Should hate speech be protected as free speech?

[kvnchrist]

I understand the desire for people to shout down those who denigrate the being or actions of others, but I also see the need for such people to out themselves for their ideals and the promote discussion on what exactly is hatred, ignorance stereotyping.

I think that the concept of tolerance is a blanket solution to a real problem we have in society and this problem will not go away by ideologically looking the other way when people act out. There should be standards in society that people and groups like The Westbourgh Baptist Church and the ku klux klan have been actively degrading, that are being duplicated by those who, today remain in the shadows, germinating discontent and anger to a level that brings these hate crimes into being.

I think that there are those who benefit greatly by hate and hate mongering and in order for everybody to understand the difference between sheer hatred and systemic ignorance, there should be open debate on every bodies individual beliefs. I think that the hold of many of the charismatic have on their initiates can be eroded if these people are given a chance to air their opinions

Both hatred and ignorance are dangerous and I'm not sure that either of these can be eradicated, but I think hatred is more a conscious choice than ignorance. I think the best way to repair the damage ignorance does to a human society is discussion. I think that the only real hold that many leaders of hate groups have on their newest members is the sense of repression of opinions and ideals that saturates the most radical groups. I think as long as there is an open and honest avenue to air grievances, either real or imagined, that we can lessen the attraction of these hate groups to many who ultimately end up there.

[NemesisTheWarlock]

People should be free to say whatever they wish, freedom of expression is an essential component in a free society. The modern trend of suggesting that some people should be stopped from expressing their views as they "incite hatred" is the slippery slope to a repressive, ignorant society. As Benjamin Franklin very astutely observed several centuries ago "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[rizon72]

The question that comes to mind, if you start going after 'hate' speech, is how far do you go? Its easy right now to point to a guy on the street corner yelling about killing every green person, but if you start going after that, history shows that governments rarely stop there.

[JimboUK]

People should be free to say whatever they wish, freedom of expression is an essential component in a free society. The modern trend of suggesting that some people should be stopped from expressing their views as they "incite hatred" is the slippery slope to a repressive, ignorant society. As Benjamin Franklin very astutely observed several centuries ago "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

This^^^.

 

You can't use oppression to make people tolerant and you can't claim to be tolerant when you're intolerant of others.

[HeyYou]

There is always going to be those folks that "hate" other groups because of their race, religion, lifestyle, whathaveyou. There is no getting rid of it. I think giving those folks their platform to expound their beliefs would be the best thing for them. And others would then be free to point out the fallacies in their arguments in a public forum. Of course, there will also always be those that resort to violence to express their views...... or their disagreement with someone else's views..... Can't say that I am really surprised that various governments haven't yet discovered that you can NOT legislate away behavior. Just doesn't work that way.

[TRoaches]

Free speech laws are not about protecting safe, uncontroversial expression. They exist to protect controversial, unpopular expression. If we reach a point where any expression, no matter how controversial or unpopular it may be, is prohibited then free speech will truly be dead.

 

The right to hate speech has been upheld enough times that I doubt any legislature is going to make any further attempts to legislate against it. The new topic of interest with regards to anti-free speech legislation is the cyberbullying laws that the congress people are tripping over themselves to sponsor. They often are named after a kid who committed suicide, and many of them criminalize posting anything online that could cause "emotional distress" or some similarly vague criteria. example

[NemesisTheWarlock]

Unfortunately here in Britain we don't have the benefit of the First Amendment and our ability to freely express our opinions is under serious assault. There is a youngster currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for a throw away comment he posted on Facebook regarding last years riots. As Ice T said back in the 90's, what we have here is "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say"

[antonkr]

Freedom of speech means just that, freedom of speech. Giving the government, or anyone the right to restrict on it is a terrible idea, for obvious reasons.

[JimboUK]

Unfortunately here in Britain we don't have the benefit of the First Amendment and our ability to freely express our opinions is under serious assault. There is a youngster currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for a throw away comment he posted on Facebook regarding last years riots. As Ice T said back in the 90's, what we have here is "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say"

 

We do have Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, sadly no one seems to take a blind bit of notice of it.

