How do you respond to this statement?
>>74410158
what doesn't kill you ought to make you stronger. otherwise, you deserve your suffering.
>>74410158
If you're such a faggot you can't put a statement in your thoughts without getting physically angry or getting traumatized, you should just go back to elementary school and stay there like the little shit you are.
Hard Mode: Philosophically explain why Hate Speech should be Free Speech rather than simply saying, "Muh First Amendment."
>>74410158
Hate Speech has a such a loose definition that virtually any statement could be classified as it.
Also, to deny someone their right to speak because you don't like it is an act of hatred unto itself.
Founding Fathers and Constitutional Principals>Left Wing "muh feels" Faggotry
>>74410158
It only costs you self respect if you let it. Talk is cheap
>>74410158
No.
The only time free speech can even matter is when it comes to saying things that other poeple don't want to hear.
>>74410158
yes officer....... Fuck my country :(
>>74410158
Marxism kills popular sovereignty.
>>74410158
If your self respect is torn away by people saying words to you then you didn't really have any self respect to begin with
>>74410158
Faggots are going to get rekt when they hit the real world.
>>74410158
>How do you respond to this statement?
I'm a pedophile and you can't say anything hurtful about me or the kids I fuck.
I'd like to see a SJW answer that
>>74410158
So what stops people from defining "whatever I don't like" as "hate speech" and thus silencing actual discourse?
Free speech is completely free or it isn't. Let people counter it with arguments or ignore it, but if you rule that it cannot exist in the first place, then nothing you say has any value because your free speech isn't free to be challenged.
>>74410158
>>74410158
Hate speech doesn't exist.
>>74410158
I dont care about your feelings, you authoritarian censoring whiny bitch
everything can be considered hateful to someone.
so fuck it.
>>74410158
>true statements are also """hate speech"""
>>74410158
Who decides what is hate speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU
free speech is like free software: it's free as in freedom, not free as in free beer.
"Cost" is not a logical argument against free speech.
>>74410158
Saying hate speech is not free speech infringes upon my rights which means that the phrase itself is hate speech. You are a hypocrite my good man.
>>74410158
Want a law against hate speech? Imagine how many dindus, SJWs, feminists,etc would be arrested.
#KillAllWhiteMen
>>74410314
Hate speech is arbitrarily decided by the person who is offended, it is an abstract idea with no real basis other than "x individual is offended so shut up"
What about those who don't consider it hate speech? Why should they follow the whims of the offended, do they really have any greater value than the opinions of those who aren't offended?
>>74410158
sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you.
>yfw five year olds literally have more mental fortitude than you do
daily reminder that free speech is 100% binary and only the USA as only country in the world has it.
Isn't hate speech based on feelings? So technically anything can be hate speech because you can be offended by anything?
>>74410158
This statement is easily one of the most lazy responses available.
>Hate speech is not Free speech
What is hate speech?
Since today so many words seem to have so many new meanings, I ask, what is hate speech?
Does hate speech have a single defined meaning? Or is hate speech just whenever I say something you don't want to hear?
>hate speech isn't free speech
yes it is
>>74410158
This is stupid.
The whole point of 'free speech' isn't so that you can say things that agree with the consensus and don't offend anyone. Free speech isn't so you can talk about the weather or what you watched on TV last night. Free speech is so that you can express an opinion that may be unpopular or hated.
If it doesn't offend or upset someone, it's not speech that needs protecting anyway.
Even a slave has the "freedom" to speak in ways that don't offend anybody.
>>74410158
Define hate speech in such a way that everyone involved agrees on it. If you can't, go fuck yourself, and keep your hands off of free spech you authoritarian fuck.
10/10 made a law student reply.
What is Brandenburg v. Ohio
Hate speech has always been tolerated. Unless you can proof the speech will lead to imminent and lawless action then you can't do speech.
Hate speech is subjective as shit so fuck off.
>what would he think of this country now?
>>74410158
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
>>74410158
It is free speech. In the free world we can hate whoever the hell we want for any reason or no reason. And we can let them and everyone else know that we do. To have it any other way would be regression.
But I assume the person who made this image would be in favor of restricting speech considered 'hate speech'. Convenient for some as the definition is blurred. Hate speech, racism, bigotry, sexism. These all have become buzzwords with fluid definitions. Dangerous precedent that this is so widely accepted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RggQZjgz5ww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RggQZjgz5ww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RggQZjgz5ww
>>74410158
Who gets to decide what hate speech is? There is absolutely no consistency in what people typically consider to be hate speech.
Pic related: is this hate speech? It is not considered to be. Change one fucking word ("White" to "Black") and it suddenly becomes hate speech. See the problem?
>>74410158
freedom of association and freedom of speech means I don't have to hang out with niggers period.
I still do because I'm not racist but damn.
>>74410158
Define hate speech in a way that can't be used subjectively to shut down whatever the fuck I want
>>74410158
i am deeply offended by this picture. censor it now you intolerant bigot
>>74410833
>made a law student reply.
L.O.L. who cares?
>>74410158
> How do you respond to this statement?
fuck you and your anglo memes
>>74410314
free speech is a natural right :o)
>>74410158
what constitutes hate speech?
>>74410158
>hate speech destroys!!! it wrecks sanity!!! :((
>doesn't proceed on how to measure that destruction
ecks d d ay le mayo
>>74410158
>How do you respond to this statement?
