No, it should not. “My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights.” is the basic law of humanity. Any law book should basically follow this line, and mostly actually do.
yes it should be protected but depending on the size of the audience it should have a duty to correct itself if it contains untruths and if it incites any violence the person that said it who’s identity will be attached to it will be arrested
There are many levels. Someone saying “I hate foreigners” or “I hate fascists” or “I hate capitalists” or “I hate gays” or “I hate cars” or “I hate science denialism” or “I hate AI” or “I hate health insurance CEOs”…that’s all very different than saying “I think all (take your pick)s should be killed.” Don’t you think? All I’m saying is, it’s just about the most subjective thing your trying to codify and it’s just not possible, reasonable, or to society to do so, imo.
“Just don’t offend” is a huge leap from “My freedom ends where someone else’s rights start”. It’s impossible not to offend somebody on this planet just by existing, and some opinions deserve the public shame that offends the people who have them.
Forgive my ignorance, but how can words infringe on the rights of others? As a member of a minority class with several hateful and hurtful slurs (that were on their way to becoming hate speech prior to the second Trump administration) I understand that some folks can get very upset but I don’t think anyone has the right to not be upset. I could be misunderstanding something though.
When someone would scream into your face “Animals like you should be shot!”, wouldn’t it hurt you?
If someone spread lies about you or your family or your business if you had one, wouldn’t it do damage?
If someone spread the word that people of color or other minorities would do this or that (wasn’t it “Haitians eating dogs” or something recently?) and it led to people attacking this minority, wouldn’t it be dangerous?
Remember January 6th, where Trump whipped up the stupid to storm the Capitol? He did not use a cattle prod or stick, he only used words, and see what has happened.
And look closely at what the GOP is doing. They are spreading lies, and repeat them, until they fester and replace the truth in the hearts of the listeners.
I mean I kind of see what you’re saying but it doesn’t really pass the smell test.
Yelling in someone’s face is assault. Spreading harmful lies about specific individuals or businesses is lible. Speech that incites violence is not protected by the first amendment. And the rest: January 6th and the misinformation machine aren’t something that can really be legislated. Lies unfortunately are protected speech unless they incite imminent violence. As much as I would like to hang the raid on the capital on Trump I watched his speech (and Bannon’s) and he only ever implies violence. The crowd whipped themselves up into the violence frenzy we saw that day.
Words absolutely can cause harm in the right conditions, but the ones that do the most damage would definitely not be hate speech. Fox News ran a segment last year where one of the hosts said homeless people should be killed and within a few days there were three separate incidents where armed men walked into homeless encampments and opened fire. I think the death toll was 9 people across the three events. But fox news spreading lies about ivermectin and masking during covid killed potentially tens of thousands. In the case of the homeless what the host did was already illegal, but the lies can’t be legislated.
The more I think about it the less I’m concerned about hate speech. The things that need to be illegal, inciting violence, already are, and the things that aren’t are murky at best and a slippery slope at worst. Especially when you consider who would be determining what is or isn’t hate speech. Right now the powers that be would label your comment as hate speech because it’s critical of the gop.
I don’t know why you are being downvoted, this is correct: “My freedom ends where the next person’s freedom starts.” We can do everything we want as long it doesn’t harm or encroach (and “harm” and “encroach” are loaded words in this context) on the next person. “Harm” and “encroach” here means you don’t diminish the other persons rights, at all.
My only gripe with this is that the state in its current form cannot be trusted to be an impartial judge of what constitutes hate speech. We see today that many states around the world are using anti hate speech laws to suppress criticism of the state of Israel. Giving the state broad powers to crack down on speech that it deems hateful will inevitably result in the state deciding that all criticism of its actions or the actions of its allies constitutes hate speech.
As an alternative, I prefer that hate speech be met with social consequences rather than criminal ones.
No, that benefits society as a whole by increasing education for the next generation. Which leads to better lives and more opportunities.
When something benefits the whole, not all individuals will see obvious benefits to themselves. But they still get to benefit from the outcomes, like better jobs more opportunities and such.
Perhaps both of them harm (or help) different parties by different amounts. So maybe a system where “My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights.” looks like a common sense framework, but when scrutinized reveals that it doesn’t really stand for anything at all.
No, it should not. “My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights.” is the basic law of humanity. Any law book should basically follow this line, and mostly actually do.
yes it should be protected but depending on the size of the audience it should have a duty to correct itself if it contains untruths and if it incites any violence the person that said it who’s identity will be attached to it will be arrested
What human right does hate speech infringe upon? No one has, or needs, the right to be unoffended, imo.
Obviously, violent rhetoric is notwithstanding.
