speech?

What should constitute hate speech anyway?
Should hate speech receive the same protections as civil discourse? Particularly if that speech intends to incite violence against a person or persons.

Does any country actually draw the line right in determining what constitutes hate speech and preventing it without undue prejudice to freedom of expression? Is that even possible to do?

Pic somewhat related. This guy's demonstration got called hate speech, including by people there in the video, but I don't think it was hate speech. How do we make these distinctions?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/E0Rm3
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's easy. No speech is hate speech, all speech is free speech.

>no one should be able to legislate what you can and cannot say.

self bump

Well fuck you for not responding to me then.

>go suck a big fat one, I'm leaving your stupid thread.

your rights end where my feelings begin

And nothing of value was lost, you smelly paki.

You can say whatever you want as long as your not threatening anyone.

>Particularly if that speech intends to incite violence against a person or persons

There's two key issues to consider here. First, causation. If I say that white people are rapists and should have their dicks chopped off, and then someone does that, for instance. I made the speech, then someone performed that criminal act of assault. In doing so, THEY had to take the step of getting a weapon, THEY moved themselves to a location to perform the act, THEY performed the physical act, and THEY had the intent (also called "mens rea") to do all of these things. These activities are called "acts of independent significance." Yes, I made the castration statement, but the statement did not create the harm done. There were so many other steps between the speech and the final activity, all of which are outside of my ability to control let alone stop, that saying something in any discourse ends up having a minuscule weight in comparison to other activities leading to the outcome. If these were to be causally linked by law, then anyone could well be implicated as having some share of fault (and thus criminal liability) based on what they said and any physics harm done to others. It's not only a stretch in terms of causation, but creates an almost unworkable system for enforcement to bring charges against all those who's statements were heard by the actual criminal in this scenario.

Second aspect is intent of those who speak. The only thing we can prove for certain is that they intended to say a statement. Like murder and homicide, intent matters. Murder requires the intent to take a life, homicide is the unintentional taking of a life; this leads to extremely different punishment on an individual. How can I intend for my speech to be heard by someone, and then have planned for them to perform all the actions like the above hypothetical? So you could ask an alleged "hate speaker" if they intended to cause the subsequent steps to take place [cont...]

[...cont.] and they could just say "nope, just wanted to say the statement." The intent does not transfer, and speaking has never, ever been considered "wanton and reckless conduct," the only time in which the intent can transfer to different acts. They could say "yes," but that's already provided for in every state: conspiracy to commit/further a criminal act. So those that intend to get to the final harm are already covered, but that's their choice to admit to such.

So you can pretty much see that regardless of who would enforce such a "hate speech" law, it just doesn't functionally work in reality. Besides, there is no good choice for a person to decide what my version of hate speech is except for, well, me. And I'm sure you (i.e. anyone reading this) don't want me as your judge.

If anyone wants to just copy/improve this, that'd be great. I hate having to type my thoughts out about hate speech every time and I figure other people do as well.

>How can I intend for my speech to be heard by someone

I suppose it depends on the context the remarks are made in. If I say 'gas the kikes race war now' in jest, what might seem a threatening statement at face value might easily be dismissed. But if I'm speaking in front of a rally and I say 'we must kill straight white males' then I must bear some measure of responsibility if someone from the crowd actually kills someone, no?

according to the US Supreme Court, there is no such thing as "hate speech"

either all of it's ok, or none of it's ok

...

Anything I don't like is hate speech and you should go to jail if your hurt my feelings in the slightest.

Go sage shills and LARP threads, faggot. We're trying to have a real conversation in here.

I appreciate you actually testing the context. In the case you presented, I'd say that the independent acts still matter, and the causation still creates the distinction between the intent to make the statement, and to create the harm. If you were talking to a crowd and instructed them (successfully) to get a guy who was actually in the room, now we're getting much closer to removing the causality distance.

If that person is someone who you were not identifying, just a general class of people, there would have to be some measure of how long that statement remains the inciting cause of the criminal act.

Another caveat is in fact the identification. If you say "go kill Ted Nugent" that leads to greater causation; if you say "kill Ted Nugent, Greg, he's located at 123 Cherry lane in town, there is a gun located in a bush down the block," you can see that we're getting closer and closer to the speech and the outcome. We still have acts by others, but it is the specificity and immediate nature between speech and event that removes the free speech exception.