By pointing out that there is no such thing as "hate speech", which is a weasel phrase for "any opinion I don't like and want to see suppressed".
>>74410158
Every time I go to work I lose part of my self-respect and sanity, but that doesn't entitle me to a better job. I just have to deal with life's bullshit like everyone else in the country.
>>74410158
words are nothing more than noise in reality.
if you want to inflict a significant punishment against me because of some noise came out of my mouth and it annoyed you then you are the one in the wrong.
my right to freely speak is FAR more important than your little faggot feelings.
>>74410158
Popular speech does not need protection, unpopular speech does.
>>74410960
Best starter
>>74410158
Then you are no better or tolerant compared to 3rd world autocratic regimes who dictate what is "right speech " and what is illegal to be said in public.
>>74410992
>being anti-anglo
>>74411026
>what constitutes hate speech?
Recognizing racial and/or sexual reality.
>>74410158
No one has the power nor the unbiased agenda to know everything that can or cannot hurt someone and to what extent.
Therefore, it is far better to allow rather than limit in order avoid the risks and outcomes of some groups controlling other groups of people.
>>74410158
Yes it is.
>>74410925
>nice white invented powerpoint on a white invented computer displayed by a white invented projecter in a white constructed school in a country ina white founded country that protects your white established freedom of speech rights.
>>74410855
>>74410314
Hate speech is a social construct. Allow me to demonstrate:
You're a fucking faggot.
All verbal language, in fact, is a social construct, therefore it doesn't exist (assuming you're arguing with a liberal). It's especially important to draw a parallel between the other social constructs they oppose ex: Gender, race, etc. If gender/race are social constructs and are insignificant, then the same reasoning applies to hate speech.
This argument also works for abortion anytime they try to claim "personhood"
>>74410314
Hate speech standards are themselves a form of hate speech since they ostracize a certain group of people over their beliefs, having them risk social, phyisical and legal retribution.
>>74410158
"yes it is"
>>74410158
What's the point of free speech if all you're going to say is things people want to hear.
>>74410158
Well I'd respond by saying that, "'Free Speech' is obviously not completely free." There are limitations to the concept and yeah, inciting hatred/violence should come at a price.
Imagine if you were a doctor. A patient comes to you and asks if something is wrong and you lie to him/her to line your pockets. Is that covered under "Free Speech?" Of course, not! This can cause someone pointless stress and if caught, the doctor can lose his/her license, as they should.
Imagine if you yell "Fire!" in a movie theater and there isn't a fire. This is not allowed because this cheapens the effect of yelling "Fire!" and may in fact render a real warning of a fire useless. This is rightfully not covered under free speech.
Now, imagine if I pointed out where a person who performs an abortion lives. I don't like abortions, myself, but telling people where he lives, telling people where he works, his full schedule and inciting hatred towards this person ALSO shouldn't be allowed.
Anyone that is confused about this is obviously not well-versed on the concept.
>>74410158
Free speech implies one can say ANYTHING. When you say that hate speech is not free speech, you're merely making a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" speech. So it's intellectually dishonest for these people to say they support free speech.
Whoever says 'hate speech is not free speech' should be punched straight in the nose for spewing hate speech.
>>74410158
"Hate speech" is not well defined. And even if it could be, the 'costs' can not be objectively quantified or verified.
hate speech is subjective. leftists take anything remotely negative as hate speech
>>74410314
Because policing ANY speech is a form of thought policing. Besides, hate speech is such a loose term that it can be applied to just about anything. It's a very small step from policing mean words said against individuals to mean words said against the government.
>>74410158
Hate speech is the reason why America is an independent nation.
>>74410158
gay speech isn't free speech - it preaches degeneracy that destroys our decency
colored speech isn't free speech - it promotes the idea that lesser people are on our level
could go on about how those in power can choose what we can and can't do because of reasons
Hate is an emotion, Free Speech is a right and you shouldn't regulate either
>>74410158
>not free to say anything you want
Well then it isn't free speech.
>>74410158
>sticks and stones may break my bones but words will rip me to shreds and destroy society
>Prove that speech I don't like should be free speech
I. Thats what free speech means. If I can't say things just because they offend you, then I don't have free speech.
>>74410833
>desire to know more about Brandenburg v. Ohio intensifies
thanks lawfag, gave me something to do tonight
>>74410158
Define "hate" speech.
Because as far as I can tell hate speech is merely saying anything critical to someone who isn't white.
>>74411265
That tea implies women have no emotional control and is hate speech. I demand the company be shut down and the founders tried.
>hate speech is not free speech
Yes it is. Hate speech is just free speech you don't like.
>>74410833
>What is Brandenburg v. Ohio
not a question we're asking for
because this isn't jeopardy, jackass
>>74410158
Then Free Speech is not free.
>>74411325
>Imagine if you yell "Fire!" in a movie theater and there isn't a fire
Most "hate crime" prosecutions are against those who cry "fire" when there actually is a fucking fire. And by the way, the whole "cry fire in a crowded theatre" thing comes from a US Supreme Court judge trying to suppress left-wingers who disagreed with the First World War.
>>74411833
Definitely written by a woman
or
if not a woman a fucking eunuch.
>>74410158
pfff easy, answer is
YOU COMMUNIST FAGGOT
Let's do this logically.
