Should hate speech be protected under the 1st Amendment? It only incites violence and division...

Should hate speech be protected under the 1st Amendment? It only incites violence and division, why can't you just follow the rule:

>"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

Remember when the Document was being signed most Americans where of the same religion and ethnic background and they STILL had a civil war a 100 years later over some of the less important details in it. In a modern, technological, multicultural America, wouldn't it be better to criminalize hate speech? It would protect all people and prevent racial and religious tensions from boiling over unnecessarily. At least consider limiting what politicians and public figures can say to just the facts and truth, no more empty rhetoric and hateful language.

What is a more sensible approach, deporting 60 million people out of the country, or taking a real hard look and having a sit down dialogue over how hate speech divides modern Americans into polarizing political parties which stopped representing them the generation when Kennedy died.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iTnXNGJmwDA
youtube.com/watch?v=wP3CnYGCaEE
youtu.be/ZRVm90q-jDY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Depends on who gets to define hate speech. I consider lefties demanding that I give them as much money as they demand, at gunpoint, to be engaging in hate speech. They advocate using force to rob and enslave me. Pretty hateful.

Short answer: Yes and no depending on context.

> It only incites violence and division

First of all you need to clarify "it". I'm assuming you are referring to "hate speech" but that also needs to be defined in order to continue because some speech is naturally hateful as if reflects emotions and beliefs. To suppress the words in that context would be suppressing emotions as well.

Many times I see black people in a store that act like total fucking fools. Those words aren't kind but that's how I see them and that's the way they act (the ones I'm talking about).

Yes.
All speech is free speech. Liberal ass hats like you want to make anything that hurts your fee fees "hate speech".
Slippery slope.
Go hide in your safe space and let the adults run the world if words hurt you.

So if we remove the stupidity from your post we end up with...

"no speech should be censored" along with "any attack on feelings or emotions is ok".

Is that right?. I'm being serious. Is this what you'd agree to?

Violence is illegal, division is fine.

Hate speech is the exact thing free speech is there to protect you idiot, its not there to protect things you agree with.

The jews are the problem. Its a fact.

Youd ban historical fact, and bible passages in the name of hate speech laws. They already did in Canada.

Now the first amendment obviously protects all speech, so the real question is, shouldnt we be rounding up and executing all those who attempt to subvert the rights guaranteed by the constitution?

Its treason, and sedition. They should be killed, those rights are protected for a reason and attempting to remove them, or undermine them is an attack on America, what it was founded on, and its national security.

I think the US should blow the OP up with a drone strike, and not ask the Australian government if they are okay with it.

that's not hate speech user, that's robbery.

I'm just talking about words and how they shape social and political discourse. Maybe you have noticed how bad it's gotten lately in this election cycle, Clinton and Trump are basically at the stage of NoYou.jpg.


They can't even stop lying about each other and personal attacks for 5 seconds to raise a discussion about the issues troubling the voters. It's almost like they don't care about the country and just want to say anything to get elected.

And that _say anything to get elected_ is where my hate speech law comes into full swing.

We would let the Supreme Court decide on what classifies as hate speech, and perhaps also ban personal attacks in political campaigns, clearly two public figures in their 70s are going to have some mistakes and skeletons in their past, isn't it more important what they plan to do for the future?

They spend so much money on crafting a persona and identity it's not like you will ever know what they are really like in private. You only see the flashy packaging when you should be flipping them over and reading the ingredients, having them debate the policies and explain to the American people why one idea is better than another idea.

For the life of me I will never understand why Ross Perot did not win the election in 1992. He was a well spoken genuine man, self-made and patriotic. He had a plan to return America to a stronger economy and manufacturing base. Why Americans went with increasingly militaristic globalist Neo-cons who went to war for the next 25 years is just confusing.

Claiming an outright lie is the truth for personal gain or profit, despite it leading to problems and divisions. Inciting racist or religious ideas that are exclusionary or seditious. Prejudicial speech based on gender or age. I think there is also a good argument to be made for intent and spirit of discussion. If you are being hurtful just because, that's not useful.

Now define hatespeech.