This is an allegedly neutral position towards free speech that is easy to agree with at face value. However, consider that some forms of free speech actively seek to suppress others. You have to pick a side between a homophobes, racists, islamaphobes, etc, and the people they actively seek to suppress with their speech. There is not a neutral position, unless you protect the ones who are marginalized by societal pressures through actual policy or your own societal pressure, the marginalized people's rights are the ones being infringed upon as a direct consequence of your seeming impartiality.

Yes it is

>"marginalized" people's rights are being infringed on by evil racist people's mean words

Okay there, buddy.

No one has unequal rights in this country(on paper at least) and no one is being repressed by virtue of speech (you can literally say damn near anything at any time regardless of who or what you are)

There are plenty of real and pressing socioeconomic inequalities that can be addressed in this country, but claiming some people's speech needs to be moderated and controlled for other people's safety isn't one of them.

The limits of free speech are direct calls and incitement for violence and mayhem/panic and willful defamation. Everything else is A-OK.

Acting like you need to be some kind of moral arbiter of what is and isn't okay to be said by certain groups about others is a shining example of what many, many other tyrannical and repressive regimes have done many, many times before you. You are not the shining beacon of light and fairness you claim to be and your efforts would only lead to an even greater limiting of people's rights.

The act of speaking and the act of actually suppressing free speech are two distinct and separate activities. Conflating the two is mixing separate actions, literally.

Thanks for this. The idea of degrees of causation was completely absent from my understanding and pretty much answered all my 'where do we draw the line' questions.

The US supreme court already affirmed all speech is free speech.
archive.is/E0Rm3

No worries. I've worked on a couple cases including free speech defenses so I've had some experience with the more detailed workings of it. Glad to help out, it makes me refresh on my own concepts doing this.

Ok, so I see is as there are three separate ways to control free speech. The government can enact specific policies, and extend or shrink what the First Amendment covers as acceptable free speech as it sees fit. This rarely happens, as you yourself agree. The second is policy of conduct in a work place environment. We've accepted this as a society because no person is forced to work for a certain company and so a company can exercise its own discretion as to what is tolerated (obviously a company can fire you for saying a slur, but they can also fire you for not shaving properly).

The third is societal pressure, and this may be where we disagree. I absolutely believe that societal pressure limits free speech and can deny rights to people who can otherwise exercise them, and that it is important to recognize this as a part of how free speech is controlled. I am not advocating for government intervention on people's rights to call other people slurs and the like. I am saying that society is shifting towards defending "hate speech" on principle without considering the practical effect this has on people.

The remedy is just more societal pressure in the opposite direction, which already curbs most outright bigotry today and has in the past. Societal unacceptance is far removed from tyranny. This is not about "limiting free speech" in an Orwellian sense so much as encouraging scrutiny about what is acceptable to say in public. Society thinking it is acceptable to call gay people degenerate fags because its free speech is bad because that type of speech tries to silence gay people and deny them their own speech. Hiding behind the banner of impartial indifference is how society kept marginalized (not sure why the quotes) groups silent for centuries.

Well, let me tell you about laws against hatespeech, son ...

See

It's not even to protect "vulnerable groups" anymore. The regime uses it to silence all critics. Laws against hate speech is a slippery slope which only leads to misery.

here is a simple litmus test for what is hate speech and what is not

>did it hurt my feelings?
>if yes, it's hate speech

I am drawing a distinction between the legally protected constitutional right and the societal concept. Americans fiercely value both, to pretend the conversation about free speech is only about the former is wrong.

Hate speech is free speech.

ya

fpbp

Thanks for reading that. I think the main contention I have with your argument is this:

>Society thinking it is acceptable to call gay people degenerate fags because its free speech is bad because that type of speech tries to silence gay people and deny them their own speech

So that in itself (calling someone a fag) is a societal pressure, I'm sure we can agree on that. Based on your separation of controlling methods (government, employment, and societal), does this mean that you are not advocating for a governmental change, only the societal control be changed? Not a leading question, just genuine.

If so, I can't really see there being much to advocate for/generally do besides the actual act of discourse. I think most people understand that others will might not agree with what they say, and that they can be responded to, whether it be shaming, or any disagreement. Instead, I believe the vehement reaction by those that are "anti-PC" occurs where this disagreement on societal pressure reaches a stopping point and transforms into attempting to change the law, and that's where the problem lies.

I'd evidence this by the fact we're having a discussion about hate speech *laws*, not hate speech social pressure. I understand cultural norms shift and what is considered offensive speech changes, but the prevailing culture for a period should not be able to entirely usurp law that has been reasoned out over a course of a couple hundred years.