>Freedom of Speech is garantueed
>ergo, all of X (Speech) is allowed
>"we need to ban/suppress hate speech"
>we need to suppress Hate-X
>all of X is allowed
>therefore, demanding a ban on a variant of X is not permissible
>>74410158
Everything is hate speech then. I can be offended by anything, subjectively, and there's quite literally nothing anyone can do about it.
>>74410158
I'm free to hate
>>74410314
Arbitrary distinctions
There is nothing designating one word or phrase hate speech and another free speech except what someone says it is
Tjis is the core issue at every leftist argument. They support arbitrary distinctions.
ie; When you make X amount of dollars your taxes should increase by X %
ARBITRARY
>>74410158
That the definition of hate speech is entirely arbitrary and therefore open to massive abuse that shuts down free speech. It's not difficult.
>>74410158
>How do you respond to this statement?
"You're a cunt."
>>74411995
If you're going to read Brandenburg, read Whitney v California too--specifically Brandeis' "concurrence."
Based Brandeis blows controlling assholes out of the water, hard.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357
t. nigger wrangler
>>74410833
Where you going to school sonny?
>>74410585
I fucking hate this country I hope the fire incinerates me and everything else.
>>74410158
"Calm down, fag."
>>74410158
Philosophically, it boils down to whether or not you believe that expression can wrong another person. By wrong, I mean to violate a natural right.
You have the natural right to express yourself.
You have the natural right to self-defense.
You have the natural right of movement.
You have the natural right of ownership of your body.
You can only justly lose rights when you violate the natural rights of others. This is the basis of society, law, and human interaction.
So, the question is: Can expression wrong another? Some would argue that expression cannot wrong anyone directly as it does not violate the sovereignty of the body, nor deny others their natural rights. Others would argue expression can cause emotional trauma, which can be construed as an assault on the body of another, thus wronging them.
So it's really up to democracy at this point, as both sides have reasonable points. if you're really interested on the subject.
>>74410158
It doesn't instigate a fight and doesn't create a false alarm, but even those are free speech. But there is punishment for lying.
>>74412181
>Most "hate crime" prosecutions are against those who cry "fire" when there actually is a fucking fire.
Bigotry has logic. That's one of the biggest mistakes people make with regards to biggotry - thinking it has no logic. But, the overriding principal that we as a civilized society has is that even if bigots make good points as to why Muslims shouldn't be allowed or why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed or why black people, in the united states, should be segregated. There are good points, the one against gay marriage is exceptionally strong, but we need to beat people down and shove the new morals into their faces with the power of the state until they are civilized and bigotry is going.
No logic shall be tolerated in defense of racism. You will bend a fucking knee or feel the full-force of the state.
>>74410158
This is a form of thought control.
The definition of "hate speech" can be twisted to silence the truth and effectively mind-control citizens.
>>74412181
What that supreme Court case did was it suspends the first amendment rights if your speech presents clear and present danger
>>74410158
Hate speech is indeed free speech.
Free speech protections exist precisely to protect those saying things that others do not like, or do not want them to say.
No protection is needed for those speaking things that everyone is happy with.
This is obvious no?
L O O N S
>>74410158
I'd say whoever wrote it is a fucking pussy.
Free Speech =/= Free Speech So Long As You Don't Say Things I Don't Like
>>74410298
Go back to school or preschool fag
>>74410285
You deserve suffering because thats a myth
>>74410158
demonstrate a modicum of mental toughness and move forward, drown out the noise. stay present, realize yer dealin with garbage and press on
>>74412937
>if your speech presents clear and present danger
Clear and present danger of what, objecting to the tyrannical behaviour of government? What else is new.
>>74411325
>Imagine if you yell "Fire!" in a movie theater and there isn't a fire. This is not allowed because this cheapens the effect of yelling "Fire!" and may in fact render a real warning of a fire useless. This is rightfully not covered under free speech.
In the United States it is absolutely covered by free speech. They can't punish you for it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
>>74412758
>both sides have reasonable points
it hurts my fee fees and other people have girlfriends and i don't. no one should ever be allowed to talk about their significant other in case it upsets some lonely person who might happen to overhear. no weddings may be held unless all the guests already have someone so they won't feel bad and no more romance should be allowed in movies and tv shows, or at least not without lengthy and large trigger warnings.
>reasonable
>>74413028
I see that you're another one of those weak-willed fucks who really should just be dropped out of a plane.
I dont get the "fire in a crowded theater" arguement
Yelling fire gets you kicked out and barred from the theater -- a private entity. There is zero government involvement in actual practice and does not need to be.
You are free to say and think what you want except when you are on private property.... ie My house my rules I can take back that invitation to use my facilities / property
>>74410452
Sure
>>74413076
It was, at the time, against communism. It's almost never used anymore EXCEPT in those "'fire' when there's no fire" cases
>>74410475
You have no self respect
>>74413153
cry fire in a theatre, the theatre is able to refuse serving you.
cry homophobia in a bakery............
>>74413007
Who the fuck wrote this horseshit? My God... the ignorance is astounding.
>>74413112
>emotional trauma does not have physical manifestations
>emotional trauma can not invoke pain or anguish
>emotional trauma can not cause self-abuse, suicide, or other maladies of the mind
Yes, there are reasonable points.
