Should the United States Implement Hate Speech Laws?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Absolutely not. The laws that we have regarding incitement to riot and other sorts of speech that can actually cause serious issues are sufficient.

[The East Marches]

The rest of the developed world lacks free speech. Just look at the Europeans being arrested for jokes or the wrong political opinion.

Of course it does, pet.

Belgium isn't even a real country anyway.

Proofs here

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35888748

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/23/glasgow-crash-tweet_n_6371428.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/france-la-pen-anti-muslim-incitement-150922151418194.html

Even if you disagree with their opinions as I do, they still have the right to express them without fear of Government clamp down.

[The Liberated Territories]

Unless Canada seems like a country where free speech is oppressed, hate speech laws don't necessarily ban free speech as a whole.

What about all the horror stories I keep getting out of the United Kingdom?

Is there no freedom to make jokes?

[Esternial]

Of course it does, pet.

Belgium isn't even a real country anyway.

Proofs here

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35888748

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/23/glasgow-crash-tweet_n_6371428.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/france-la-pen-anti-muslim-incitement-150922151418194.html

Even if you disagree with their opinions as I do, they still have the right to express them without fear of Government clamp down.

They should have that right because...

Please answer something other than "because it's their right".

[The East Marches]

Belgium isn't even a real country anyway.

Proofs here

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35888748

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/23/glasgow-crash-tweet_n_6371428.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/france-la-pen-anti-muslim-incitement-150922151418194.html

Even if you disagree with their opinions as I do, they still have the right to express them without fear of Government clamp down.

They should have that right because...

Please answer something other than "because it's their right".

Natural rights of man and all that? I know mainland Europeans aren't so into those. I wouldn't blame you for not having read your Locke.

[Grand Britannia]

Unless Canada seems like a country where free speech is oppressed, hate speech laws don't necessarily ban free speech as a whole.

What about all the horror stories I keep getting out of the United Kingdom?

Is there no freedom to make jokes?

Jokes are racist, m8. Best conform to the correct opinions and not think by yourself.

[Esternial]

They should have that right because...

Please answer something other than "because it's their right".

Natural rights of man and all that? I know mainland Europeans aren't so into those. I wouldn't blame you for not having read your Locke.

"because it's their natural right"

Clever girl.

[The East Marches]

Natural rights of man and all that? I know mainland Europeans aren't so into those. I wouldn't blame you for not having read your Locke.

"because it's their natural right"

Clever girl.

[New Grestin]

When it isn't looking like Trump might become president and our money isn't on fire, then maybe we can worry about hate speech.

Besides, the First Amendment works well enough. People can say what they want, but they aren't free from the consequences, professional or otherwise, of what they say.

It's simple, it's lean, and it works when it needs to.

[Socialist Nordia]

Good point. You don't really see things like WBC going on the the rest of the developed world.

The rest of the developed world lacks free speech. Just look at the Europeans being arrested for jokes or the wrong political opinion.

Is Canada oppressive? Can you make the case that Canada is oppressive? Canada has hate speech laws and everyone there is happy and still free.

[The East Marches]

The rest of the developed world lacks free speech. Just look at the Europeans being arrested for jokes or the wrong political opinion.

Is Canada oppressive? Can you make the case that Canada is oppressive? Canada has hate speech laws and everyone there is happy and still free.

Government punishment of hate speech makes them an oppressive government.

[Liriena]

I do believe that the United States should implement hate speech laws. Not censorship, but definitely penalizing speech that unequivocally encourages hatred towards whole groups of people, and speech that excuses and promotes violence against groups of people.

[Socialist Nordia]

Is Canada oppressive? Can you make the case that Canada is oppressive? Canada has hate speech laws and everyone there is happy and still free.

Government punishment of hate speech makes them an oppressive government.

Wow. Ok. Canada. Oppressive. I don't even know what to say.
In that case, why is Canada still higher than the US on the human freedom index, along with much of Europe? Hate speech laws don't mean oppression.
http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/08/19/ ... try-world/
How can you even put Canada and oppressive in the same sentence? It's Canada.

[New Grestin]

Government punishment of hate speech makes them an oppressive government.

Wow. Ok. Canada. Oppressive. I don't even know what to say.
In that case, why is Canada still higher than the US on the human freedom index, along with much of Europe? Hate speech laws don't mean oppression.
http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/08/19/ ... try-world/
How can you even put Canada and oppressive in the same sentence? It's Canada.

According to that index, Hong Kong ranks higher than the United States in freedom.

Something about a city in China, of all places, being freer than an entire country doesn't sound quite right.

[The East Marches]

Government punishment of hate speech makes them an oppressive government.

Wow. Ok. Canada. Oppressive. I don't even know what to say.
In that case, why is Canada still higher than the US on the human freedom index, along with much of Europe? Hate speech laws don't mean oppression.
http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/08/19/ ... try-world/
How can you even put Canada and oppressive in the same sentence? It's Canada.

They count hate speech laws as a bonus. Flawed index* also, includes economics and other things not related to political freedom.

[Annorax]

I do believe that the United States should implement hate speech laws. Not censorship, but definitely penalizing speech that unequivocally encourages hatred towards whole groups of people, and speech that excuses and promotes violence against groups of people.

That's a bad idea and it can be a double-edged sword. Right wing groups could then use those laws against people who speak out against them.

[Liriena]

I do believe that the United States should implement hate speech laws. Not censorship, but definitely penalizing speech that unequivocally encourages hatred towards whole groups of people, and speech that excuses and promotes violence against groups of people.

That's a bad idea and it can be a double-edged sword. Right wing groups could then use those laws against people who speak out against them.

How?