People can certainly disagree about what is socially permissible, but it's the point that the discussion turns toward legal implications that it leaves the social standard realm.

Bump

Do you think this should include blackmail and libel?

>I understand cultural norms shift and what is considered offensive speech changes, but the prevailing culture for a period should not be able to entirely usurp law that has been reasoned out over a course of a couple hundred years.

And this is the crux of the matter, you have people like who would use the cover of "societal pressure" to make people more and more comfortable with the idea of restricting speech for some, but not others. It's insidious and deserves nothing but scorn and a "fuck off, idiot", because trying to reason with them is a futile effort. You may be able to convince bystanders who don't understand the implications of what anti-speech advocates are proposing, though.

Speech is not free if there are any restrictions on it.
There is no middle ground here.

>does this mean that you are not advocating for a governmental change, only the societal control be changed?
Yes. I think this is the only responsible position to take if you value free speech. The government has no place in determining what can and can't be said unless there's a direct physical harm involved. Hate speech doesn't fall within that definition.

I bring up the societal pressures on free speech because for Americans they are inseparable from the legal protections. We value free speech as an idea, not just a right. The guy in the OP is protected by Constitution, indisputably, but the more important question is should he be protected by society? Do we have an obligation to silence him ourselves or is this contradictory to the legal principle we claim to hold dear? I argue that letting hate speech go unchecked socially serves in effect only to silence the victims of that hate speech and strip them of their own total freedom in society. We have a right and even an obligation to tell that guy to fuck off, and hiding behind the principle is wrong.

I ask if share this view or find it irrelevant to the legality of hate speech. If you think it's irrelevant I appreciate the conversation at least.

There is no point to free speech without hate speech
As soon as hate speech laws are passed these Jews will make criticizing communism hate speech

>What should constitute hate speech anyway?
Speech that a reasonable person thinks is immediate violence. Not any of this half asssed "call to violence".


>But if I'm speaking in front of a rally and I say 'we must kill straight white males' then I must bear some measure of responsibility if someone from the crowd actually kills someone, no?

No. It's too far removed.

Take it even further.

>who would use the cover of "societal pressure" to make people more and more comfortable with the idea of restricting speech for some, but not others. It's insidious and deserves nothing but scorn and a "fuck off, idiot", because trying to reason with them is a futile effort.
I wouldn't agree it's impossible to reason with the opposing side, but I would make the exact same argument to you. Protecting hate speech is an admirable principle, but you are in practice defending the speakers of hate speech over the people receiving it. Your argument appeals to centrists far more than the position I am in favor of because it lacks nuance and judgement.

I am not going to pretend a society that accepts open homophobia or racism is more free than a society that condemns that behavior socially.

>Society thinking it is acceptable to call gay people degenerate fags because its free speech is bad because that type of speech tries to silence gay people and deny them their own speech
No it doesn't, you marxist shit bag. Calling a fag a fag is just that. You're not limiting their speech in any fucking way whatsoever. It's funny how liberals require rhetorical word manipulation to put forth their dogma.

>I am not going to pretend a society that accepts open homophobia or racism is more free than a society that condemns that behavior socially.
You don't need to pretend that, because it's objectively true.

Banning hate speech is just as stupid as banning super happy optimistic speech

And yet, a soldier is not justified to merely say I was following orders... Meaning that every person still has the right to reject an idea, and if they act on it, the crime is theirs.

>the marginalized people's rights are the ones being infringed upon
but they aren't you fucking retard, you don't have a right to not be told you are a retard

>rhetorical word manipulation
You just dismissed me as being a marxist shit bag despite espousing nothing resembling marxism. You're the one engaging is manipulation. If reading a compound sentence is too hard for you let me know and I'll type in shorter sentences.
Black people and gay people were most certainly not free in the 1950s in America, even looking past legal inequalities like Jim Crow. Even though everyone was afforded the same freedom of speech, the recipients of hate speech were expected to deal with it regardless of how that restricted their social freedom. You think that society is more free than the one we have now even though in now you can't call people faggots to their face without repercussions?

here you go user...

>you don't have a right to not be told you are a retard
So would you agree with me then that it's ok to tell the guy in the OP to fuck off? That his freedom of speech doesn't have to be respected socially because it doesn't matter if it isn't explicitly in the constitution?

What's so great about freedom when it allows dangerous and socially subversive groups breathing room?
An ideal society would have blacks sent to a different country and would come up with a way of fixing gays, but if that's not a possibility, not giving them "social freedom" is a must.
And what's so bad about inequality between clearly unequal groups?