Remember being a kid and being taught that sticks and stone may break your bones but names will never hurt you?
Yeah, so do I.
>>74410314
Because anyone can claim hate speech and get someone intentionally in trouble when it really wasn't deserved.
How about just let everybody say what they want and you can either listen to it or ignore it. Simple as that.
>>74413007
>speaking the truth about Islam is "hate"
>advocating self-defence is "inciting violence"
>calling someone a "liar" will get you sued
O brave new 1984.
>>74410545
Stfu whiny bitch
>>74410158
>ITT:Bait
If hate speech is not free speech, then why do we even need a first amendment? Popular speech doesn't need protection.
>>74413232
So let's never let anybody talk to anybody else. Outlaw speech because what if someone gets triggered and kills himself :c
![k7O6yjtB_400x400[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MTcs4wD.jpg "k7O6yjtB_400x400[1].jpg")
Hey guys what's going on in this thread
>>74410158
I bet some queer nigger wrote that.
>>74413108
Cool, now argue against the other points. The one about inciting a crowd into a murderous frenzy and the one about the doctor lying to their patient.
Is that allowed and if not then how does that bode for the "Free Speech" purists that want absolutely no limits on speech?
>>74410158
I understand that some speech is offensive; however there is a very large chance that it is also correct.
You should never try to avoid facts, even if they're hurtful. Free speech is a fundamental right for every person in my opinion
You can't make someone feel something that they do not already believe. A fat person who is unashamed will not care if you call them fat. It is only when that individual believe that it is negative that they feel badly about their choices and themselves.
>>74410585
There has been a similar case in sweden. A SD politician said that Muslims would be prone to rape due to their religion.
In court he made the case with something lile 21 different crime stastics that the statement is true, and that muslims were multiple times more likely to be rapists.
He was found guilty, because a according to the court it doesn't matter if its true, but how the statement itself was made.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape (scroll to the center)
>>74413336
That is why, as I said, this is a issue that society must decide.
>>74410158
You kill rights by two ways: directly, with jackbooted thuggery, or softly, by calling everything a right and then claiming that a magic right to self esteem is equally or more important as a God-given Constitutional negative right to free speech.
This is tyranny and it mandates a violent response.
>>74413441
>doctor lying to their patient
That's illegal.
>The one about inciting a crowd into a murderous frenzy and the one about the doctor lying to their patient.
Damn well if someone can incite an entire crowd into a murderous frenzy we should have a listen to what the guy is saying. Probably make a good ad man.
>>74413181
>It's almost never used anymore EXCEPT in those "'fire' when there's no fire" cases
Leftists refer to this precedent constantly without ever considering whether or not in fact the "fire" in question actually exists.
>>74413519
No. You don't cater to people because they might feel bad about it. You know what happens when you have your feelings hurt? Suck it the fuck up. Do you think that trans people should be given hormones too?
>>74413519
>reasonable
>whether or not people should be allowed to talk in case somebody gets butthurt
>>74413277
>Remember being a kid and being taught that sticks and stone may break your bones but names will never hurt you?
This is one of those once-common sayings that has mysteriously disappeared in recent years, along with "birds of a feather flock together".
>>74413688
>'fire' when there's no fire
I'm not left and can you read?
>>74410378
Look at all those white males. Fucking disgusting
>>74410158
"Hey, that's just like permitting niggers and jews."
>>74413441
>The one about inciting a crowd into a murderous frenzy
It is impossible to incite ordinary, civilized people into a "murderous frenzy" unless you provide them with compelling evidence that they need to resort to violence to defend themselves.
>>74410158
There is literally no evidence to support this claim. It is a emotion-driven assertion that directly opposes the purpose of free-speech.
All revolutionary speech can be considered Hate Speech if you debate it hard enough.
>>74413836
Remember "Nobody likes a tattle tail" ?
What the fuck happened to us, God Damn.
>>74413963
>what is a cult
that's literally happening with black lives dont matter and cuckassemblies of berntards
>>74410158
The speech Captain Picard gave during that one episode with the crazy woman looking for traitors on his ship
>>74413604
>Probably make a good ad man.
wouldn't count on it.
>>74414056
>Black Lives Matter
Those are niggers.
>>74413076
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre causes panic and people start stampeding because they don't want to burn, and a few people die of being trampled to death. So in that case, a clear and present danger of a fire was not there, thus the one who initially yelled "Fire!" is at fault for lying and causing unintentional deaths for his actions.
>>74413516
There was another case in Sweden ten or so years ago where a man was prosecuted for saying that Albanian gangs controlled much of the national drug trade. On the stand he provided evidence to prove that this was indeed the case, but the judge said that the truth was no defence.
"The truth is no defence" = the epitaph of Western civilization.
>>74413844
I didn't say you were "left", so why are you upset? I'm agreeing with you.
>>74414159
that's a lot ifs and whens
>>74413441
The reason why the doctor should be punished is that his speech directly effected your physical health. His lies in a position of authority objectively harmed you. Not just your feelings, but your actual body.
If you get the abortion doctor's information legally there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed to share it. It's public information.
>>74410158
Why would you need the right to free speech if it didn't cover hate speech?
>>74414056
>that's literally happening with black lives dont matter
But the real crime of BLM is not the constant bullshit about innocent dindus murdered by racist cracker cops, it's the looting and rioting and burning that ensues after the bullshit. Who cares about the delusions of victimhood in the black community? Why should we prosecute those who are spreading the delusions?
