What's the difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech?

What's the difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech?

This is a very important question that needs to be asked, or our freedoms may be at risk

Other urls found in this thread:

therebel.media/comedian_mike_ward_180_000
theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

[deleted]

Go shitpost somewhere else

Easy.
The difference is the presence or lack of presence of the will to incite violence

>I hate those Mountain Jews so much.
Perfectly fine

>Let's go kill those Mountain Jews
Hate speech.

No difference

Speech that I don't like is hate speech.

every speech can be hate speech, it only matters who you talk to, not what you say

Whatever the dominant group in a society finds offense is hate speech.

nope, it's only hate speech if Mountain Jews die afer you said it

Hate speech is what people don't want to hear

The entire idea of free speech rights is to protect unpopular speech. Otherwise no mention of free speech rights is even needed.

sauce

Free speech is free. Hate speech is illegal and the constitution will jail you.

hora, hora medkit. it's not your fucking reddit shit. Alberto's post is fpbp. We're ot here to teach basic shit, lurk moar you fucking mountain jew.

There is nothing like hate speach. Its existance would be considered only if there were negative opinions being spread provided with fake data, but in every other case calling a fucking nigger a nigger is just opinion. If words can hurt some, he should kill himself because he is just pathetic peace of shit.

In this exercise, please compare tissue paper and the speed of light in a vacuum.

nah m8 in france the sentence "I hate mountain jews so much" could get you convicted of hate speech crime, precisely "incitement to hatred or violence against a person or group of persons because of their place of origin, ethnicity or absence of ethnicity, nationality or a specific religion"

So any sentence that "fuel the hate" could be condemned.

Free speech IS hate speech :^)

if it makes the wrong people butthurt then it's hatespeech

Free speech is objective, Hate speech is relative

That must get really dangerous around football season, eh?

>I hate the Welsh!
Jail

If you follow the natural path of free speech you end up with pretty crazy laws. In Canada for example you can be jailed for 'hate facts'. That means presenting crime statistics based on race or any factual evidence that could be used to stir up dissent amongst a group.

Even the liberals would be against some of the hate speech laws in European countries. Calling any member of government a Nazi gets you jailed in Sweden, which would mean liberals wouldn't be allowed to open their mouth. And France has a history of people going to prison for posting things like 'she's a liar' on youtube videos of politicians speaking.

Hate speech doesn't set a good precedent because then "hate ____" is used to justify intense government control, and what if someone they hate like Trump gets into power? Then he has all that control over their words and speech.

The only ones who want censorship are the filthy tribalist establishment climbers

There is no difference.
It's just a law for a bunch of minorities that can't take a fucking joke or opinion.

lol'd

This is just trolling:
Free speech is a myth. It has never existed. It's always about responsibilities and societies.

In Canada it's actually not that bad. It just stops you from going full 14/88. To get charged with hate speech all of these conditions must be met:

>1. The hate speech must be the most severe of the genre;
Meaning gas the kikes, race war now.
>2. The hate speech must be targeted to an identifiable group;
Such as the kikes
>3. It must be public;
So this board for example
>4. It must be deliberate, not careless;
You must go full 14/88 and not just accidently say nigger after a black person won a game of mario kart.
>5. Excluded from hate speech are good faith interpretations of religious doctrine, discussion of issues of public interest, and literary devices like sarcasm and irony;
So Muslims can't be arrested for hate speech against gays.
>6. The statements must be hateful when considered in their social and historical context;
Kikes were gased. Saying gas them is causing anudda shoah.
>7. No prosecution can proceed without approval of the attorney-general, which introduces political accountability because the attorney-general is a cabinet minister.
It gives you some breathing room because each case must be held accountable to the public.

There is no such thing as hate speech. That is leftist talk for "the goy knows, shut it down!".

You'll rarely see hate speech enforced to anyone else then whites. Hate speech is the tool that liberals and socialists use to maintain their narrative and "normalize" (aka domesticate) us.

...

That case was won. So that statement does not apply. It was said in court but because they ruled against it meant there is precedent that truth isn't hate speech.

Are you advocating illegal (felonious) actions?

If you are its conspiracy. If you aren't its free speech. Misdemeanors aren't real.

Hate speech is anything that can take down cultural marxism.

I'm a Canadian expat and it WAS that bad in Canada when I left. You underestimate the power of their Human Rights Committee. Even Canadian comedians are getting dangerously close to being sent to prison and are often having to hire lawyers to help protect them when they tell an off color joke or 'heckel back hecklers'

therebel.media/comedian_mike_ward_180_000

Exactly this guy.

Seems like we're devolving when in 1980 a first grader could comprehend "Sticks and stones..."
And now collage seniors need safe speech zones.

No, its really bad if you say anything bad about Muslims, even if the facts are true

Nothing

fpbp

There's no such thing as "Hate Speech".

There's no such thing as hate speech. Conspiracy to attack other people is a different thing.

There is no difference, hate speech is a purely objective term. The fact that this has to be discussed means we already live in ussr. Next on the agenda: what is doublethink?

>Kikes were gased
HOWEVER

There is no such thing as hate speech separate from free speech.

Free speech is the idea that a man may say or write what ever he wishes, no matter how controversial it may be.

And before idiots talk about yelling fire in a theater. Please learn what the fuck a call to action is.

When it becomes a call to action - violence.

Hate speech consists of wanting people dead based on their race, religion or sexual orientation.

