Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech

How do you respond to this statement?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU
youtube.com/watch?v=RggQZjgz5ww
law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

what doesn't kill you ought to make you stronger. otherwise, you deserve your suffering.

If you're such a faggot you can't put a statement in your thoughts without getting physically angry or getting traumatized, you should just go back to elementary school and stay there like the little shit you are.

Hard Mode: Philosophically explain why Hate Speech should be Free Speech rather than simply saying, "Muh First Amendment."

Hate Speech has a such a loose definition that virtually any statement could be classified as it.

Also, to deny someone their right to speak because you don't like it is an act of hatred unto itself.

Founding Fathers and Constitutional Principals>Left Wing "muh feels" Faggotry

It only costs you self respect if you let it. Talk is cheap

No.

The only time free speech can even matter is when it comes to saying things that other poeple don't want to hear.

yes officer....... Fuck my country :(

Marxism kills popular sovereignty.

If your self respect is torn away by people saying words to you then you didn't really have any self respect to begin with

Faggots are going to get rekt when they hit the real world.

>How do you respond to this statement?

I'm a pedophile and you can't say anything hurtful about me or the kids I fuck.

I'd like to see a SJW answer that

So what stops people from defining "whatever I don't like" as "hate speech" and thus silencing actual discourse?

Free speech is completely free or it isn't. Let people counter it with arguments or ignore it, but if you rule that it cannot exist in the first place, then nothing you say has any value because your free speech isn't free to be challenged.

...

Hate speech doesn't exist.

I dont care about your feelings, you authoritarian censoring whiny bitch

everything can be considered hateful to someone.
so fuck it.

>true statements are also """hate speech"""

Who decides what is hate speech?

youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU

free speech is like free software: it's free as in freedom, not free as in free beer.
"Cost" is not a logical argument against free speech.

Saying hate speech is not free speech infringes upon my rights which means that the phrase itself is hate speech. You are a hypocrite my good man.

Want a law against hate speech? Imagine how many dindus, SJWs, feminists,etc would be arrested.

#KillAllWhiteMen

Hate speech is arbitrarily decided by the person who is offended, it is an abstract idea with no real basis other than "x individual is offended so shut up"
What about those who don't consider it hate speech? Why should they follow the whims of the offended, do they really have any greater value than the opinions of those who aren't offended?

sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you.

>yfw five year olds literally have more mental fortitude than you do

daily reminder that free speech is 100% binary and only the USA as only country in the world has it.

Isn't hate speech based on feelings? So technically anything can be hate speech because you can be offended by anything?

This statement is easily one of the most lazy responses available.

>Hate speech is not Free speech

What is hate speech?
Since today so many words seem to have so many new meanings, I ask, what is hate speech?

Does hate speech have a single defined meaning? Or is hate speech just whenever I say something you don't want to hear?

>hate speech isn't free speech
yes it is

This is stupid.

The whole point of 'free speech' isn't so that you can say things that agree with the consensus and don't offend anyone. Free speech isn't so you can talk about the weather or what you watched on TV last night. Free speech is so that you can express an opinion that may be unpopular or hated.

If it doesn't offend or upset someone, it's not speech that needs protecting anyway.

Even a slave has the "freedom" to speak in ways that don't offend anybody.

Define hate speech in such a way that everyone involved agrees on it. If you can't, go fuck yourself, and keep your hands off of free spech you authoritarian fuck.

10/10 made a law student reply.

What is Brandenburg v. Ohio

Hate speech has always been tolerated. Unless you can proof the speech will lead to imminent and lawless action then you can't do speech.

Hate speech is subjective as shit so fuck off.

>what would he think of this country now?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

It is free speech. In the free world we can hate whoever the hell we want for any reason or no reason. And we can let them and everyone else know that we do. To have it any other way would be regression.

But I assume the person who made this image would be in favor of restricting speech considered 'hate speech'. Convenient for some as the definition is blurred. Hate speech, racism, bigotry, sexism. These all have become buzzwords with fluid definitions. Dangerous precedent that this is so widely accepted.

youtube.com/watch?v=RggQZjgz5ww

youtube.com/watch?v=RggQZjgz5ww

youtube.com/watch?v=RggQZjgz5ww

Who gets to decide what hate speech is? There is absolutely no consistency in what people typically consider to be hate speech.