>>74410158
Your hate against Free speech (Implied hate) is hate speech in my eyes.
Your opinion is hateful against mine, therefore it is hate speech.
Other examples can be more specific to the topic at hand
>>74410528
SJWs defend pedophiles now.
>>74414046
>What the fuck happened to us
>>74414292
It is, but there is a precedent based on the Royal Surrey Garden music hall in 1856 and the Italian Hall disaster in 1913. It applies as a metaphor in the US against Shenck who was against the draft and deemed a domestic terrorist.
>>74410158
What happens when the government considers saying the right thing hate speech?
What happens when it's not hate speech becoming free speech, but free speech becoming hate speech?
>>74414159
>Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre causes panic and people start stampeding because they don't want to burn
Again: what if there actually is a fucking fire?
>>74410158
Only acceptable response.
>>74414635
At least he warned us. Many thanks Yuri.
>>74414482
>The reason why the doctor should be punished is that his speech directly effected your physical health.
A doctor who lies about your health is unfit to be a doctor. This does not mean that he is a criminal who must be put in prison.
>>74414636
if your words create an action that leads to damage of people or whatever you get punished for this action and not for the words that might lead to said action.
>>74413441
>The one about inciting a crowd into a murderous frenzy
Is the target of the rage present at the rally or is it just a generalized "We should kill all the Jews" kind of speech?
>>74414192
Oh my fuck...
>>74414695
then it's fine because it's a genuine warning of real danger. but the whole analogy is outdated as fuck anyway. if you ran into a theater today and shouted fire people would tell you to shut the fuck up and someone might go get the manager to kick you out. nobody would panic because there's no fire alarm and they can't see/smell any fire. a better analogy for the modern day would be if someone went into a crowded airport terminal, yelled "HE'S GOT A GRENADE!" and/or "ALLAHU ACKBAR" and then dove for cover.
>>74410314
Hard Mode: Explain why this post isn't hate speech. It's already highly offended me and blinded my dog.
>>74410158
>Anything can be construed as hate.
>Marginalizing "hate politics" ("anyone against immigration is a racist") only leads them to seek the company of radicals and makes them actually hateful.
>And of course, the "hatuhz" could actually be right.
Also, this >>74410285 >>74410298
Quit being faggots.
>>74411325
theres no point in replying to your arguments because they dont make sense
>A patient comes to you and asks if something is wrong and you lie to him/her to line your pockets. Is that covered under "Free Speech?" Of course, not!
yes his choice of words are covered under free speech, but its not free speech that is being violated.
that would be like stealing a car then complaining to the officer when you are caught that you were following the rules of the road
>>74414968
>then it's fine because it's a genuine warning of real danger.
Right, just like the people warning today that there is a real danger of Western countries being undermined by Islamic immigration (whether legal or illegal).
>>74410158
"Hate speech" is a completely undefined and totally open-ended term, it can mean whatever anybody wants at any time, as someone somewhere will always be offended by something.
"Hate speech" is a modern day Liberum Veto designed to fuck over Western society.
>>74414695
Then you're a hero.
>>74414829
Well, the action was saying those words which instigated a panic. But you're right, usually the case is the action of misusing that speech rather than punishing the words.
>>74414828
I never said he should necessarily be put in prison. He should definitely be fired. The patient should also be allowed to seek financial reparations for his actions.
It's like if I find a cup of poisoned water and tell someone who trusts me to drink it. I know that my words will cause someone physical damage.
>>74415435
>Then you're a hero.
Great! But you still haven't answered the questio of whether or not I should be prosecuted for pointing out, accurately, that the theatre is indeed on fire.
>>74410158
Hate speech is free speech.
>>74410158
Any speech that would be considered socially unacceptable is the only speech that would need protection by law. If your words are as sweet as honey you wouldn't need a law to protect them.
>>74410158
I HATE NIGGERS
AND I LOVE THAT I CAN SAY THAT
GOD BLESS AMERICA GET FUCKED BRITBONGS SCOTS GERMANS ITALIANS SWEEDS SPICS SPOCKS AND KIKES
>>74415653
No, if there actually is a fire then you took it upon yourself to let others know about it. It is dangerous but true, the original wording of the Shenck case mentions that truth in saying it is protected, while lying about it can be punished.
>>74413604
>That's illegal.
B-.. But... muh Free Speech... Why can't the doctor just lie to his/her patients? Why did we put a limit on a doctor's free speech?
BECAUSE ABSOLUTE FREE SPEECH IS A RETARDED NOTION, THAT'S WHY! :D
>>74413604
>Damn well if someone can incite an entire crowd into a murderous frenzy we should have a listen to what the guy is saying. Probably make a good ad man.
That's not really a good point. You're just saying, "If someone is good at something, let them do it, even if that something is morally reprehensible."
>>74413963
>to defend themselves.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2981515/Justice-Indian-style-Angry-mob-breaks-prison-kidnaps-man-accused-raping-student-stripping-naked-dragging-four-miles-beating-death-street.html
No trial... not conviction, simply jailed for rape and... the crowd kills him. Now, imagine if I lead that crowd and pointed them to the rapists' location and riled them up. That's not that hard to do.
