Hatespeech

What does Sup Forums think about the term hate speech? As you know homes of German people got raided by the police because their crime was online hate speech. I talked about this with my parents and took the side of "hate speech" (I don't think any speech should be banned, because then you will ban even more and censorship sucks).

My father thought that they would deserve it if they were talking about gassing refugees and so on. He thinks that stuff like this should be prosecuted.

What do you guys think about this topic ? Is there speech that should be banned because other people feel insulted by it ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-dX3hO3W3MI&index=2&list=PLBaqKIH3aRIzRq7b6iGEW3vsrwZeu-E_c
constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No.

Hate speech is difficult to police and so subjective that putting the force of the state behind it is a big jump towards a police state.

>Hate speech
No such thing.

It only says something about the people complaining about it.

Either we embrace freedom, or we embrace authority. I think the time for freedom in most European countries is over. And if we have to embrace authority, why should it be theirs and not ours?

I think the dumbest thing we could do is going back from their authority to freedom, because it would mean that their actions wouldn't have proper consequences.

>Is there speech that should be banned because other people feel insulted by it ?

>other people
that's insulting i hope you get raided

Agree. The ones that make the laws are the ones that are offended by it or believe that they are doing minorities a favor by banning certain words. What worries me is that it can be extended to completely silence the political opposition.

Do you mean that it's time for conservative authorities dictating what's OK and what not ? In the end it would result in a swing back to liberal values.

Hate speech please.

Nazi niggers did go in to hiding and where calling out for crimes. Thats what they got arested for.

Stop playing the victim.

Calling out for murder for arson is not A ok.

Hate speech is a violation of the constitution and a felony. Educate yourselves, rednecks.

>Do you mean that it's time for conservative authorities dictating what's OK and what not ? In the end it would result in a swing back to liberal values.

Don't allow it to swing. Or if it has to swing, let it swing them out of the country - exile is always an option and there are a lot of degenerate countries founded on liberal nonsense. Just look over the pond.

>What do you guys think about this topic ? Is there speech that should be banned because other people feel insulted by it?

Fuck no. In many cases, "hate speech" is brutally truthful and needs to be said. Take this song for example. It was made around 50 years ago and STILL describes our niggers perfectly.
youtube.com/watch?v=-dX3hO3W3MI&index=2&list=PLBaqKIH3aRIzRq7b6iGEW3vsrwZeu-E_c

There's no free speech without the right to insult. Even during a dictatorship you have the right to applaud the dictator.

>hate speech
Does not compute. What does this mean in freedoms?

Seriously, I don't get it. It's completely arbitrary and at the discretion of the judges...which it is blatantly apparent that it was used as a form of government intimidation and silencing of what is happening in Germany. What they did to that German couple seems like a violation of human rights.

Unless you are actively making plans on how to kill someone with people on here for example, you should be able to write/say whatever the fuck you want. If its only feelings that get hurt, who gives a shut

It's like a hatecrime, but without dead niggers

>say I want muslims to fuck off from my country
>it's hate speech

>say I want more muslims in my country
>it's not hate speech
really makes me think

leftist buzzword for things they dont like

you either have free speech or you don't

>in 2013 our government tried to get rid of some of our toughest and broad "hate speech" laws claiming it curbs free speech
>the backlash against this proposal was so fierce the government was forced to backdown and didnt go through with it

Why is the west so cucked lads.

This. Should be entirely free outside of planning or inciting to violence, for preventative reasons.

Free speech includes, by definition, all hate speech.
The only thing free speech doesn't cover is specific declarations of allegiance and of violent intent.

"Refugees should be gassed" = ok
"The government should start gassing refugees" = ok
"I am going to gas refugees" = not ok

The problem is, once you have these laws that its hard to get rid of them for exactly this reason. Anyone trying to loosen restrictions is seen as trying to defend evil racists.

Was this the full public or just a vocal minority whining about muh hate speech?

It really does make you think

first you need to define "hate speech"

Would you say its justifiable to prosecute people that write online
>refugees should be gassed
?

Or where do you exactly draw the line ?

I think you should gas your father.

Bricks and stones.

Yeah, I don't get it...speech can't be a crime here unless it can be proven that it directly incites a specific act of violence...you can't get arrest for the theoretical notion that your words MAY one day influence a violent act.