Pic related: is this hate speech? It is not considered to be. Change one fucking word ("White" to "Black") and it suddenly becomes hate speech. See the problem?

freedom of association and freedom of speech means I don't have to hang out with niggers period.

I still do because I'm not racist but damn.

Define hate speech in a way that can't be used subjectively to shut down whatever the fuck I want

i am deeply offended by this picture. censor it now you intolerant bigot

>made a law student reply.
L.O.L. who cares?

> How do you respond to this statement?
fuck you and your anglo memes

free speech is a natural right :o)

what constitutes hate speech?

>hate speech destroys!!! it wrecks sanity!!! :((
>doesn't proceed on how to measure that destruction

ecks d d ay le mayo

>How do you respond to this statement?

By pointing out that there is no such thing as "hate speech", which is a weasel phrase for "any opinion I don't like and want to see suppressed".

Every time I go to work I lose part of my self-respect and sanity, but that doesn't entitle me to a better job. I just have to deal with life's bullshit like everyone else in the country.

words are nothing more than noise in reality.

if you want to inflict a significant punishment against me because of some noise came out of my mouth and it annoyed you then you are the one in the wrong.

my right to freely speak is FAR more important than your little faggot feelings.

Popular speech does not need protection, unpopular speech does.

Best starter

Then you are no better or tolerant compared to 3rd world autocratic regimes who dictate what is "right speech " and what is illegal to be said in public.

>being anti-anglo

>what constitutes hate speech?

Recognizing racial and/or sexual reality.

No one has the power nor the unbiased agenda to know everything that can or cannot hurt someone and to what extent.
Therefore, it is far better to allow rather than limit in order avoid the risks and outcomes of some groups controlling other groups of people.

Yes it is.

>nice white invented powerpoint on a white invented computer displayed by a white invented projecter in a white constructed school in a country ina white founded country that protects your white established freedom of speech rights.

...

Hate speech is a social construct. Allow me to demonstrate:

You're a fucking faggot.

All verbal language, in fact, is a social construct, therefore it doesn't exist (assuming you're arguing with a liberal). It's especially important to draw a parallel between the other social constructs they oppose ex: Gender, race, etc. If gender/race are social constructs and are insignificant, then the same reasoning applies to hate speech.

This argument also works for abortion anytime they try to claim "personhood"

Hate speech standards are themselves a form of hate speech since they ostracize a certain group of people over their beliefs, having them risk social, phyisical and legal retribution.

"yes it is"

What's the point of free speech if all you're going to say is things people want to hear.

Well I'd respond by saying that, "'Free Speech' is obviously not completely free." There are limitations to the concept and yeah, inciting hatred/violence should come at a price.

Imagine if you were a doctor. A patient comes to you and asks if something is wrong and you lie to him/her to line your pockets. Is that covered under "Free Speech?" Of course, not! This can cause someone pointless stress and if caught, the doctor can lose his/her license, as they should.

Imagine if you yell "Fire!" in a movie theater and there isn't a fire. This is not allowed because this cheapens the effect of yelling "Fire!" and may in fact render a real warning of a fire useless. This is rightfully not covered under free speech.

Now, imagine if I pointed out where a person who performs an abortion lives. I don't like abortions, myself, but telling people where he lives, telling people where he works, his full schedule and inciting hatred towards this person ALSO shouldn't be allowed.

Anyone that is confused about this is obviously not well-versed on the concept.

Free speech implies one can say ANYTHING. When you say that hate speech is not free speech, you're merely making a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" speech. So it's intellectually dishonest for these people to say they support free speech.

Whoever says 'hate speech is not free speech' should be punched straight in the nose for spewing hate speech.

"Hate speech" is not well defined. And even if it could be, the 'costs' can not be objectively quantified or verified.

hate speech is subjective. leftists take anything remotely negative as hate speech

/thread

Because policing ANY speech is a form of thought policing. Besides, hate speech is such a loose term that it can be applied to just about anything. It's a very small step from policing mean words said against individuals to mean words said against the government.

Hate speech is the reason why America is an independent nation.

gay speech isn't free speech - it preaches degeneracy that destroys our decency
colored speech isn't free speech - it promotes the idea that lesser people are on our level

could go on about how those in power can choose what we can and can't do because of reasons

Hate is an emotion, Free Speech is a right and you shouldn't regulate either

>not free to say anything you want
Well then it isn't free speech.