>>74414482
Yeah, but inciting a leading a crowd armed with weapons into assaulting the office of that doctor? That's incitement and hate speech.
>>74414842
Does it matter? Incitement to violence is generally considered a bad thing.
>>74415164
Actually, it is being violated because he's not allowed to lie. So, according to the free speech purists' argument, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants without fear of molestation from the state. He says that you are, for example, dying and in fact your not. He does this to line his pockets, and the state fucks him up and ruins his career.
>>74410158
haha. nigger.
>>74411639
Underrated. Naming or labeling something has a measurable effect in how it is perceive by people. Regulating speech is literally regulating thought.
You know those studies people always bring up, when they want to show that expensive wine is a scam? They all take the form of "we labelled this gas station brand wine as $90 a bottle, and it was reported as tasting better!". The logical, and only useful, insight to take away from those studies is that labeling something literally affects the perception of it.
It's not that the people tasting the gas station wine are lying when they say it tastes better when told it's $90/bottle, it's that it actually *tastes better*. They have even done these studies where the subjects drink the wine expensive-labeled wine while in MRI tubes, and they measure greater activity in the regions of the brain that control perception
As for hate speech, fuck off. The government does not have the job of protecting peoples fragile psyches or irrational sensitivities. What all these anti-speech freaks don't realize is that when the founders made the first amendment, it was in response to monarchs in Europe who took every well intentioned censorship law on the books - mostly libel laws - and abused the shit out of them. I don't want a council of cunts deciding what I can and cannot say without being punished.
>>74410158
>Then you're gonna hate me for this speech...
>>74415972
>Literally equating poo in loos to westerners
btw your stupid doctor question is illegal because it's medical neglect. It's more akin to giving a patient a placebo in place of his medicine than freedom of speech, particularly since he could EQUALLY not say anything and have the same result (ie, patient doesn't know something is wrong.)
Fucking leafs.
>>74410158
You just have to ask: "How many times does someone have to say 'nigger' for one black person to die?"
Demand they give you an actual number.
Done.
>>74410158
hate speech is facts that make other people look bad
>>74416490
One because they'll kill each other and the black police officer because they assume the pigs said it.
>>74410158
>Every time hate speech is permitted
Justifiably.
>It costs someone part of him or her self
Justifiably.
>part of their self-respect
Justifiably.
>or part of their sanity
Jusitifably.
>It rips """""people""""" to shreds
Justifiably.
>and destroys society
Nah, chimps are the ones who do that, tbqh fampai.
>>74415972
>That's not really a good point. You're just saying, "If someone is good at something, let them do it, even if that something is morally reprehensible."
>implying inciting a murderous frenzy is always a bad thing
I already know where you stand, but sorry it's a misguided stand and you don't understand the ramifications of Hate Speech and how it can be used to have people charged with offences and put into prison for speaking words.
Mummy and Daddy should be teaching little Joey that stick and stones may break his bones but names will never hurt him, and if someone is being mean to him he can ignore it or defend himself with his own words. I'd have no problem with teachers and parents disciplining their children for name-calling or racism, but once you're an adult it's time to pull up your big boy pants and learn that the world isn't really what it was when you were growing up and you're going to have to deal with people who aren't going to be very nice.
>>74415972
>Yeah, but inciting a leading a crowd armed with weapons into assaulting the office of that doctor? That's incitement and hate speech.
The distinction is easy to make. I would reject the term hate speech. I don't think it really applies here. You are telling people to break the law and that's why you are being punished.
If you just say a bunch of objectively true things about him and people decide to kill him based on that information that's their prerogative and they bear responsibility not you.
>>74413028
A FUCKING LEAF
>>74410158
"Yes, it is."
There are no two people on earth who have the exact same definition of what 'hate speech' is. If two people cant agree it holds no water
Also get a fucking backbone
>>74410158
That's subjective since the difference between Hate Speech and Free Speech it's what hurts muh feewings
>>74415972
>Yeah, but inciting a leading a crowd armed with weapons into assaulting the office of that doctor? That's incitement and hate speech.
First, hate speech isn't a crime -- at least in the US; it's protected under the 1st Amendment.
Second, if someone incites a group to kill someone, they can be found at fault for being responsible; ex: Manson.
Third, shut up.
>>74410158
"Define 'hate speech'"
>>74410378
This.
what the fuck is hate speech
>>74410158
Free speech implies that any opinion of any person is authorized to be spoken, which includes hate speech. Nobody's right to free speech shall be infringed by any governing body.
>tfw some guy got arrested because he called a nigger politician a nigger on facebook
>tfw no free speech
>>74415972
>No trial... not conviction, simply jailed for rape and... the crowd kills him. Now, imagine if I lead that crowd and pointed them to the rapists' location and riled them up. That's not that hard to do.
>Now, imagine
When you stop dealing in hypotheticals, perhaps I'll begin to take you seriously. There is simply no way that a non-violent crowd can be whipped up into a murderous frenzy by one man's opinion.
>>74415972
no, you dumbass
His free speech is not being violated, because he was not arrested on the basis of speech.
yes he is using fucking words because thats how you communicate, thats irrelevant ffs
Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are some of the most crucial human freedoms. The freedom of speech and expression include protection for opinions and views considered offensive or unpopular. The freedom to speak and express oneself freely is always the freedom of the marginalized as well as the popular. If we exclude upsetting or dissenting opinions from free expression, we don't have free expression at all.