>You just dismissed me as being a marxist shit bag despite espousing nothing resembling marxism. You're the one engaging is manipulation.
I quoted your rhetorical manipulation in the previous post, shit bag, which i'll repost:
>Society thinking it is acceptable to call gay people degenerate fags because its free speech is bad because that type of speech tries to silence gay people and deny them their own speech
Calling someone names DOES NOT silence their expression or speech or violate their rights. They ALSO have the right to speak back to anyone calling them anything. Fucking absolute moron.

>Even though everyone was afforded the same freedom of speech, the recipients of free speech were expected to deal with it
Yeah, that's how free speech works.

>regardless of how that restricted their social freedom
It doesn't restrict their freedom. It's words. Tell me how words can be 'violent' too while your'e at it.
>You think that society is more free than the one we have now even though in now you can't call people faggots to their face without repercussions?
False dichotomy fallacy. A free society is one where anyone can speak their mind without consequence. Politically correct zombies like you are the would-be Commissars. You're a cancer upon rational human society.

is Bro Dean still doing God's work?

he is literally /ourpreacher/

Free speech is any speech which does not impede on the rights of another. Freedom from being offended isn't a right.

>So would you agree with me then that it's ok to tell the guy in the OP to fuck off? That his freedom of speech doesn't have to be respected socially because it doesn't matter if it isn't explicitly in the constitution?
More rhetorical word conflation. He has freedom of speech to say what he wants, others can listen or not, or respond or not. Neither of those infringe upon his right to free speech. Getting him fired from his job is a violation of his basic human right to free speech, however.

There's no such thing as hate speech

You are free to tell him to fuck off. And I'm free to call you a fucking communist and anti-american piece of shit who would gleefully erode one of the fundamental bedrocks of our society based on some misguided notions of privilege.

You do not get to tell people what they can or cannot say. You are free to reply any way you wish, and you are free to ignore them if you choose. Seeking ANY methods of restricting the rights of ANYONE to speak freely is absolutely out of the question and even suggesting it should immediately raise a million red flags as to what your real intentions are.

Oh, what's this? You don't actually value total free speech, because if equal freedoms are given to groups you think are a social detriment it's a bad thing?

You sound like a complete communist right now but your cognitive dissonance allows you to think what you just said is consistent with what you claim to believe. Free speech has absolutely fucking nothing to do with what you are talking about. If you've run out of intelligent things to say on the subject and have to turn this into about why inequal groups should have different legal protections, just say you're an intellectually dishonest retard and move on.

Hate speech is one of the only reasons we have free speech laws.

We don't need free speech laws to protect
>Please pass the salt
>You have a lovely house
>Have a nice day

Polite speech isn't ever under attack, and isn't the intended speech to be protected with free speech laws. You know what is intended to be protected? Speech that would offend or be deemed dangerous to the established political institutions

Things like
>The government is full of liars and crooks
>I'm glad you're son died in the war
>You're a (racial slur), we'd be better off without your kind
>These politicians are dishonest
>That group of people is hurting us, and we shouldn't stand for it
>If people like you would stop doing X then we wouldn't be so poorly off

At the end of the day, hate speech laws are thought crime laws. And have no place in a society where the free exchange of ideas is permitted and encouraged. Keep hate speech laws to the commie states.

I'm not talking about free speech. I don't believe in free speech except as a means to an end.
>communist
Communism is about equality. I don't believe in equality, nor in freedom.

> And I'm free to call you a fucking communist and anti-american piece of shit who would gleefully erode one of the fundamental bedrocks of our society based on some misguided notions of privilege.

Let me wrap my head around this. I'm allowed to tell this guy to fuck off, and you're allowed to tell me to fuck off, but me telling him to fuck off is somehow more restrictive on free speech than you telling me to fuck off for trying to restrict free speech? With this logic, you're equally as guilty of trying to restrict free speech. Or is attacking free speech itself make you less deserving of it? Interesting concession there.

> what your real intentions are.
"I've been found out!"

>I don't believe in free speech except as a means to an end.
The end you are describing is in no way antithetical to the United States' founding principles, I'm sure.
>I don't believe in equality, nor in freedom.
Interesting take. Tell me more.