If you don't like it, go back to plebbit.
I don't give a shit about your feelings, because you will twist words until anything said to you means someone should be arrested, because you can't be an adult enough to handle words.

People like you should be shot into the sun, because you are un fit for adulthood.

Life is tough, snow flake. Your going to have to man up and hear some things you don't like. Can't accept it? Stay in mom's basement the rest of your life, man child.

Funny how your all worried about hate speech, but your whole post is a verbal assault
Hypocrite.

My understanding is that Free Speech is there to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government who would suppress all criticism or opposition.

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In my reading of this it seems pretty directed towards protecting the rights of the people versus the Congress and Government.

Not to be a childish dick to someone you disagree with because you can get away with being rude and inflammatory.

This idea that if someone is mean to you and you hit them you are somehow a fascist is ridiculous. If someone got up in my face and said something ignorant or stupid, clearly trying to incite violence, they would be on the receiving end of violence. My grandma had a saying about loud obnoxious people who would always try to instigate things, it translates something like "Looking for the wind with a burning candle."

see the bottom of my reply here

I think the problem with people that bring up the "freedom of speech" amendment is that whenever they turn to it and then their brain turns off from thinking because they feel "I don't have to even talk anymore. Nuff' said. This statement says it all". In reality it needs to be put into context just like anything else. I wouldn't doubt it's these same people that need an excuse for themselves TO spit out non-stop senseless true "hate speech".

They're the ones that need to fall back on the amendment because looking at "hate speech" any other way is just damaging to their argument.

The bottom line is in my opinion the difference in "Hate speech" and "hateful speech" is that hate speech is done simply with the intent of inciting hate and or anger in another person (depending on who your'e directing it towards, the person you hate or the person you want to hate just like you do). "hateful speech" is negative in nature but is not intended to piss someone off or get someone else pissed off.

the great thing is though, the 1st amendment protects American citizens from being shut down by people who have your same stupid opinion. I don't care if someone lies, I care that someone telling the truth has the right to do so.

>My understanding is that Free Speech is there to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government who would suppress all criticism or opposition.

No, its there so that people can say whatever the fuck they want without fear that they will be punished for it.

The right to express your feelings, including anger, and hate.

Hate is a valid feeling, I hate, you hate, we all hate. People who dont hate should be locked up in an asylum and studied for whatever illness or condition they have.

Now define gender. Some people would have it we'd have 30 genders, now how would this work out?

First off we're on Sup Forums so let I could preface anything I say with "This is the time and place to say hateful speech". I'm here to express myself and if I didn't want to see people be assholes I wouldn't be here so spit it out. I'm just glad you don't say that out in the streets so that you can make it back to Sup Forums in one piece and keep me occupied".

Alright. You couldn't even answer my question. You just went on saying stupid shit.

You are a great example of a person that doesn't know what the fuck they're doing.

Then most churches couldn't exist.
BLM couldn't say anything.

I see where you're coming from, but people learn from differing opinions. Your just saying anything you don't agree with is hate speech.
Should we not be able to tell fat people they are going to die from heart disease, because it hurts their feelings? Should we ban Muslims from the west because their values and religion are all hate speech?
Where do you draw the line? Why there?

It's just a slippery slope. Should we ban the right to protest too, because it upsets you? Life isn't kindergarten, your going to have to hear things you don't like if you exist in the adult world.

Also, you start telling people they cant bring up historical fact because its hate speech, and that person is likely to resort to violence.

To kill you for suppressing and rewriting history.

Youre the bad guy, hes the good guy for killing you, for suppressing the truth.

Hate speech can't be so narrowly defined that it ONLY applies to prejudicial shit and will inevitably leak into criticisms of anyone for any reason.

>No, its there so that people can say whatever the fuck they want without fear that they will be punished for it.

Oh, so people went verbally assaulting each other and doing anything they possibly could to piss each other off and triggering each other and then that right was being breached? so the government said, "people can not be stopped from shitposting in the news about each other, cursing at each other in public, making up shit and spreading rumors about each other in public and calling out groups of motherfuckers they don't agree with". That's what it was?. The government just felt the people shouldn't be stopped from fucking with each other?.

