Free Speech:「Yes or No」

[Sanghyeok]

I simply said arrested, you were the first person to mention jail. An arrest can lead to fines or jail.

So are you against fines?

[Kowani]

Yes and

I simply said arrested, you were the first person to mention jail. An arrest can lead to fines or jail.

Yep. Your point here is?

[Katganistan]

Speech presenting a clear and imminent danger, such as incitement to riot, should be prosecuted by the government.

[Shazbotdom]

I simply said arrested, you were the first person to mention jail. An arrest can lead to fines or jail.

Yep. Your point here is?

With Hate Speech being too broad, it would be severely hard to enforce.

Now, yell "Fire" in a crowded place that will cause injury or death to others, incite a riot, call for the extermination of a group of people, and I understand banning that, but if it's just something you don't like someone saying? Nah. The Government should have no place banning that.

Now, if you are in a business and you say something that the owner/manager doesn't like? They have a right to kick you out. Your rights do not extend to where it infringes upon the rights of another person.

[Elwher]

I simply said arrested, you were the first person to mention jail. An arrest can lead to fines or jail.

So are you against fines?

I am against the government punishing hate speech at all.

[Sanghyeok]

So are you against fines?

I am against the government punishing hate speech at all.

So people should be able to see whatever they want, regardless of consequences?

[BurritoBowl]

More and more often I fantasize about a world with no speech, let alone free speech. Finally some peace and quiet

[Sanghyeok]

More and more often I fantasize about a world with no speech, let alone free speech. Finally some peace and quiet

>.<

[Wizlandia]

I am against the government punishing hate speech at all.

So people should be able to see whatever they want, regardless of consequences?

[Sanghyeok]

So people should be able to see whatever they want, regardless of consequences?

Strongly disagree.

[Sanghyeok]

Speech presenting a clear and imminent danger, such as incitement to riot, should be prosecuted by the government.

In your opinion, would this include hate speech?

[Wizlandia]

Speech presenting a clear and imminent danger, such as incitement to riot, should be prosecuted by the government.

In your opinion, would this include hate speech?

Not the author, but for context the clear and imminent danger is a standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, and the court ruled that the speech in the case (which was clearly hate speech) did not reach the standard. So I'd imagine the answer would be no given this context.

Nevermind, "clear and present danger" is Schenck v. United States. Brandenburg v. Ohio is speech that would create "imminent lawless action."

[Kowani]

So people should be able to see whatever they want, regardless of consequences?

cringe

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

More and more often I fantasize about a world with no speech, let alone free speech. Finally some peace and quiet

thought this was me for a second. nice flag, btw.

[Wizlandia]

cringe

Being against free speech is cringe.

[Wizlandia]

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. (USLegal.com)

So, if I say all Trump supporters are morons who do not deserve to live, that is hate speech. Should my saying that get me arrested?

I feel like there's a point here and I'm not seeing it. What does your construction have to do with what FR said?
And more importantly, where did I suggest jailing people?

Silly Kowani, if they learn the definition of the words they use, how can they fearmonger against basic common decency?

Buying up the dictionary publishers.

The point is, as should be pretty obvious, that the definition of hate speech is pretty vague, and that enforcement of it may lead to significant decrease in civil liberties beyond limiting what may be your idea of hate speech.

[Kowani]

cringe

Being against free speech is cringe.

Not really. Absolute free speech is very overrated.

I feel like there's a point here and I'm not seeing it. What does your construction have to do with what FR said?
And more importantly, where did I suggest jailing people?


Buying up the dictionary publishers.

The point is, as should be pretty obvious, that the definition of hate speech is pretty vague, and that enforcement of it may lead to significant decrease in civil liberties beyond limiting what may be your idea of hate speech.

looks at Europe
Hm. Funny how that hasn't happened yet.

[Wizlandia]

Being against free speech is cringe.

Not really. Absolute free speech is very overrated.

Controlling what others say, especially when it doesn’t harm anyones rights, is very overrated.

The point is, as should be pretty obvious, that the definition of hate speech is pretty vague, and that enforcement of it may lead to significant decrease in civil liberties beyond limiting what may be your idea of hate speech.

looks at Europe
Hm. Funny how that hasn't happened yet.

It has though. For instance while distasteful, I’d hardly call what Meechan did hate speech. There are many other examples too.

[Kowani]

Not really. Absolute free speech is very overrated.

Controlling what others say, especially when it doesn’t harm anyones rights, is very overrated.

Not really.

looks at Europe
Hm. Funny how that hasn't happened yet.

It has though. For instance while distasteful, I’d hardly call what Meechan did hate speech. There are many other examples too.

Using Count Dankula is an example is a clear indicator that you didn't look at the legal code when crafting your arguments.

[Wizlandia]

Controlling what others say, especially when it doesn’t harm anyones rights, is very overrated.

Not really.

It has though. For instance while distasteful, I’d hardly call what Meechan did hate speech. There are many other examples too.

Using Count Dankula is an example is a clear indicator that you didn't look at the legal code when crafting your arguments.

