Can someone tell me how the line between free speech and hate speech is defined?

Can someone tell me how the line between free speech and hate speech is defined?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Inciting physical violence or with genuine malicious intent.

There is no such thing as hate speech

That sounds tremendously open for interpretation. From the offender and the offended.

leslie confuses satire racial trolling with actually making a threat based off who or what you are.

I know in some countries there are legal penalties for it, in Germany for example. So in paper it does exist.

In Canada our hate speech laws are used when they target specific people and in order for the case to succeed it has to be proven that actual violence was incited or that their life was harmed in some form
There's been quite a few court cases here for hate speech but they overwhelmingly fail because there's never any direct harm that results. They generally succeed when you target a specific person and when it's related to say being gay or a certain religion and such. So if you incite people to beat muslims with sacks of pork that would classify as hate speech. But saying you hate muslims is not

What I don't agree with is hate speech because I hate dumbfucks who disagree with me.

If you hate what the politicians are doing to your country, it is hate speech.

Feelings

>In the US, where free speech reigns.

In Europe hate speech is public speech which offends or discriminates against any ethic/religious/sexual group, specifically those higher up on the leftist victim hierarchy.

OK, that sounds more rational. Thinking about the consequences more than the message itself.

Its not.

In other countries its basically "I feel offended and you shouldn't be allowed to offend me" which turns into "you disagreed with me and you shouldn't be allowed to do that"

In Europe's many countries this is effectively stifling any sort of discussion despite how "tolerant" they are

Free speech is an American misnomer. In every historical context in which it's otherwise been used (the UN, French Revolution, English Bill of Rights) it means being unrestricted in what you can say, though tempered by the responsibility to not fuck up the world by saying dumb or harmful shit. Then America comes along and creates retarded, ambiguous wording in the First Amendment ("abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press") that makes spergy anons think it's ok to say anything at all anytime.

Free speech has never properly existed. Occasionally you get freaks like John Milton speaking with exaggeration about it, but really there is only speech, which shouldn't be restricted unless it does damage to others (especially in the form of hate speech).

tl;dr: the American Constitution creates retardation

Free Speech is slang for "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 isn't real. Hate Speech is a term to justify censorship.
So there is no line. You are either for Freedom of Speech or you are against Freedom of Speech.

hate speech = opinions not shared by the radical left

>wanting less rights
Why?

Hate speech is the antithesis of free speech. It simply means one is allowed to say anything they want while the other must agree to it or else they are being hateful, bigoted, racist, sexist, etc.

/Thread

Well the message is important though because the law is proactive. If it can be proven that violence may have resulted that would work as well
But spouting off random slurs and shit is hateful sure, but it doesn't make people violent.
Our laws have been used against groups that are almost semi-cultlike for example where no violence occurred but the buildup and message of the group implied it would occur
Sup Forums generally freaks out about our hate speech laws, especially after trudeau added transsexuals to the law, but our law very rarely ever succeeds. We actually have significantly more laws guaranteeing free speech than any other country in the world.

He probably supports gun control too

It's the basic balance of negative and positive liberty that all societies strive to create.
Only retarded libertarians can think that each individual lives in a vacuum to do whatever stupid shit they feel like doing. "Rights" discourse is a deluded way that butthurt virginal faggots try to justify their right to act on perverted fantasies of sex with underage chained black traps in basements.

the n word is the line

In Canada, it is easy. If you are white, it is hate speech.

fuck the german politics
nuke us already

It's literally impossible

yeah being white is so hard you should kill yourself. maybe you'll be reborn as a black man

Do your words offend liberals? Then they're hate speech. Because liberals define what hate speech is.

Could you possibly be offended? Hate speech

Are you a cis-privileged white male scum? Everything you say is hate speech.

free speech = what i agree with

hate speech = anything that triggers my autism

Anything can be hatespeech. That's the beauty of it.

>I think Islam is really becoming a problem in Europe.

That's hatespeech in France.

Also this kek. You can close the thread now.

Have you ever even bothered to read the court cases about our hate speech laws?

>pic

Hate speech is never definable because it's so incredibly open to interpretation. Not fucking up the world by saying dumb or harmful shit is also very much up to interpretation, as someones fucked up world is another ones utopia. And saying that all women are whores, for example, is definitely damaging others, but it should be allowed to be said and should be met with sanctions from society, not from government. For this reason hate speech (unless it's actively and explicitly calling for physically harming others) is nothing but a powerful tool of censorship from the government.

Open ended hate speech laws is a direct violation of western principles of free discourse. It has even come to the point where obvious satire is censored by outright draconian means, like that guy getting arrested in Britain for teaching his dog to do a nazi aslute. Such a blatant attack of one of our prime tools for keeping authority in check, satire, is incredibly dangerous.

In EU everything that threatens, degrades, ..., SHOCKS minorities OR THE GOVERNMENT can count as hate speech. Euro laws are written to always work when they want them to.