So hate speech is non-violent rhetoric to you?
And it is more about “just don’t offend” than about the individual levels of feeling offended.
There are many levels. Someone saying “I hate foreigners” or “I hate fascists” or “I hate capitalists” or “I hate gays” or “I hate cars” or “I hate science denialism” or “I hate AI” or “I hate health insurance CEOs”…that’s all very different than saying “I think all (take your pick)s should be killed.” Don’t you think? All I’m saying is, it’s just about the most subjective thing your trying to codify and it’s just not possible, reasonable, or to society to do so, imo.
“Just don’t offend” is a huge leap from “My freedom ends where someone else’s rights start”. It’s impossible not to offend somebody on this planet just by existing, and some opinions deserve the public shame that offends the people who have them.
It is amazing that for you, being able to spread hate seems to be a fundamental, inviolable human right.
Forgive my ignorance, but how can words infringe on the rights of others? As a member of a minority class with several hateful and hurtful slurs (that were on their way to becoming hate speech prior to the second Trump administration) I understand that some folks can get very upset but I don’t think anyone has the right to not be upset. I could be misunderstanding something though.
When someone would scream into your face “Animals like you should be shot!”, wouldn’t it hurt you?
If someone spread lies about you or your family or your business if you had one, wouldn’t it do damage?
If someone spread the word that people of color or other minorities would do this or that (wasn’t it “Haitians eating dogs” or something recently?) and it led to people attacking this minority, wouldn’t it be dangerous?
Remember January 6th, where Trump whipped up the stupid to storm the Capitol? He did not use a cattle prod or stick, he only used words, and see what has happened.
And look closely at what the GOP is doing. They are spreading lies, and repeat them, until they fester and replace the truth in the hearts of the listeners.
And now tell me again that words can do no harm.
I mean I kind of see what you’re saying but it doesn’t really pass the smell test.
Yelling in someone’s face is assault. Spreading harmful lies about specific individuals or businesses is lible. Speech that incites violence is not protected by the first amendment. And the rest: January 6th and the misinformation machine aren’t something that can really be legislated. Lies unfortunately are protected speech unless they incite imminent violence. As much as I would like to hang the raid on the capital on Trump I watched his speech (and Bannon’s) and he only ever implies violence. The crowd whipped themselves up into the violence frenzy we saw that day.
Words absolutely can cause harm in the right conditions, but the ones that do the most damage would definitely not be hate speech. Fox News ran a segment last year where one of the hosts said homeless people should be killed and within a few days there were three separate incidents where armed men walked into homeless encampments and opened fire. I think the death toll was 9 people across the three events. But fox news spreading lies about ivermectin and masking during covid killed potentially tens of thousands. In the case of the homeless what the host did was already illegal, but the lies can’t be legislated.
The more I think about it the less I’m concerned about hate speech. The things that need to be illegal, inciting violence, already are, and the things that aren’t are murky at best and a slippery slope at worst. Especially when you consider who would be determining what is or isn’t hate speech. Right now the powers that be would label your comment as hate speech because it’s critical of the gop.
If you think it is ok to spread hate, you’ll have to live with the consequences. I don’t think the world needs more hate.
And, btw, hate is what brought the GOP to power. Think about it.
I don’t know why you are being downvoted, this is correct: “My freedom ends where the next person’s freedom starts.” We can do everything we want as long it doesn’t harm or encroach (and “harm” and “encroach” are loaded words in this context) on the next person. “Harm” and “encroach” here means you don’t diminish the other persons rights, at all.
My only gripe with this is that the state in its current form cannot be trusted to be an impartial judge of what constitutes hate speech. We see today that many states around the world are using anti hate speech laws to suppress criticism of the state of Israel. Giving the state broad powers to crack down on speech that it deems hateful will inevitably result in the state deciding that all criticism of its actions or the actions of its allies constitutes hate speech.
As an alternative, I prefer that hate speech be met with social consequences rather than criminal ones.
Impartiality is key to any such decision. Not only when one is rightfully criticising the genocide in Gaza.
I voted to raise my taxes to fund my local school. Now my neighbors have to pay more in taxes as well… Did I just harm them?
No, that benefits society as a whole by increasing education for the next generation. Which leads to better lives and more opportunities.
When something benefits the whole, not all individuals will see obvious benefits to themselves. But they still get to benefit from the outcomes, like better jobs more opportunities and such.
Ah, so it would have been harmful to vote against it.
The question is what is less harm? Increased taxes or lack of education?
Perhaps both of them harm (or help) different parties by different amounts. So maybe a system where “My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights.” looks like a common sense framework, but when scrutinized reveals that it doesn’t really stand for anything at all.