>sticks and stones may break my bones but words will rip me to shreds and destroy society

>Prove that speech I don't like should be free speech

I. Thats what free speech means. If I can't say things just because they offend you, then I don't have free speech.

>desire to know more about Brandenburg v. Ohio intensifies
thanks lawfag, gave me something to do tonight

Define "hate" speech.

Because as far as I can tell hate speech is merely saying anything critical to someone who isn't white.

That tea implies women have no emotional control and is hate speech. I demand the company be shut down and the founders tried.

>hate speech is not free speech

Yes it is. Hate speech is just free speech you don't like.

>What is Brandenburg v. Ohio
not a question we're asking for

because this isn't jeopardy, jackass

Then Free Speech is not free.

>Imagine if you yell "Fire!" in a movie theater and there isn't a fire

Most "hate crime" prosecutions are against those who cry "fire" when there actually is a fucking fire. And by the way, the whole "cry fire in a crowded theatre" thing comes from a US Supreme Court judge trying to suppress left-wingers who disagreed with the First World War.

Definitely written by a woman

or

if not a woman a fucking eunuch.

pfff easy, answer is

YOU COMMUNIST FAGGOT

Let's do this logically.

>Freedom of Speech is garantueed
>ergo, all of X (Speech) is allowed
>"we need to ban/suppress hate speech"
>we need to suppress Hate-X
>all of X is allowed
>therefore, demanding a ban on a variant of X is not permissible

Everything is hate speech then. I can be offended by anything, subjectively, and there's quite literally nothing anyone can do about it.

I'm free to hate

Arbitrary distinctions

There is nothing designating one word or phrase hate speech and another free speech except what someone says it is

Tjis is the core issue at every leftist argument. They support arbitrary distinctions.

ie; When you make X amount of dollars your taxes should increase by X %

ARBITRARY

That the definition of hate speech is entirely arbitrary and therefore open to massive abuse that shuts down free speech. It's not difficult.

...

>How do you respond to this statement?
"You're a cunt."

If you're going to read Brandenburg, read Whitney v California too--specifically Brandeis' "concurrence."

Based Brandeis blows controlling assholes out of the water, hard.

law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357

t. nigger wrangler

Where you going to school sonny?

I fucking hate this country I hope the fire incinerates me and everything else.

"Calm down, fag."

Philosophically, it boils down to whether or not you believe that expression can wrong another person. By wrong, I mean to violate a natural right.

You have the natural right to express yourself.
You have the natural right to self-defense.
You have the natural right of movement.
You have the natural right of ownership of your body.

You can only justly lose rights when you violate the natural rights of others. This is the basis of society, law, and human interaction.

So, the question is: Can expression wrong another? Some would argue that expression cannot wrong anyone directly as it does not violate the sovereignty of the body, nor deny others their natural rights. Others would argue expression can cause emotional trauma, which can be construed as an assault on the body of another, thus wronging them.

So it's really up to democracy at this point, as both sides have reasonable points. if you're really interested on the subject.

It doesn't instigate a fight and doesn't create a false alarm, but even those are free speech. But there is punishment for lying.

>Most "hate crime" prosecutions are against those who cry "fire" when there actually is a fucking fire.

Bigotry has logic. That's one of the biggest mistakes people make with regards to biggotry - thinking it has no logic. But, the overriding principal that we as a civilized society has is that even if bigots make good points as to why Muslims shouldn't be allowed or why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed or why black people, in the united states, should be segregated. There are good points, the one against gay marriage is exceptionally strong, but we need to beat people down and shove the new morals into their faces with the power of the state until they are civilized and bigotry is going.

No logic shall be tolerated in defense of racism. You will bend a fucking knee or feel the full-force of the state.

This is a form of thought control.
The definition of "hate speech" can be twisted to silence the truth and effectively mind-control citizens.

What that supreme Court case did was it suspends the first amendment rights if your speech presents clear and present danger

Hate speech is indeed free speech.
Free speech protections exist precisely to protect those saying things that others do not like, or do not want them to say.
No protection is needed for those speaking things that everyone is happy with.

This is obvious no?