It complete bullshit if you think about it. The German were, in part, arrested for incitement, right? Well, incitement of what? What event or stopped event of violence happened and what proof is there that the persons involved even read the fb page? There was none...it was all theoretical...for then safety of potential future non-existent victims.

This is compete nonsense and is not free speech. It a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo for the government to legally silence you if they don't think what you have to say.

He's old and brainwashed by our state media. I'm slowly trying to break his and my mothers conditioning. Its hard since I can't drop the redpills all at once. Other wise they would completely block everything out.

Absolutely not. It may be distasteful but it's merely stating an opinion.

I think there needs to be reasonable cause to believe the words will be connected to action.

>having a "father" who do not want to gas the refugees

no wonder you Germans are such massive boipuccies.

as for hate speech; either you got free speech or you dont. You do not get to choose.

Besides is it better that people have these sentiments in hiding or do you prefer that people voice their thoughts. I know I do, because then one is able to debate and refute what they are saying and show everybody else how retarded they are.

Wait, I meant sticks and stones. Bricks and stones, I need to go to bed

Hard to say. A lot of whining across all aus media about how it will give racists a voice and "real aussies say welcome refugees" and shit like that. Every instance of a non-white being on the receiving end of racism was brought up in the media. I recall one "story" where some african woman was racially abused (oh no!) and the guy behind it went to jail and everyone was saying how without those laws the evil racist would still be walking the street. "FREE SPEECH DOESNT MEAN HATE SPEECH" etc

It was probably a vocal minority but with most of the media in agreement they won.

>81732508
how the hell does the media get to be cucked if aussies are fucking crazy?

When I found out that you could go to jail for saying mean things in europe that was really fucking weird to me. It amazes me that people in europe are okay with this

It's a form of censorship and the obvious answer is that free speech includes hate speech.
The controversial part is whether there should be action taken after the speech includes something like 'I'm going to kill everyone on the bus tomorrow'

One comment I can find right now was laughing at refugees who drowned, another one was wishing a politician to be raped by refugees.

It's completely ridiculous and one of the reasons I'm fucking afraid of immigration and leftist politicians who don't understand the internet.

...

how is that illegal in anyway?

>see picture of drowned child
>write "haha lol"
>go to prison

Tyskerlogic.

Free speech is good as it makes racists reveal themselves so they can be ostracized. Without free speech they could end up radicalizing and then probably committing more heinous crimes.

All western media globally is incredibly left wing. Not sure why but it is. And our youth are as equally left wing as the sjws of the USA or UK.

And unlike the USA we have no real strong conservative history or traditions. We are an incredibly self-hating white guilt country thanks to abos who we "stole the land from".

The US at least has some conservative areas with christian beliefs. Thats almost non existent in aus

This was actually one of my arguments when I tried to explain him why I am against prosecuting and censoring hate speech.

>Free speech is good as it makes ____ reveal themselves
Yes, clarity.

A FUCKING TREE
FUCKING
TREE

>as it makes racists reveal themselves so they can be ostracized.

In this day and age I can go to the supermarket without needing friends to help with my harvest.

Ostracizing isn't nearly as powerful as it once was.

>>hate hate speech.
Its the Law now.
>>prison for life with lesbians.
God damn it.

Yeah, sounds autistic and crude...but so fucking what. It shouldn't be a crime. You're entitled to express your own thoughts, even if they hurt someone's feelings.

Now, if he said "someone should rape that leftist bitch", and one of his readers did...that's a speech crime of incitement here.

Free speech is good as it makes anti-nazis reveal themselves so they can be ostracized.

Posting on Goybook using your real name and making death threats to people is a crime even in the USA

The only difference is, in the US you are allowed to make a threat toward a group as a whole (e.g. muslims) and get away with it

Wonderful perception skillz

suddenly when the marxist finds himself in the minority he clenches to equality and equal rights for all opinions.

...

>"someone should rape that leftist bitch", and one of his readers did...that's a speech crime of incitement here
It is and should be quite hard to prosecute for that. You need to show very clear links between incitement and action, as far as I'm aware.

Yeah, sounds autistic and crude...but so fucking what. It shouldn't be a crime. You're entitled to express your own thoughts, even if they hurt someone's feelings.

Now, if he said "someone should rape that leftist bitch", and one of his readers did...that's a speech crime of incitement here.