Funny. I think the same of you.
You don't even make sense.
> let me verbal assault everyone, calling them stupid for not agreeing with my nonsense version of hate speech I can't define, while I practice hate speech.
Childish.

All those dead people on Utoya, those "children" or young adults in reality, they died because people started suppressing the right wing anti immigration political movement.

Go look up Breiviks court statement for why he felt he had no other choice than to resort to barbarism, in his own words.

If he could only speak out without getting a brick in his face by the antifa types, and the local editor actually condemned the suppression of free speech, instead of saying it was a good thing that the fatherland party or w.e was suppressed with violence.

Thats all this bullshit breeds. "X group cant bring up the truth, X group are bad people"

Then Y group starts to go out and kill X group.

Well guess what, the national socialists are right, and the antifas are doing the killing, when their movement is responsible for 100 million plus dead.

Hate speech laws are nothing but suppression of truth by the jews, and people who support them shouldnt be tolerated.

youtube.com/watch?v=iTnXNGJmwDA

This board is 18+ and your understanding of the constitution and the way it was written is laughable.

It says that the words are to be understood in the simplest form, and not to try to put any bullshit spin on them right in the fucking text.

Freedom of speech is protected and theres no such thing as hate speech, people who try to subvert the constitution are supposed to be executed.

Hate speech is the only speech protected. If the speech wasn't offensive there would be no need to protect it.

You should personally monitor your own speech based on the context of a situation but that's a personal moral issue, not a legal one. Fucking lefties always trying to put government where government doesn't belong.

I fucking love Taylor. No clue how she gets away with this shit, but then again they call her a "Nazi barbie" in the news so.

No, he's free to say stupid shit and we're free to call him out on stupid shit. If he wants to act on his stupidity we put it to a vote.

>It says that the words are to be understood in the simplest form

proof?. It it literally says that I 'll shut the fuck up and quit arguing with you.

>inb4 some stupid comeback calling me names

I'd rather you just don't respond. Either way I'll know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Hes not even American. Those rights arent guaranteed to foreigners in their own countries.

The terrorists in the middle east dont get a trial.

Jesus christ this board has gone to shit since Reddit invaded.

>I'd rather you just don't respond.

Id rather if you stopped breathing. You dont belong here.

Yeah that's an interesting distinction.

The first amendment more or less protects the freedom of actually speaking, like a guy getting up on a box and talking to an assembly of onlookers or protesters and I think that's the spirit it should be taken in.

What the content of speech itself is was probably just assumed by everyone involved in the drafting process of the constitution that it would be obvious that people would try to keep as civil as possible and refrain from endlessly childish arguments. After all it does not say "the freedom of all speech".

Though reading what some of the signatories wrote years later, they had already started to doubt some of the founding principles as they had been explicitly written and warned against future demagogues and despots with golden tongues convincing or scaring people to vote away their rights.

It has become increasingly difficult to tell where the lie ends and the truth begins. There is very little direct accountability over what is actually said. Clearly if you care about the truth as much as you claim, you should care about it being clear and unadulterated in the public discourse.

To the others who replied to me, can we reach no middle ground here? Do you really think saying whatever you want is conducive to a cohesive and happy society? Don't we have the same goals in mind, to stop these radical left and right wing ideologies from springing up and take a centrist moderate view on the world?

It's almost like Americans feel it's more important to make noise than to say something useful. How do you reach this dialectism, is just escapes me.

>Nigger
>Racist
>Nigger
>Racist


This is the past 50 years of American intellectual discourse boiled down to the level a 5 year old can process and repeat. This is what your free speech has devolved into. It's not even speaking at this point, it's violence without the physicality, society tearing itself apart because there is no mediation.

are you memeing?

>No clue how she gets away with this shit

uh...

>If the speech wasn't offensive there would be no need to protect it.

Hateful does not equal offensive. We have words for a reason. Those two words are different.

Offensive isn't always a conductor for "hate". Someone can see something a cross as "offensive" when at times it isn't.

You are making a difference sir. You are contributing to the reason why every looks at Sup Forums like a bunch of immature idiots. Thanks for doing your part.

>inb4 you're 15. I already figured that shit.

So what should we do to people like this in your fantasy world?