Where i live, all is speech is free speech, or at least it's supposed to be. People all had their own opinions and anyone could speak their mind. Then some little bitch cried wolf, now "hate speech" is intolerable. I don't consider myself to be the "muh constitution" type, but when someone says i have something, and i try to claim it, just to be spit in my face by some ignoramus claiming to know more then me, i tend to get a little pissed. It's been said a thousand times but i'll say it again, America is too damn soft. I completely understand the opposite side of the argument, saying this I can understand some things shouldn't be said, screaming "bomb" on a plane, or claiming to have a plan to assassinate the president, but there is always a time to question authority.

Hate speech is speech someone hates hearing. Free speech is the cultural facet of being able to publicly opine on anything without obstruction or fear of punishment.

>western principles of free discourse
This is a chimera. It doesn't exist. There has never been free discourse, except in people's imaginations.

Classic example: John Milton in Areopagitica argues for the freedom of the press ("as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, Gods Image; but hee who destroyes a good Booke, kills reason it selfe, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye") but when he was made Secretary for Foreign Tongues and was responsible for licensing, he enforced censorship of different kinds.

There may be some ideas that are absolutely evil. I would argue that genocide is one. But mostly, the concept of hate speech depends on who is in power and what is deemed to be powerful. Just accept this and there's no problem. Power rules. If you're uncertain about this, try studying the Melian dialogue in Thucydides. There is no absolute right in politics and especially not in Western politics and doubly especially not in Athenian democracy.

Good satirists recognize this, which is why Swift writes A Modest Proposal to ridicule and lampoon those in power, instead of writing a point-by-point argument about how it's wrong for the English to exploit the Irish.

>what is deemed to be powerful
correction: what is deemed to be important

>Hate speech laws
>Free speech

You can only choose one.

There is no line. Free speech looks like hate speech to those who hate freedom.

like "kill yourself" in an user forum or in a game where you're losing and are upset to repeatedly saying "kill yourself" to a person day in day out actively encouraging them. the difference is when it turns physical, from your end or theirs

I've never understood why there are "banned" words in USA. It's just words and the more you demonize one, the more power you give to it. I mean, I get nigger, from the historical context. Fut what about cunt? Bitches get crazy about it, and there is no real reason for it to be a bad word, or at least not one that you cannot say.

When my feelings are hurt. Stop talking about such sensitive subjects user, it sounds very hateful.

Ask Merkel. She'll tell you.

All speech is free speech, while "muh free speech" is hate speech.

Is this real? I don't really think this is a good use of federal resources, don't they have better shit to do?

Just another bullshit excuse statists make up to violate Liberty. Both sides are guilty of this sort of shit too, for different reasons.

"Fucking muslim you are shit and deserve to die, I would kill all of them if it was legal" is free speech
"I will kill a muslim tomorrow/fucking muslim I'll come and kill you" is hate speech

Basically threats are illegal, the rest should be ok, at least thats how I see it

When I talk about western principles I'm not talking about some direct quote from the first democratic vote in Athens. They are fluid. Free press as a concept has been around for hundreds of years, as you say, and how we use it today should be an extension of that, not an exact replication. I don't see the point of political fundamentalism and it seems to me that it's you who advocate it, not I. Freedom of press was and still is a concept for the aspiration of free discourse, even if it hadn't reach that hight during the 17th century and still hasn't. Obviously when I say this it's my opinion, I'm well aware that other systems are possible and viable as are evident by history. My opinion isn't gospel, and I've never thought of it as such. Just saying that doesn't refute my point.

I agree that the concept of hate speech depends on who is in power and what is deemed powerful, like I said. That's the very reason that I think that it should be abolished. Power rules, but the the masses can have power as well. In a world so fluid and changing I can't seem to agree with you that just because the government have the power to do a lot of things, they should do it. The government has always lived at the mercy of the people and revolts have toppled even the most absolute of monarchs.

Hate speech is free speech with an agenda
Free speech is the disposition of your feelings

What else are they gonna spend that money on? Chasing some peaceful Afghan who tries to enrich Germans with an axe?

The dominant ideology defines what may or may not be said

There's no such thing as hate speech

Yeah, nah, you're just a faggot

There is no such thing.

Is hate speech not something which coincides with harassment?

>not talking about some direct quote from the first democratic vote in Athens
= I have no source and am making it up.

The press being largely free in what it can publish is not the same as "I can say whatever I want," which is how contemporary anons in the US use the phrase "free speech."

It honestly sounds like you've come around to my position on this. I'm basically Foucauldian on power and don't believe at all in natural rights (mainly because there's no more evidence for them existing than the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

FPBP
Of course, now they're trying to put everything into hate speech category.

>dormant ideology

Volcano detected.

And you're an Australian bogan with a proxy.

We'll you see, it involves a thing called Muh feelings.

Perjury is not free speech nor should it be. Neither is advocacy of violence that is likely to result in imminate lawless action (or however our law phrases it). Also I could see speech/press that interferes with police investigation or military operations as being possibly illegal. These are all common sense restrictions, but "hate speech" is a retarded restriction that obviously places value on feelings or certain political positions.

Why would I need a source for something that I'm not talking about? Do you want me to cite a source for the idea of free speech as a western concept? I'm not looking to apply the Athenian definition.