As stupid and bothersome as some people and views are, it is not the state's job to intervene in nonviolent discourse, whether public or private.
>>74415972
>He says that you are, for example, dying and in fact your not.
Our politicians tell us that we are being "enriched" by diversity when observably we are not, and in fact are having our way of life destroyed through their illusions. Should we prosecute them for their lies as well?
>>74410158
Yes, it is. You can look it up.
>>74410461
>who is Rosa Luxemburg
Marxism and socialism aren't incompatible with democracy and civil libertarianism.
>>74410158
You can't limit what I say just because it hurts your feelings.
Because you can't handle what I say offends me, and therefore, you're oppressing me.
>>74410314
Freedom of Speech exists for 3 reasons
1. To foster disscussion and the free exchange of ideas. ALL ideas.
2. So you know who the jerks are, the ones you want to avoid. Restrictions cause people to bottle things up, acting on their thoughts but never saying them. Wouldn't you rather let people open their mouths so you can counter any ignorance or learn to just avoid them, than suddenly find out one day your best friend of 28 years hates white people?
3. Because it is just plain right.
>>74417894
>Marxism and socialism aren't incompatible with democracy and civil libertarianism.
>a centrally-planned economy which forbids private property and free market transactions isn't incompatible with individual liberty and the freedom to buy and sell, or with a system of government through which the people may decide at any time to vote against Marxist or socialist parties
Do you actually believe this?
>>74410596
The mob, just like everything arbitrary
OP is a cuck who belongs in prison for making such a retarded post. Come at me.
>>74418317
The "right" to buy and sell isn't a civil liberty, read Proudhon. And saying "X is incompatible with democracy because the voters might vote it out" applies to literally any economic system.
>>74410158
>After I get done laughing in their face...
>>74410378
This.
/Thread
>>74410158
all speech is free speech, if you start censoring it where does it end?
how would you regulate something as ambiguous as "hate speech"? I disagree with you? I don't like you?
toughen up or move somewhere that agrees with your views don't try to censor our freedom cuz you're a bitch
Thanks for doing my homework, goys.
Gentiles truly are meant to serve G-d's chosen people.
>>74410158
As of yet, to my knowledge, "making someone feel bad" is not a circumstance that, in and of itself, is punishable by law in any way.
Give me one good reason why that should be changed.
>>74411639
>Because policing ANY speech is a form of thought policing
We have laws against insider trading, verbal harassment and conspiring to commit crime. Most people don't consider this thought policing.
>>74410644
>What about those who don't consider it hate speech? Why should they follow the whims of the offended
The same can be said about any other law. It's illegal for you to punch me in the face. Why should we follow the whims of those who don't want to be punched? Why should we not follow the whims of those who don't want to be vehemently called a nigger?
>inb4 sticks and stones may break my bones but words can only hurt those who are overly sensitive
When you say something to someone you're affecting the chemistry of their brain. There's a physical change you are inflicting on that person. Just because you can't directly see that change doesn't make it any less real than a punch to the face.
>>74410158
You can judge my words' intents and meaning as unintelligent, unjustified, or immoral. But I can still express myself and say what I'd like whether you like that or not. As long as I am guaranteed the legal right to free speech by the state authorities I am going to exercise that right. If and when the state takes away that right to free speech, and under some pretext of what you call 'hate speech' - well I can tell you now that I am going to say what I want until they have to shut me up.
>>74413780
You don't understand philosophy. What I am telling you is that there is no hard line on this topic when it comes to rights. Society must draw the line between what is considered just and unjust. What part of this do you not get? I am not advocating either side of the argument.
>>74411265
What's "PMS" mean on that tea box?
>>74421319
Because physical harm is
Empirically observable
And
Actually harmful
Emotional "harm" is
Anything they decide to feel like
And
Not actually harmful
I understand you're shitposting/playing devils advocate so let's keep this going.
>>74413774
You didn't comprehend what I said.
I'm not advocating that racism is hate speech. I'm telling you that when it comes to speech, philosophically, the society must decide where to draw the line. 70 years ago, you would've been fined for cursing in public, as profanity was considered indecent. Howard stern was repeatedly fined by the FCC for his expression, even though people could simply tune out. What I am telling you is that society's perceptions on expression are fluid, but the core foundation of expression itself is a natural right. I hope you're not too dense to grasp this.
>>74410158
lol
>>74422072
Actually holy fuck this thread is stale nevermind
>>74410960
Why respond with a question? The who brands some statements as 'hate speech' is not looking for an analysis of the words they use. If you respond like that you're playing by their rules of the discussion instead of changing the subject altogether and setting the precedent in the active voice, ie of the dominant speaker.
>>74421319
>Don't use the law to justify freedom of speech
>Tries to use law to justify restriction of speech
Ya done goofed.
>>74422072
>emotional harm is not actually harmful
What is PTSD? Not in a false sense of "oh he said something I don't agree with", but in the sense that emotional harm, even simply verbal if severe enough, can cause PTSD.
The dynamics of human psyche aren't black and white son.
Good.
Society needs to be destroyed.
kys
>>74421711
>muh feewings are going to get hurt regardless and society must choose how badly i get butthurted.
>>74422667
This board is for 18 and up. Pls go.