>"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
I can but I choose not to.
Where the hell do you think you are?

Who decides what is or is not a lie? Who defines who profits personally from a lie? Does inaccurate information count as a lie? Does your racist/religious speech include Jews? They go on constantly about being God's chosen and you can't simply convert to Judaism, would you ban them? Who decides what the 'intent and spirit' of a discussion is? Who decides who is being hurtful? Can you just claim any given phrase hurts you and the other person has to stop? How do you prove that?

Answer all of these questions in a detailed and legally rigorous way making rules that are as simple and unambiguous as possible.

Maybe if you stopped niggers from raping people and murdering and dealing drugs etc, people wouldnt be so upset about them.

Maybe if your side didnt stir the pot and tell white people they need to pay reparations and that they are responsible for slavery, and if you didnt trick people into thinking more than 3% of the population owned slaves, or if you mentioned that 600k white people died fighting to end slavery etc etc.. maybe if you didnt race bait and shit in our cornflakes day in, day out..

Maybe then we wouldnt be so angry, and hateful.

Maybe if you just left people alone, and stopped crying about anti-semites, and calling Trump hitler etc etc... we wouldnt be electing Trump in the US.

This whole thing is because of leftism, so you want to ban what causes division, ban the communists and hang those behind white genocide.

There is a genocide going on, the white race is intentionally being wiped out.. and you want to block us from pointing it out, so that white people dont make much noise while they are being wiped out.

A lot of people want you to die, theres just too many of you useful idiots to stop them all.

I'm talking in principle, I don't care that he's Strayan, we're talking about the US constitution.

Amend the constitution, attempting to subvert it is against the law.

>Do you really think saying whatever you want is conducive to a cohesive and happy society?

Depends on your society. Is this hypothetical in "Heaven" or like a real place on planet Earth like America or Africa?.

Things change. Even if we're specifically talking about the word "Nigger", it's easy enough to see that OBVIOUSLY there was nothing wrong with using that word in a world where everyone except black people had power, where saying "Nigger" was normal. Where using the word "Nigger" was almost as normal as saying "grass". If you put it in perspective just because shit was allowed back in the day is not enough to prove it was every "ok" or a good thing".

I remember some random radio show where one guy said to the other "we didn't need to wear seat belts back when I was a kid" and the other guy responded, "yeah, and people went flying through windows".

Things a lot of times a while back were never right.

So put it down, in writing, a simple and unambiguous rule that will sort the two out in all cases. Go ahead.

>In a modern, technological, multicultural America, wouldn't it be better to criminalize hate speech? It would protect all people and prevent racial and religious tensions from boiling over unnecessarily

Hate speech is leftism censorship. In Brazil nothing can be said about blacks and gays, but those "victims" can mocking, blame, bash in every possible way. Blacks are truly racists, everything to them is based in race. In USA looks the same thing is happening. Violent and offensive speech is permitted to blacks and SJW. Is literally racism anti whites and anti white legacy.

That Sarkozy quote isn't real. What he actually said was "cultural integration" you faglord.

There's no such thing as hate speech. It's a stupid fucking abstraction invented by subversive kikes and perpetuated by their beta male cuck pets.

youtube.com/watch?v=wP3CnYGCaEE

I think, based on your reply to me, that you believe that the truth has ever been easy to deduce. I believe that this is a symptom of you growing up, and not the world actually changing all that much. Truth is about what a person believes, and how a person deduces what the truth is, is, ultimately, up to them. you are not a federal court, and federal courts often screw things up, so truth has never been something any group of people have the right to claim as their own. (and by that I mean shut down dissent)

>faglord

This board is 18+.

Pic related, youre an idiot.

this desu hate speech is subjective, whats hate to you is not hate to me ect ect

>To the others who replied to me, can we reach no middle ground here? Do you really think saying whatever you want is conducive to a cohesive and happy society? Don't we have the same goals in mind, to stop these radical left and right wing ideologies from springing up and take a centrist moderate view on the world?
Define 'centrist moderate view' in a simple an unambiguous way that will stand up to the next few hundred years of societal change so we don't have to keep rewriting this every 5 years when some new snowflake gets butthurt.