If there no link to an actually crime, then they are just criminalizing words themselves. That's not free speech. I hope the people force the government to change this in Germany, because it's about to get a whole lot uglier...you afraid of creating Nazis? Well, continue silence frustrated normies, and have a media/gov't complicite in covering up migrants crimes...if anything will awaken the dormant inner fascist that powder keg will be it.

suddenly democracy is evil when their political enemies are the ones in power, then they speak of protection of minority opinions.

You can say whatever you like. Unlimited free speech. You called to murder the Irish and people rioted against the eternal Paddy? Prosecute the violent offenders, not the orator. Not his fault he is good at persuasion.

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.

Hate speech is inarguably unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice interpretations have stated that using language to incite panic or violence against others is not covered by this right, but to base hate speech laws on this is flimsy at best. Unless a man is shouting "kill all niggers," it is unconstitutional to arrest that man.

While we're at it, the current iteration of gay marriage law is also unconstitutional, since the current iteration forces people with religious views to do something against those views.

Don't believe everything (or anything) that celebrities say. Most of them are stupid at best, bat-shit insane at worst. Chris Cuomo isn't a professor of law, so who the fuck cares about his opinion on it?

I think things only change for me when you're telling people how and where to do things.

Yeah, it notoriously difficult to get prosecute someone on incitement here...it should be because it's someone's words.

Recent clear case of possible incitement was the Browns stepfather during Baltimore riots yelling "burn this bitch down!" repeatedly on television. Of course they were burning property all over.

I think they could've went after him but #blackprivage #dontmakethemangry

A twitter man with a certified blue badge of Intelligent and Fact-based Twittering proved you wrong. Get over it and join 2016.

What did he mean by this?

No. No restrictions. Speech is speech, action is action.

Norway YES

No wonder.
Your parents were probably raised to hate themselves and to feel guilty about the war by (((western media))))

You either have free speech or you don't.
That includes denying of holohoax, insulting politicians etc.
If a society can't deal with it, it's bound to cease to exist as a cultural entity. See Germany since 1945.

>Is there speech that should be banned because other people feel insulted by it ?

No. People in europe fought really really really fucking hard for freedom of speech. As did americans. To see it taken away because some nu-male SJW faggot and his friend mohammed with his pedophile - mass murder - worshipping religion feel insulted by it is sickening.

'hate speech' legislation becomes desirable in societies that have been infected by immigration. that way the authorities can more closely regulate behaviour. homogenous societies don't need hate speech legislation because there is less civil friction and antagonism, people understand one another.

But he didn't. constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html

Not one of the annotations says that you can't talk about a hatred of minorities. The only time a Supreme Court ruling said anything close to that, I mentioned and refuted as a legal basis for hate speech laws.

I'm in total agreement that hate speech laws should exist, same for gay marriage (especially considering that I might like to get married some day). When those laws exist in a way that infringe on anybody's rights though, that is not okay. Useful idiots like Chris Cuomo compound the problem by spouting half-truths as if they were facts, and then actual idiots like you eat it up without checking anything.

If you want to have some influence on legislature, you owe it to everybody in the country to know at least one thing about the Constitution, because to me, it really seems like you don't.

Just looked at your flag. Super disappointed in you, Norway. Thought you were one of the good ones.

Your autism is pretty severe. Can you tell us a little bit about your childhood? Did you dislike being touched? Did you accidentally poop your pants? Girlfriends? Tell me about some incidents where your autism caused you to completely misunderstand something and then later came to realize you had done so.

I'm honestly curious about how a legitimate autist might describe his life, I don't mean it as an insult.

Freedom of speech should mean freedom of fucking speech, no one should have the power to decide on which things can be said or not, every single change to ever happen anywhere has always started with someone saying something different than the accepted norm. Those banning raysis hate speech now are those that would have banned women from voting or working in the past, they are the ones who would have been slave owners on the past banning niggers freedoms, they just jump onto whatever is politically correct at the time and try to enforce it with an iron fist, that's why their most common argument is "it's the current year"

Hate speech is nothing but other people not agreeing with your opinion and wanting you to shut up about it. But because they can't (officially) deny you your rights, they demand politicians to do it for them. These are then usually biased themselves or bought off, but have the power to call it law and suddenly all falls into place and has a supposed judicial legitimacy.

pls respond i am wait

Hate speech, like human rights, don't exist.

They're made up to censor and impose select behaviors on people.

They did not got raided for hatespeech, but for volksverhetzung and zurschaustellung verfassungsfeindlicher symbole.
The media is trying to push the hate speech meme to force it into peoples minds and then into politics.