[Hardwaremaster]

Well if we are all truly being honest here, we all know deep down that being "Politically Correct" is really means willfully engaging in "deceitful behavior" to protect another person or groups feelings from getting "hurt". Which if I maybe so bold, where I come from, that is called "lying". If you cut through the the terminology it's really just another progressive mechanism used to misdirect and or alleviate responsibility from an individual's or group's action or cause. Consider the term "Discrimination". Why should the word Discriminate deserve the negative connotation that it's commonly affiliated with. Due to progressive influence, even the Princeton Dictionary defines discrimination as: "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice." But their second definition is much more original and accurate: "the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished." For instance, many people at the end of each month have discriminate their budget to figure out which bills they will pay. In fact, by it's true definition, we all discriminate, every second of our lives, It's not just common, It's necessary. The problem with emotionally based Progressive Ideas are that they breed a basic detachment from the reality of things. It seems that more and more people choose to escalate what I call "False Entitlement" issues that are based on emotions, rather than logic. Which alleviates them of all responsibility the only way to fix an actual issue is to address the problems at their root cause with "Political Correctness" being nothing more then blatant misdirection.

 

 

If anyone needed a single case to point to in order to show that Political Correctness has gone completely insane here in the United States the quote below is it. With the rise of such practices, we also see the growth of the Governmental Watchdog which seeks to control every aspect of our lives. These politicians use it as a method upon which they preach to the masses, telling them what they want to hear, even if it is disingenuous. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil05.gif

The New York City Department of Education has banned several words in an attempt to be as politically correct as possible, although I see it as pure imbecilic nonsense. There are some fifty words which are officially banned from being used on tests given to students by the city, the banning of which is outright absurd. In fact, it is not just these words that are banned, but indeed the entire topic cannot be included on any tests administered by the city. This is supposedly because such references “could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students” according to the New York Post. These subjects were outlined in a request for proposals which was given to companies who compete to create standardized tests for English, math, science and other subjects which are administered multiple times per year.

 

It is my humble opinion that censoring any topic from a standardized test (within reason, of course, as explicitly violent or erotic material obviously has no place on a school test) is nothing short of absurd and represents some of the more troubling ways the American Watchdog has reared its ugly head. However, the Department of Education insists that this is not censorship and that this is a completely routine, typical practice. Unfortunately, our government has proven time and time again that they’re not the most competent individuals when it comes to logic and critical thinking. Unfortunately, New York City is not alone and such “sensitivity guidelines” have actually been published by a group of states. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes003.gif

 

According to the list: which makes my head spin. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared009.gif

 

 

 

Dinosaurs are banned because they supposedly might offend people who do not believe in evolution, yet this makes little to no sense given that even the most fundamentalist creationists seem to realize that there were, indeed dinosaurs. Words suggesting either wealth or poverty are banned because they could supposedly make children feel jealous or saddened. I guess the New York City Department of Education believes that if you pretend it doesn’t exist, it simply doesn’t exist. I guess they believe that if students don’t read the word “divorce” or anything to do with it, they’ll simply forget that their parents are divorced. That makes about as much sense as thinking that if no one says “cancer” or “disease” suddenly no one in the world will have cancer. They said that tests should not mention group dancing, various luxuries, junk food, homelessness and even witches. Tests cannot mention homes with swimming pools and computers or anything which could be construed as potentially “disrespectful to authority or authority figures.” Even more insane, they are not allowed to personify animals or inanimate objects, which makes even less sense than most of the items. One of the most common justifications for these nonsensical practices is that they are attempting to avoid offending people of certain religious beliefs. Birthdays are banned since Jehovah’s Witnesses do not celebrate them, witches and Halloween are banned since they could be interpreted as pagan. Terrorism is also banned because it might be scary to some of the school students.

 

 

 

If you’re absolutely astounded by these choices, you’re not alone. I honestly can’t even believe that such a thing is true, but I guess it goes to show just how far our country has gone down the rabbit hole of political correctness.

 

If it continues like this we'll we have to use the "accepted and correct" way to interact with the rest of society. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused009.gif

 

 

 

http://www.bored.com/pcphrases/

 

 

Edited August 19, 2013 by Hardwaremaster