>but me telling him to fuck off is somehow more restrictive on free speech than you telling me to fuck off for trying to restrict free speech

Actually, that's exactly right. Your position is inherently anti-free speech. Expressing it is advocating for a restriction on speech and normalizes restricting speech. You're allowed to have and voice that opinion, but that doesn't mean it isn't absolutely abhorrent. You would use your god given right to speak your mind in order to take that right away from other people, and you would do it gladly with a clean conscience.

>I've been found out!

Yeah, you're a commie, or at least a really stupid liberal. Free Speech is bad in your opinion because it means people can call you out for promoting no end of disingenuous bullshit. If the last 100 years of Real Socialism haven't clued you in on what the end result of what you're proposing is, you're either a complete moron or objectively amoral.

>rhetorical manipulation
Your strategy in this conversation is partly to call me a cancer, moron, marxists, etc. This is one like the third page of the book on rhetorical manipulation, under the subheading "how to look like you're winning an argument by just calling the other person names."
>Tell me how words can be 'violent' too while your'e at it.
You are disagreeing with the SCOTUS here, who have decided there are several ways words can in fact be considered violent.

>A free society is one where anyone can speak their mind without consequence.
Except we already make concessions to that last part. Again, the SCOTUS have ruled the US is not a totally free society. You and I both know there are good reasons for that, unless you're going to tell me you're some aspiring anarchist or think the US isn't free because the first ammendment has a few asterisks next to it.

As long as it doesn't incite violence it isn't hate speech, and if it does incite violence, I believe countries regulates incitation of violence differently

It is antithetical. It's also the only way our people are going to survive. Give me an example of a non-violent, "founding principles" friendly way to keep the white race in America to survive. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
The Founding Fathers would be kicking themselves in the nuts for giving us as many freedoms as they did if they could see how they were used against us. And they would be disgusted to hear you speak of blacks and sodomites as if they are your equals.

If they implemented hate speech laws in the US, wouldn't it disproportionately affect nogs? They say the word nigger in every sentence and there's no way they can properly differentiate the genders. Maybe we should adopt hate speech laws?

>homicide is the unintentional taking of a life

No its blatantly not this was the exact point I realised you were talking out of your ass. Though I suspected it earlier

>buncha white guilt fuckers in the government actually enforcing that on blacks
0% chance

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I'll try to get away from the legal side since I think we're both on the same page as well. So, as far as "letting it go unchecked," I don't believe we have an obligation outside of any self imposed goal to help others in our personal perception. I'm basing this on the foundation on that we're all entitled to our own views, even if wrong, as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Which makes this hard to talk about without the legal implication, because I'm relying on the axiom that any speech does not infringe on the rights of others, just as disagreement with those people does not infringe on their speech.

I get what you're advocating, which I think could be summed up as treating people with respect. You can clarify/correct that if you prefer. But, within our societal standards, I think that's all we can hope for to accomplish that goal is to advocate for respect, and do it ourselves.

So I would say that is okay to *claim* something is hate speech, because that is an interpretative reaction. And further, suggesting to say things in alternative ways is okay, or to just not engage as well (whether hosting a private forum or in personal conversation). However, I think it ends at that, because some people will be assholes to each other and we are never going to get rid of that.

If the cops started arresting black people every time they said the word nigger it would clean up our country immediately.

The whole point of hate speech laws is that they are selectively enforced. they are the very definition of "privileged speech" in that certain groups are allowed to say one thing because of Reasons, and another group is not allowed to say that thing because of Injustices

It's beyond a slippery slope, its a flaming bus driving straight off a cliff and the driver is flooring it the whole way down.

What about people being held responsible for others committing suicide? E.g. Nancy Grace

Whatever happened to based brother dean? Last I heard he got brained by some SJW with a baseball bat and then...nothin. Is he still giving sluts the word of God?

My position is not anti-free speech. I've posted several times in this thread societal restrictions on free speech are the only permissible ones. Surely you can recognize the difference. I embrace free speech precisely because I think we should be ability to tell each other to fuck off. The argument that hate speech has to be tolerated socially based on the principle of free speech is ridiculous.

A person using hate speech is either intentionally or as consequence trying to prevent certain groups from exercising their own rights to speech. Tolerating that person socially, even while recognizing their legal right to do so, is accepting free speech when it aims to restrict others: which you have just now admitted is morally reprehensible. So, if we agree with that concept, we only have to discuss whether hate speech truly restricts other people's free speech.

Hate speech and hate crimes are exclusively enforced for white people. Those 4 blacks who tortured and scalped a white kid shouting "fuck Trump"? All hate crime charges against them were dropped.