Anyone that cares to find truth is free to seek it, the problem is not the law regarding speech it is the moral and ethical decline of the people who no longer seek truth themselves, who do not want to think, who simply want to be told they're a special magical creature and that they have the enlighten view and everyone else's view is deserving of censure, punishment or death.

You try and write a law that says 'My esteemed enlightened moderate opinion is truly the best and all other views will be silenced, jailed or killed' and guess where all those idiots go. Their specific beliefs aren't the problem, its the attitude behind them, you give people a codified reason to legally hunt other humans and they will do so with gusto.

All those countries at the bottom.

Thats like 1/3 of Africa. They can become French at any point, without any delay, simply ask and ye shall receive french citizenship and the right to vote.

Now, is that indicative of a government more concerned about destroying racism by assimilating its foreign populations, or a government concerned about destroying racism by importing and endless swarm of black africans to breed out white people.

I wonder.

>the two

You mean "hateful speech" and the subcategory of "hate speech"?

Hate speech - any written, spoken, or digitally encompassed combinations of words, pictures, or movies that are created with the sole intent of inciting or striking "anger" or "hatred" in another person.

Hateful speech - offensive speech.

Alright, I'll start with that. I'm trying to be serious here. Analyze that and tell me where I fucked up. I tried to make it clear and straightforward.

>goals is to make europeans a negroid-hybrid race

...

So, now we know why the push for hate speech by the jews is being done, and its to cover up genocide.

Congrats people attempting to cover up historical fact as hate speech, youre worse than the Nazis, and part of aiding a genocide thats happening right now.

>we should make it illegal for people to say things if they're mean and nothing else.
>otherwise I won't be able to control my nigger impulses to hurt them over words.

Stay out of my country you abo freak.

yes because hate speech is too loose of a term

Also, clearly the retarded OP has never seen US ww2 propaganda.

What is pic related, OP?

Release their fathers from prison on the provision they will live with the mother which they borne the most children with and work a government placed job.

Open trade schools in depressed inner city economies and take the money currently spent on the social safety net and welfare and pay real wages to the local people to train in trades and work in rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of their cities.

Create militarized zones inside which all haebeus corpus and constitutional rights are suspended, all crime and drugs are legal and people willing to enter must be micro-chipped and tracked, attempting to leave these zones would lead to immediate execution.

Focus on building community education with respect to sexual education and promiscuity, the significant importance of family, the father in the family, what is hate speech, the history of America and the benefits of accepting white civilization in addition to embracing your own African ancestry.
We would commission and independent body called the Organisation of Truth. Perhaps rely on an automated system of record keeping and fact checking with rotating human volunteers for impartiality.

>Who decides..

OoT (above)

>Who defines who profits..

It would be taken to a court and tried like a fraud case

>Does inaccur..

It depends on whether intent can be proven or not.

>Does your rac...

It includes everyone naturally, it would greatly reduce their influence and presence in the media for example and perhaps expose the false narrative of peaceful Israel.

>Who decides what is...

There will be a system of checks and balances for every individual, where if you abuse your speech you lose some of the privileges associated with it, like being listened to for example.

>Who decides..
If an aggrieved party would like to take a case into litigation they are free to do so

>Can you just
You can try, abuse will be rife in the beginning but balance out

>How do you..
Evidence.

How about this?

OP, let me ask you, you seriously didn't think you'd get through to some of these guys right?.

These same guys are too see the big picture. The only way to seriously get it through to them is to find them on the street and calmly walk up to their wife and ask her for a blowjob or calling their daughter a retarded bitch or something. There is no combination of words to get them to understand that having the freedom to vocalize ANY thought you want can be harmful and not allowed.

All speech is garbage, including this post. No one ever said anything worth a damn.

America is founded on hate, they were taught to hate in ww2 for example.

Hate a whole people when we need you to, but otherwise its evil and bad.

Directly advocate the killing of all of a specific race, when we need you to, when its to stop an ideology we dont like.. but when you advocate it against communism, dats raciss hate speech!

>showing Jews as if they were rats is racist hate speech!

Why do other countries feel the need to comment on our internal politics?

...