And I've never even mentioned rights, I don't think free speech is a human right. I'm arguing against hate speech, that's all I've done. Your position was that hate speech was fine and I argued against it.

Imminent*

In the US free speech is defined as anything that the left agrees with and hate speech is anything they disagree with. This makes it easy to change the narrative and throw their own people under the bus if something doesn't seem to be working.

By left I mean, Democrats, liberals and all associated groups.

Notice how quickly the left threw homosexuals to the curb once it became apparent that islam wouldn't tolerate them. That's how it is with the left; good and evil are meaningless terms to them all they want is power and will do whatever it takes to acquire it.

I'm giving examples of how "free speech" is not an established Western concept. If you look closely at the key moments when arguments are made for something approximating free expression, you see it's always qualified by all kinds of responsibilities (basically forms of hate speech) and that these are flexible and determined by those in power, but that there is absolutely no other alternative. This is the Western history of free speech -- that it has never existed. I would add also that it never should, because rights are always tempered by responsibilities because we live collectively in large social units. My position is to observe that liberatarian anons on Sup Forums have a retarded and historically false understanding of "free speech" and that "hate speech" is just another name for what Isaiah Berlin calls "negative liberty," which is a necessary component of any just society.

I'm off to pursue "free drink," which is a much more important principle than "free speech."

Innate or contrived, it's an essential liberty to any meaningful democratic society. Going down the "everything is a social construct road" really gets us nowhere.

>positive liberty
So, what social contract have you signed in my name for me today, you authoritarian faggot?

Yes I see that and I understand your examples. I still think that free speech without hate speech is the natural and preferable extension of those ideas. This is where we disagree.

Enjoy your drinks.

Feelings.

>So, what social contract have you signed in my name for me today, you authoritarian faggot?
The contract that forces you not to live in your own little space bubble and to accept some of the consequences of what you do on others around you. It's called sharing a polis or being political.

Hate speech is free speech. There is no line.

/thread

Wait for the day when you get arrested for something stupid little bootlicking shit.

Then let's see if you're singing the same tune.

>The contract that forces you not to live in your own little space bubble and to accept some of the consequences of what you do on others around you
That's rich. The whole point of developing the concept of "positive rights" is an attempt to avoid people having to face consequences for their actions.

free speech doesn't exist, it's just a ilusion

>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.

It's literally not defined.

Judge does whatever they want when they hear the word "hate crime" because "hate is bad".

>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 free speech, to which Congress shall make no law to abridge.

Censoring hate speech is actually unconstitutional. Should we sue Twitter?

I'm not going to apologize for wanting real free speech, Friendo.

Define 'inciting'?
Why is the onus not solely on the person actually performing the violent act?

Define malice?
How is it possible to determine what is going on inside someone's brain?

Hate speech is free speech.

If you try and draw lines, its because you hate free speech.

That's because Germany doesn't have freedom of speech.

What if your constitution is wrong?

A private enterprise shouldn't be forced to publish things it doesn't want to publish. Surely free speech laws are there to restrict government, not give government power more power to interfere with the private businesses of it's citizens?

I'm not American, obviously, but that can't possibly be how the constitution is applied.

What if your constitution is wrong?

>Sue Twitter

Well not really because it's Twitter that owns your tweets, and they can control what's posted.

Then you amend it dummy.

threats are already illegal and fall under threatening speech

where is the line between free speech and hate speech

youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU

Words shouldn't be illegal. Ever.
Only actions.

That being said, there are such things as word-actions. Screaming 'bomb' on a plane, for example. The crime isn't the act of screaming, not is it in word 'bomb'. Rather, it is the word-act, which in this case may constitute reckless endangerment, that is criminal.

I think you'd have an easier time convincing a jury that your statements, even if made through social media, still falls under the free speech umbrella. Especially with all the millennials.

>don't believe at all in natural rights (mainly because there's no more evidence for them existing than the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

YOU don't have to believe in natural rights for them to exist, leave that sort of higher thinking to us big boys

What happened there wasnt really anything to do with free speech tho.

Eh not really. If I say that black people are stupid, that's hateFUL speech but it's not legally Hate Speech. However if I say blacks are stupid therefore we should attack them then it's an incitement of violence.

Oh, because it's so hard to be a nigger in Western society today. Where you're given everything with zero expectations and if you fuck up, as you tend to do since you're inferior, people will make excuse after excuse for you.

Go back to tumblr, kike.

>be canadian
>say something wrong
>get divorced
>cucked into oblivion

such is the way of the leaf

The term hate speech implies that it is the speech itself that is illegal like there is either:
a) a combination of dangerous words or
b) a specific 'hateful' frame of mind, that is criminal in nature.

The term is a misnomer because it is neither the hate, nor the speech, that is really being targeted by this sort of legislation. Rather, it is the results of speech. Therefore, I argue that the legal code should change the term 'hate speech' to something that more honestly describes the nature of the concept - something like 'grievous emotional harm' or 'aggravated meanness'

It is a fundamentally relativistic, and therefore unjust, legal philosophy, because it is based entirely on subjectivity, i.e. the inferred intent of the accused, and the consequential. self-reported, negative emotions of the victim.

>this is the correct answer