I’m going to end my part of this exchange here, since I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye or advance this conversation, especially as I hold civil liberties as important values (and from the exchange it seems like you don’t). The only thing I’ll add is that idgaf what the legal code says, the arg was that the restrictions in Europe in practice restrict more than solely hate speech.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So people should be able to see whatever they want, regardless of consequences?

Anything a person says or expresses should be free from legal consequences unless it is;

Clear, direct, earnest incitement to harm.
Conspiracy to commit a crime.
Fraud.
Harassment.
Doxxing/privacy violation.
Severe, blatant copyright infringement.
Maybe a couple of other scenarios I've forgotten, but nothing close to "all hate speech."

Because an open society, a tolerant and pluralistic society, especially a democratic society requires free speech in order to function. At least free speech in some capacity. And jurisprudence that affirms innocent until proven guilty, must assume any expression or statement is covered by free speech until proven otherwise.

For hate speech this is impossible to enforce. Hate speech is a concept with incredibly blurred lines as to what qualifies and what doesn't. Some hate speech is overt and blatant, some is hidden behind dogwhistles or jokes. Some people hate black people. Some people hate LGBT people. Some people hate white people. Some people hate cops. Some people hate redheads. Who decides which groups are protected against hate speech, and which groups aren't? Some people think being a gender critical feminist is evidence of hatred. Some people think NOT being a gender critical feminist is evidence of hatred. How do we create hate speech laws in such an environment that what constitutes hate is so heavily disputed?

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to say that hateful speech doesn't exist, or that we can't identify it at all. But I think it very difficult to identify it beyond a reasonable doubt in many cases. Protecting the innocent sometimes requires acquitting those who seem guilty, as long as a reasonable doubt remains. Since it's extremely hard, if not impossible, to inductively prove what a person's beliefs are, the moment someone pleads "not guilty" to the charge of hate speech, the case would very often be pretty much over. Because the very fact they don't consider themselves hateful would be a pretty glaring reasonable doubt.

In the end, it seems to me that the only way to craft a hate speech law that isn't extremely abusive, would be to water it down to the point where it's almost completely pointless.

looks at Europe
Hm. Funny how that hasn't happened yet.

It sorta has in places like Germany or UK. In the UK, people are said to be getting arrested left and right over tweets. In Germany, video games are completely gutted with censorship.

Sure, some places, such as Australia (represent), don't have many extremely big problems when it comes to hate speech laws (sedition laws might be another story tho). But that is because Australia, generally speaking, doesn't bother to enforce its hate speech laws other than against the most explicit Nazi nutcases. One time, a few college boys in Brisbane were sued for technically breaking a hate speech law. The lawsuit was thrown out, the plaintiff fired from her job, and a conversation across the political spectrum began about amending or binning the hate speech law in question.

Using Count Dankula is an example is a clear indicator that you didn't look at the legal code when crafting your arguments.

That seems like an undue dismissal of their argument to me. Mind elaborating?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Freedom of speech should only be limited when advocating for violence or when a well-informed individual intentionally lies with malicious intent.

Point one - FDR's day of infamy speech advocated for extreme violence against the Japanese.

Point two - How does one prove the intent of a liar?

Obviously you taste them.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Yep. Your point here is?

With Hate Speech being too broad, it would be severely hard to enforce.

Now, yell "Fire" in a crowded place that will cause injury or death to others, incite a riot, call for the extermination of a group of people, and I understand banning that, but if it's just something you don't like someone saying? Nah. The Government should have no place banning that.

Now, if you are in a business and you say something that the owner/manager doesn't like? They have a right to kick you out. Your rights do not extend to where it infringes upon the rights of another person.

So, can an employer fire his employees on such grounds?

[West Leas Oros 2]

More and more often I fantasize about a world with no speech, let alone free speech. Finally some peace and quiet

Haha mime go ...

[Kowani]

looks at Europe
Hm. Funny how that hasn't happened yet.

It sorta has in places like Germany or UK. In the UK, people are said to be getting arrested left and right over tweets.

I'm not sure "left and right" is an accurate descriptor. There's a few high publicity cases, but it's not a common experience.

In Germany, video games are completely gutted with censorship.

That's not hate speech laws, that's Germany's very expanisve anti-Nazi code.

Sure, some places, such as Australia (represent), don't have many extremely big problems when it comes to hate speech laws (sedition laws might be another story tho). But that is because Australia, generally speaking, doesn't bother to enforce its hate speech laws other than against the most explicit Nazi nutcases. One time, a few college boys in Brisbane were sued for technically breaking a hate speech law. The lawsuit was thrown out, the plaintiff fired from her job, and a conversation across the political spectrum began about amending or binning the hate speech law in question.

Neat.

Using Count Dankula is an example is a clear indicator that you didn't look at the legal code when crafting your arguments.

That seems like an undue dismissal of their argument to me. Mind elaborating?

Because the CD story is one whipped up by free speech warriors to try and make a victim narrative out of a good optics case where the legal reality is very clear cut.