We're talking about penalizing speech such as "kill all jews", "gays are lower than animals", "all trans people are child predators", "Irish women should be forcibly sterilized", etc., etc.

We're not talking about prohibiting people from saying "conservatism sucks" or "liberalism is worse than Hitler".

[The Two Jerseys]

Better idea: let's not.

[Annorax]

That's a bad idea and it can be a double-edged sword. Right wing groups could then use those laws against people who speak out against them.

How?

We're talking about penalizing speech such as "kill all jews", "gays are lower than animals", "all trans people are child predators", "Irish women should be forcibly sterilized", etc., etc.

We're not talking about prohibiting people from saying "conservatism sucks" or "liberalism is worse than Hitler".

Replace all of those with [insert right wing group you don't like here] that' how.

We don't need a thought police thank you very much,

[Jolet]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Free speech is held dear to the American people. Other than slander and libel, Americans have been free to say pretty much anything they want throughout our history. However, today many are calling for some regulation on absolute freedom of speech. Following the tragic Orlando shooting, members of the Westboro Baptist Church are protesting the funerals of the victims, claiming that God sent this shooter as a punishment for being homosexuals.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pul ... story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... didnt-die/
In many countries, actions such as this would be illegal. Should the same measures be put in place in the US? On one hand, it would seem as if these families should receive the right to mourn their loved ones in peace. However, some other countries seem to have gone a bit too far with their hate speech laws, as simply making a racist joke can sometimes land you in jail in Britain. Another issue is that implementing hate speech laws may not even be permitted by the US Constitution. Would the first amendment allow such laws to exist?

In my opinion, protests like these which promote violent killings and cause intense emotional harm to innocent, mourning families should not be legal. I cannot support its legality in good conscience. But would that be feasible? Would more harm than good come of it? I seek other opinions. Should the US institute laws prohibiting certain forms of hate speech?

I'm going to say no.

Now. Here is why.

I do not trust my government. At all. They have a rather poor habit of fucking things up and consolidating their own power. When you give them the power to monitor "hate speech", all of a sudden that becomes open to their own interpretation? What is hate speech defined as? How does one report that? How does it stand in a court of law? What are the repercussions of committing crimes of hate speech?

You place that purview in the hands of the Feds, or really, the government in general, and it's going to be misused. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that speech criticizing the government could be classified as "hate speech", as it makes government employees uncomfortable about themselves due to their workplace, nevermind the multitude of Congressmembers who would be offended every time someone criticized their judgement. If you give them the right to prosecute every time that they feel they've been maligned due to "hate speech" (in quotations because it's a rather nebulous term), you will be giving them an inch that they will then take a yard from. The United States has always come down hard on free speech freedoms when it is in the best interests of their people, and in this case hate speech laws are not the way to go.

That said, what happened in Orlando regarding the WBC and the Freedom Rider's (not to mention the rest of the city) reaction to them was on point. We, as citizens, should be sticking up for each other, especially when we are laid low. Please understand, I do not like the WBC. They are awful, disgusting people who warp and distort the Christian faith in ways it was never meant to bend. Not quite as bad as the Catholics, but I will say they are the sort of people who would have cheered the Crusades as moral victories for Christians everywhere. All of the Crusades, not just the first one, which should say something. However, that doesn't mean the Government should step in and say, "Well, you can't say that because it might offend somebody". That's where the line is drawn in terms of free speech.

[Jolet]

They should have that right because...

Please answer something other than "because it's their right".

Natural rights of man and all that? I know mainland Europeans aren't so into those. I wouldn't blame you for not having read your Locke.

I've read Locke. He's dry, and rather difficult to get through. However, he's also got quite a few excellent points regarding tyrrany and such- good stuff. He does present it as one large argument, though, which is... Well, a lot to take in at once.

[Crimoria]

One word (yes).

[UniversalCommons]

People need to know who their enemies are. It is hard to identify and act against people who hate if everything is couched in politically correct, bizarre code words. If it is not out there properly, it becomes easier manipulate people with coded language.

[Socialist Nordia]

Wow. Ok. Canada. Oppressive. I don't even know what to say.
In that case, why is Canada still higher than the US on the human freedom index, along with much of Europe? Hate speech laws don't mean oppression.
http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/08/19/ ... try-world/
How can you even put Canada and oppressive in the same sentence? It's Canada.

According to that index, Hong Kong ranks higher than the United States in freedom.

Something about a city in China, of all places, being freer than an entire country doesn't sound quite right.

Just because you don't like Hong Kong doesn't make it unfree. Those rankings were done by 3 of the worlds most respected research institutes. Anyway, the point is, laws like this don't lead to oppression.

[Jolet]

Free speech is part of the bigger problem these days, which is people that have gotten disillusioned about their freedoms and get too cocky.

Imagine a cat and a dog. Your average pet dog has been trained to know where its limits lie. A cat has not. A cat doesn't give a fuck and will be a dick because it thinks it can do whatever the fuck it wants. Even if you punish the cat in a verbal or even physical way, the cat will just think you're being an unreasonable asshat and that you should just let it do whatever the fuck it wants.

Let's just say there's a bunch of Americans that are, essentially, big pussies.

No offense, but I would prefer to be a cat who was a dick to everyone rather than be a dog who's been trained to heel everytime someone offers them a treat, if we're using your terminology. Cats, in this case, are more free animals, while dogs are confined, restricted, and basically led for the majority of their lives, without doing what they want to do, rather, bowing to their master's will instead. Dogs are more dependent on their masters- they can't hunt without their master's consent, they rely on them for food, shelter, water- basically all the necessities. Most cats do perfectly fine by themselves, be that hunting or the like. I'd much rather be a cat that could do what it likes than a subservient dog who turns to its master to solve all of its problems.