>guy does this
>guy gets shot and killed on the spot

I don't see a problem

...

Let it be.
Ignorence is bliss desu.
Also, thus vid is so hot
youtu.be/ZRVm90q-jDY

>KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE DIRTY FILTHY JAPS AND OUR ALLIES THE GREAT CHINESE
>KILL JAPS
>CHINESE ARE ALLIES

Who fucking cares what you and your gunless country think? Go back to the mines.

>Do you really think saying whatever you want is conducive to a cohesive and happy society?

No, and it's not supposed to be. Now fuck off kangaroo nigger.

>I don't see a problem

I knew you were a really smart guy.

Someone just put jew faces on these anti-japanese ww2 propaganda pictures.

Put them side by side and call the jewish one hate speech, but the japanese one totally fine, Japs are evil, everyone knows that.

Has hate speech against whites ever been prosecuted to the degree of black hate speech? Be honest with me.

>pic related
>not hate speech

>Pic related
>annudah shoah

Who defines what the intent behind a work is? I'm an art student, you will never find two critics on any piece of media, from sculpture, painting, literature, etc that will even agree on what the 'intent' behind something is.

Critics will also commonly declare 'death of the author' so even an author's own words on what their intent was become meaningless in the face of their analysis. Using that, can someone be jailed for hatespeech because the community at large decided their work means something completely different from their stated intent regardless of any protesting, disavowing or decrying?

If the author does get the final say to avoid the above situation of a lunatic claiming he did something after reading some random blog post somewhere, then is the law rendered completely moot by appending 'no offense' at the end of every sentence?

How 'sole' is 'sole' intent does a badass picture of mecha hilter burning jews in a portable camp escape by having some cool brushwork?

Under this law, does trying to drum up justifiable anger fall into hate speech? Say pearl harbor happens, or 9/11. Can no one call to rally against the perpetrators? Is the government simply immune to its own laws?

For hateful speech, first of all, the term being so close to the other one makes for ambiguity and is bound to result in endless stupidity.

Secondly, define 'offensive.' Offensive to who? Who is the arbiter of what is or is not offensive? 'Common sense' is a myth, because its regional, language-based, subjective and a terrible arbiter, so does it just come down to who cries foul first?

What. Make it legal to kill anyone who makes you mad, and watch everyone get real polite real fast. Disagree and are not committed to the notion of stopping hate speech.

If you want to stop car accidents from happening, replace airbags with a 12 inch knife protruding from the steering wheel. No one would go over 5 mph.

Truth is the truth and can be objectively proven.

What you believe is irrelevant, truth cannot possibly be relative to anything, it is a universal, immutable, constant thing. It either is true, or it isn't true.

The same way you catch a robber red handed you catch a liar in his words, evidence, intent, premeditation, proof of the crime the victim the perpetrator, witnesses.

We can definitely open a conversation on OBJECTIVELY HATEFUL SPEECH. Hate is not morally relative, it springs from emotions which are seated in self-doubt and ignorance and often uncomfortable truths we deny.

The opposite of this. it is establishing a core uniting principle of values we agree on in perpetuity. So we can put petty shit behind us and get towards exploring the stars.

We put a lot of emphasis on the wrong things in culture. Feelings, emotions, moods, desires. Better to focus on what is objectively best for everyone involved, generally this requires dialogue, which requires moderation and mediated speech which leads to compromise.

because America is a good example of the best and worst of humanity. You are a testbed of ideas which then can be adapted on an international scale, or abandoned when they are terrible (eg: owning guns).

china stopped buying our coal :( pls send yuan.

careful not to cut yourself typing with all that edge.

The 1st amendment prevents the abridging of freedom of speech... It is such a simple yerm, retard.
If the founding father believed in BS like "muh hate speech" they would add that to the constitution.
You are correct though! Liberals cannot be wrong! It is 2016!
Let's allow the government to pass hate speech laws! Also allow them to determine what's hate speech! These fat shamers and dissidents deserve it!


Tldr: the constitution is there to prevent tyranny, infringing upon your right to free speech is tyranny.

There is nothing to argue here, just leave.