I wanna succ those pits

hate speech is a fake concept. speech is speech and should always be free
"Sticks and stone can break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

The two are mutually exclusive. If you have 'hate speech' laws in your country, then you don't have free speech. If you have free speech in your country then there won't be hate speech laws in you country.
Now, inciting violence and threats of violence are not hate speech. They are voiced intent to harm others. This is different for what most countries consider 'hate speech.'
In Canada, if you say, "I hate fucking dykes, I wish they would die." That's hate speech and you can be charged for it.
If you say, "I hate fucking dykes and me and my friends are going to shoot every dyke we see in the head tomorrow at noon." That is a very clear threat and would bring law enforcement attention in the US or anywhere else in the world.

What's the difference between Free Speech and yelling "Fire!" in a theatre or saying "I am going to kill Barack Hussein Obama tomorrow at 1:30 p.m EST near Madison Square when his convoy drive through there?

This is a very important question that needs to be asked, or our freedoms may be at risk

those are signs of criminal intent and should be carefully monitored, but still you have the right to say them none the less.

Hate speech is what the government uses to oppress you.

THIS

There's no such thing as hate speech.
If there was, then a subjective definition must be applied which limits free speech. See?
Now fuck off, you AIDS infested faggot.

Hate speech to too subjective to be taken seriously

theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

who is she

yelling fire in a theatre was some bullshit communists fags used to try and curtail free speech and the other one is a threat. Neither should be illegal.

...

"Hate speech" is any speech that Jews hate.

basically in USA you aren't allowed:
>to incite or provoke immediate violence
>defame someone
>have no protected right to buy or sell porn, but can consume it in your home as long as it isn't CP
also commercial speech can be regulated

everything else is allowed

Nothing. "Hate speech" is just free speech being labeled by jews.

I could take "human rights" and call them "selfish rights", make that my entire argument against repealing the first amendment, and it would be virtually the same scenario.

>provoke immediate violence
>immediate violence
>immediate
So its ok to schedule an ass whoopin?

Why does that French Horn have no mouthpiece? Did the man stick it up his ass or what?

There is no difference you alpine jew.

what about shit like yelling fire in a movie theater? what speech is that

again, these are not binding criminal law, only civil law subject to monetary fines

>she

One is the concept of being able to speak freely because worlds aren't violent, and the other is the idea you can censor anything that offends you.

There's no difference. Fuck off with your Jew mind games.

Maybe she's wearing it?

The constitution outlines the role of government and it's power limitations. What is this stupid fucking faggot on about?

argument for repealing*

One exists and the other doesn't

By today's standards,
Free Speech: Something I approve of
Hate Speech: Something that triggers me

What's the difference between her vagina and her question?
I don't want to stick my dick into your question.

If the person saying it is white it is hate speech. If they are non-white it is free speech.

All you have to do is look at Leslie Jones and her kill all white people quotes to know that is true.

it depends on how you say it

nothing.

Hate speech is protected speech in America, and it should be in Cuckrope too.

Leaf, the amount of thought-policing that goes on in your country is slightly less than what takes place in Western Europe.

pay debnts

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Yeah but we aren't talking about cuck countries and their cuck policies. We're talking about real countries that have hate speech laws that make sense.

>What's the difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech?
The same difference between dogs and terriers.

There is no difference, none whatsoever

Free speech is a real thing.

Nothing.

> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me

But some idiot who listens to those words will.

OR

> Niggers are stupid.
= free speech

> Let's go kill niggers!
= hate speech.

Easy as that.

"Hate speech" must be legal or else free speech does not exist.

No, that's inciting violence.

You either have free speech or you do not. You are able to speak openly and without any repercussion save more speech or you are not, and thereby do not have free speech.

The left wants to be censorious and then label the speech that they find acceptable within their taboos "free", even though they do not believe in free speech.

It would be interesting if they could just be honest and say "We do not believe in freedom of speech. We believe that breeching certain speech taboos ought to be met with both civic and legal punishment, and that it is acceptable to engage in vigilante justice against speech criminals."

But, they like newspeak. A lot.

>this pic
If only uncle adolf had won...

You should have prefaced this with
>this is how it works and is defined in Canada,

because we have freedom of expression and clearly defined hate speech. However there is an argument to say that even the current hate speech defjnition in the charter of rights and freedoms is kind of grey in that one might allow different people to interpret what hate is, this making it a bit of a problem where intent is not appropriately identified or common sense is ignored

Except the constitution says nothing about hate speech. When the constitution was written "hate" speech, was still free speech.

Free speech is being able to communicate what ever you want, light or dark.

Hate speech, is infrigement of this. They don't go together at all.

Hate speech has blurry and oportunistic lines as well.

Wrong. The dude even's got a blue checkmark, which means he's educated and in polite society and I'll take his word over an anonymous troller.

Free speech is being able to voice your opinions without fear of government retaliation (being able to criticize the government, people).
Hate speech is derogatory comments directed at a group, race, people, etc.
Though not the intent, free speech protects hate speech, because if you can be punished (by the government) for speaking against people or a race, it becomes very easy for the government to then extend the same punishments to criticism of the government, actions of large companies, and more.

>blue checkmark
How will I ever recover

It's a square-rectangle situation, all hate speech is free speech, but not all free speech is hate speech.

Holy fuck I laughed. Trump has a blue checkmark buddy.

>It's not that bad
It's actually worse, fellow leaf

She's perfect, I'll need a name and link. ASAP