You keep using the term "hate speech" while claiming to be for free speech. You're being intentionally disingenuous here, as there is no such thing as hate speech except what you decide to arbitrarily define as such. No one is being silenced by someone ranting about the jews or niggers ruining America. In fact, the only people I see being silenced at all are the ones who have socially unpopular opinions who

>drumroll intensifies

aren't even members of disadvantaged minorities in the first place!

>pic related: the only speech you're really deserving of getting as far as I'm concerned

...

Can you spot which of these two posts is hate speech, anons?

Fuck. Sorry, manslaughter, I don't know how I missed that, my mistake, I work in IP now :^)

That was a very special case, and I'll be interested to see the appellate opinion if it's granted review (suspect it will be).

(Getting pretty drunk by now) I believe the court held that she had created a duty to not incite self harm through her relationship with the guy. She was in a romantic relationship with him, had spoke with him numerous times about suicide, previously saying not to go through with it, creating a quasi-caretaker relationship. "Caretaker" is probably not what the court used, but you get the idea. When he was finally taking steps to commit suicide, and called her, she had two options: say "get out of the car", or say "get back in." Telling him to get out is a minimal act to attempt to prevent and she did not do that. So first, there was a creation of a duty on her part (turning from counseling him to encouraging him), and then she failed to fulfill that duty, which could have been accomplished by an act that would not have put herself in danger nor created really any instant burden on herself.

That's where it's distinguishable. In almost all these talks about free speech, we are not creating additionally raised duties to each other, only exercising our enumerated rights.

If you see someone on a bridge's edge and yell "do it faggot," you did not previously have any duty to that person. But coach them over a few days about how great suicide is and then yell the same would turn out something like that case.

Fuck, I dunno, bourbon.

>as there is no such thing as hate speech except what you decide to arbitrarily define as such
No. I am not defining it, and neither is the government. Society defines it. That's why I am arguing to vague societal boundaries, exactly like that ones we have always had in some form.

A society that permits a guy yelling nigger at people in a supermarket is not somehow more free than one where that guy is rightly fucking condemned for being a racist ass-no matter how many people crow "he's just expressing his opinion!" That is a very easy line to draw.

>No one is being silenced by someone ranting about the jews or niggers ruining America
Jewish and black people aren't affected by people vocalizing negative stereotypes about them? lol come on. Racism is still alive and isperpetuated by people who idly allow it to persist.
We're on Sup Forums for fucks sake.

> the only people I see being silenced at all are the ones who have socially unpopular opinions who aren't even members of disadvantaged minorities in the first place!
"Socially unpopular" is a very interesting word choice when just previously we were talking outright and open bigotry. Maybe the issue we have is that what I consider "hate speech" is a severity far different than "socially unpopular." And frankly, I can empathize with you because a lot of people on the left treat any criticism of black/muslim/gay people as bigoted.

No, no. It was a guest that she heckled on her show (Vodka Mom). The girl killed herself after.
I'ts Ok. Enjoy you're drink!

hate speech legitimately IS a social construct.
All speech is free speech. Regardless of if it hurts someone delicate feelings

restricting any speech destroys free speech.

Because yelling bomb or fire in planes and theaters is bad
Because you wouldnt want a group or person to call for your harm or the harm of whatever group of people you prescribed to.

like,"Gas the kikes, race war now?"

Jesus Christ, yeah I just poured out my drink. Thanks for understanding kek

Yo, I think I can touch on this without the idiots.

So what do you mean by "more free" in the context of the supermarket?

I agree that the "sacred cow" minority protection from criticism is annoying and doesn't make for constructive discussion. Who started it? The people criticizing specific people who are a minority, the people who defended them, the people who disagree just because they are a minority? Seems very chicken-and-egg, but anyway (personal rambling).

So racism does exist, we won't legally limit that behavior concerning speech specifically, but will socially look down upon such language and disparage it. Isn't that something that we now have to wait for the cultural change to occur where such thoughts die out, accelerating the process through pointing it out? Or is there another way to do so? I contend that there is not any other way to rid society of these ideas faster, and that bigotry, racism, or any other collective judgment will always exist. People will always form prejudices based on experiences, regardless of the factual accuracy of their basis of ideas.

Thoughts?

Just wait till hate speech is a hate crime.

Then you'll see what they saw coming back in '92

This was always been a shitty argument. Yelling anything alarming on planes and theaters goes against the terms of service at those private establishments. Freedom of speech does not exist on private property. It's a property issue, not a speech issue.

Then why can't we make calls for the destruction of the government?