So tyranny? Kek

You are putting lots of thought into this shitpost

Ok. Hate speech is fine with you when blacks do it. You would reward them for being purveyors of hate speech.

Into the trash it goes.

>Evidence.
What evidence? Prove with evidence the exact and true intent behind any statement. You cannot get into a person's mind to directly check so you literally have only what they to go on. If they say they were offended by the speech, then all evidence suggests they were offended by the speech.

>You can try, abuse will be rife in the beginning but balance out
Balance out how and by what? When society collapses after you have to hire tens of thousands of more judiciaries to handle the literally millions of cases you would get daily? You think people can't look at a system and play the professional victim if they want? Humans have been doing it for millennia under every legal system that has ever been.

Yeah, because sometimes there's you have to look for what is true, and often what is true is not nice to hear.

Really, I can't believe this entire thread led up to him acting like a childish nigger and attacking people physically because they made a series of sounds with their vocal chords and mouth.

>haha anyone who doesn't ascribe to my worldview of maximizing societal happiness above all else is an edgelord xdddd

God you're such a faggot. Just stay on your shitty desert island and stop trying to tell the worlds superpower how to run a country like you know.

Total freedom of speech is a fundamental of western civilization, or at least the superior Anglo side of it. Banning speech because it breaks "social cohesion" is literal commieshit, as overused as that slur is. If you unironically think this way then you can sit out while the rest of the anglosphere makes the world great again.

Kangaroo nigger

Go ahead and insult someone on the street, I don't care. I won't even kill you for it. You can taunt and jeer like a trained monkey all you like. In your act you can be more and more boisterous, loud, in your face, obnoxious, etc, at which point you can be arrested for disturbing the peace. You are free to say what you want, when you want, but words are harmless, as long as you sit around spouting bile in a quiet voice no one will hear you nor care.

>when the Document was being signed most Americans where of the same religion and ethnic background
>In a modern, technological, multicultural America, wouldn't it be better
>hate speech laws are necessary because of multiculturalism
Really makes America white again. I am now a #klanmissile

the problem with restricting speech is who gets to decide what is hate speech. Is lying hate speech? Calling people names?

The deal with "hate speech" is that laws will be enforced with a bias. For instance, the collective understanding of most people is that you can't be racist to white people. That is one example out of many which judges with a bias may pick a side.

Another problem is that instituting free speech laws is equal to a right not to be offended. That is, to be frank, a bulshit feel based way to make laws.

you literally described the book 1984, you fucking brainwashed mong

If your theories cannot stand up to scrutiny, then you need to change your theories. Demanding that they stop being scrutinized just covers up the weakness of your theories.

Fuck. Yes.

>it is establishing a core uniting principle of values we agree on in perpetuity
You can't get this with literally just two people, good luck getting it with 7 billion.

>We can definitely open a conversation on OBJECTIVELY HATEFUL SPEECH. Hate is not morally relative, it springs from emotions which are seated in self-doubt and ignorance and often uncomfortable truths we deny.
Define 'OBJECTIVELY HATEFUL SPEECH' in a completely objective way. Hate is in fact morally relative and if you weren't an idiot your magical objective truth that you think exists would tell you that.

You also seems to think it springs from a bunch of shit that it doesn't. Which leads me to wonder, have you ever hated something in your life? I don't mean the piss-poor watered down, using an extreme word to describe mild discomfort that devalues so many great words. I mean HATE. To have been abused for so long that the mere sight of your abuser burns in your heart and every fiber of your being calls for their death. To have a friend murdered and to feel that intense fury that only blood can seemingly sate.

You think people who 'hate' do so out of ignorance, but I will raise you that you literally CANNOT hate out of ignorance. It is a primal, visceral emotion that can only be truly felt and stems deep within you from wrongs committed against your very being.

Let'r rip.

Don't you have a tyranny now? The people squabble over their rights to say and do stupid shit while the country is run by special interests and shadowy figures behind the scenes.

Could it be that a lot of the American constitution is just a meme to keep a population distracted from more important things, like currency and war. It may not have started out that way, but it sure got there pretty fast.