>>74411788
>Hate is an emotion
No that's anger. But hatred is how we talk about it when it's (usually) directed at some specific person or thing after they've done something to arose the angry feelings and hateful thoughts or words. The latter has more to do with intents towards, and ideas about some object of ones rage. "I hate niggers," and so on.
>>74422072
>Emotional "harm" is not actually harmful
That's ridiculous. Teens that kill themselves because of bullying are a testament to this being bullshit.
>>74422550
>>Don't use the law to justify freedom of speech
Where is it posted that I'm not supposed to do this? Citing precedent and common agreement is one of the best ways to determine the validity of new ideas.
>>74410158
Everytime hate speech is permitted, it costs someone part of his or her self
Not physically
> part of their self-respect
So?
> Or parts of their sanity
Well that's just being weak minded.
> It rips people to shreds and destroys society
I thought society was this evil patriarchal thing?
>>74412237
/thread
>>74421899
You have to be 18 to post here, kiddo
>>74412264
>implying there's no conditions subject to change in relation to categories of "free speech"
Still I would agree that free speech is a good thing, whether or not it's deemed permissible by jurists or philosophers.
>>74423192
Teens kill themselves in the best of circumstances because of hormones and internal abstractions.
>>74423451
So sorry, I am a Polish immigrant to the USA and I don't know what that acronym means.
>>74423667
Teens kill themselves because they go to school and are met with people that incite emotional trauma through verbal bullying.
Are you telling me that all of these articles are bullshit?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=emotional+trauma+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&as_vis=1
>>74411265
That argument justifies transgenders as gender is also a social construct
>>74423715
Poles make Shitty-neighbors
>>74424371
racist
>>74410158
having free speech is a boolean not an emotion
>>74422768
yeah you can leave now
>>74410314
>>74410314
Jew speech is not free speech. Every time a jew speaks I loose a part of myself as I feel their words attempt to verbally strip the Arrayan genes from German blood everywhere. We should put an and to jew speech. With fire.
t. Hitler
Still free speech until its a threat. Look at West Buro. Still hate speech but we don't do shit because we all have rights. Otherwise this board would be shut down.
>>74410158
That is wrong
>>74421319
>your words punch me in the face
>"WAAAAAAAA MAAAAAWWWMEEEE
>THEY DIDNT USE MY PRONOUNS AGAIN"
>t. 40 year old man living in mom's basement self identifying as a gender demi-fluid three legged paraplegic wolf-deer kin
GROW
THE
FUCK
UP
>>74410158
Any speech is free speech, even the ones that hurts people's "feefees". Sometimes, you have to hurt people's feelings for them to see the truth.
Also, it's all subjective. What you may see as hate speech is actually free speech. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, that was seen as hate speech by the British, but that document led to the creation of this nation that has given everyone it could the right to free speech.
But there are others (leftists) that seek to undermine that most solemn right, because their goal is domination. One of the steps to dominating others is to suppress or even strip their right to free speech. By classifying what they say as hate speech.
For example, some people have been cheated by a Jew and they go public about it to get some help and set things right. The Jew then says their complaints are nothing more than anti-Semitism. If we didn't have free speech and the Jews passed a law that imprisons/executes anyone who says something bad about them, those people with righteous claim and were justified to say what they said would be punished. How about the same situation, but with blacks cheating Jews, and blacks claiming racism and have the Jews punished? See where I'm going with this?
It's a slippery slope to allow anything to be classified as hate speech, because it is subjective and it will set a precedent that will ultimately lead to the loss of free speech.
Solution: criminalize the suppression of free speech. People's right to say what they want takes precedence over your feelings/self-respect/sanity. Because it could be twisted around and you get robbed of that right because someone got butthurt.
There is no compromise. Also, we are not Europe, or the Middle East, or any other regions with limited or no free speech. You either enjoy the good and the bad of free speech or we ship you to those regions.
>>74413441
>is there a clear victim of the possible harm to occur from the speech?
>is there a reasonable belief that the speech would cause harm?
>is the harm immediately imminent?
This is the US constitutional legal analysis that occurs; I understand you don't have a First Amendment like ours, but that's okay. We actually have that so I guess you'll just have to sip on your sake and act smug up north.
>>74410285
First post = best post.
>>74415972
>can't find real cases where free speech was harmful
>has to rely on hypotheticals entirely
Take a moment of introspection and try to understand why you're only providing hypothetical situations. Speaking of the US in terms of the 1stA, not India.
>>74422614
No one gets PTSD from hearing "nigger" or "you're biologically male".
The term "Hate speech" is not even proper English.
>>74410158
If your self respect is determined by how others view or treat you, then it's not genuine self respect. If that is the case then you have no personal pride nor motivation and are probably a stupid delusional attentionwhore.
>>74410158
All speech is free speech, just because you find it vitriolic or hateful it doesn't mean it isn't protected.
If you find speech that is offensive then either deconstruct it with logic or mock the ever living christ out of it.
I would rather listen to a communist and pull apart his comments a million times and mock the ever loving piss out of him than have one person silenced because he holds national socialist (Nazi) views.
You fight abhorrent speech with logic, by mocking it, destroying it with facts and brilliant rhetoric.
The people who want to suppress free speech are whiny little bitches who can't handle the bantz, honestly they should be forced to live on a desert island for a couple of hundred years till they and their descendants learn how to appreciate it.