There's people arguing with me in this thread about how important free speech is to them, meanwhile the Republic is basically completely fallen to globalists who gutted out the big American corporations and started the permajew tech of misinformation that is the internet of things and global communication.

Trump comes along and says he's for the people but not the illegals. Wouldn't he just win like 70% of the vote if he just said he would cut military spending to half and give all the illegals citizenship and work with investors and entrepreneurs to create both modern high tech industries and trades for the displaced blue collar american and a massive government project to take Americans to Lunar and Mars colonies.

Is China really going to invade America if you demilitarize?

Notice how he hasn't said any of these things and stayed with the divisive rhetoric which half of Americans could never agree with. Probably because he plans to do absolutely nothing of what he promises and is just trying to build up controversy and attention.

In 1984 they are fighting a manufactured perpetual war, lead by demagogues and technocrats and people self police what they say think and do not because they want social cohesion and unity but because they are afraid of torture and death.

It's totally the same thing, how couldn't I see it before. So insightful.

You would need to come to a consensus on this, blacks face the same laws so no.

>Could it be that a lot of the American constitution is just a meme to keep a population distracted from more important things, like currency and war.

>implying currency and war is more important than the constitution

You're a fucking imbecile mate.

>In 1984 they are fighting a manufactured perpetual war, lead by demagogues and technocrats and people self police what they say think and do not because they want social cohesion and unity but because they are afraid of torture and death.
And your system is different how? You think passing all the 1984 laws and organizations will magically make people clamor for social cohesion out of the goodness of their hearts?

You seem really fixated on the useless pipe dream of space travel, as if that somehow resets human nature if we get to space. I promise you, the first thing we do if we get viable space colonies is balkanize further. Pilgrims 2.0. Over time each colony claims their homogeneous way is best (or multi0culti way if that was their thing) and wars again break out between those who 'think right' and those who do not.

And most of those groups will have 'THE ONE TRUE OBJECTIVE TRUTH' backing them up.

Except you refuse to scrutinize this one theory:

>Everyone should just say anything they want

Because if you were honest with yourself like is, you would admit it only leads to perpetual conflict. Freedom of speech is circularly defined and thus philosophically problematic. Do I have the freedom to speak against freedom of speech? What if I make such a compelling argument that people decide to remove freedom of speech or amend it. Does freedom of speech then become freedom of use of violence to protect freedom of speech like some have already interpreted in this thread? If your defense is a spring to violent action, haven't you contradicted your original premise which allowed for the rejection of theories, though whether a convincing yet faulty argument should sway you was not specified (it is the special case I invoked for the sake of my argument)

Objectively hateful speech could be defined with the aid of biometrics and technology to scan the speaker in real time. We could train smart systems to detect transparently hateful speech and then grade language on a curve of intent, tailored to specific individuals.

The Facebook/Google/YT approach is more insidious, to redirect, censor, block or rewrite what someone's speech is because a filter is better than the truth.

With my system you may still have all the rights of free speech, but alongside your speech your otherwise hidden markers could all be tracked and used to give approximate intent. One of the great challenges in AI is being able to teach computers humour, irony, sense human motive and emotion. This will probably be done probabilistic, but we accept a degree of error in all manufacturing and decision making this will be no different.

Doesn't have to be space travel, humans can decide on what they want to do together once they stop arguing over what they are presently doing and how to do it. War is not a part of human nature it is driven by environmental pressures.

the problem is though, most situations are not "catching a robber red-handed" and there is not a court and a forensic team for everything that people say. Also, evidence can damn the wrong person, and humans are subject to the concept of "local maximums" in our evolutionary biology, which can (and would (and do)) prevent us from experiencing actual "truth". lastly, objective truth is a component of the deterministic world-view. Determinism is, imho, a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy because when and if a being determined the fate and history of all forms of matter, energy, space, and time (including their own actions), they could go against what they are supposed to do. A counter-argument here would be that the being simply made a mistake in his calculations, but if he did, the only way to prove it would be to deduce the fate and history of all matter, energy, time, and space and the cycle could continue ad infinitum. I do agree with you that I believe in some things being true and false, but I disagree with the notion that anyone has the right to shut down dissenting views, because we should be scientific, and always be willing to take in new evidence/information.