An NYU law professor makes the case for hate speech laws.
https://youtu.be/gBAJ9V3v8sw
>that definition
So.. It builds character?
I don't see the problem here.
Why were my grandparents able to emigrate here, deal with racism, and still be sane people? These fucks can't do the same? Adversity challenges you.
The really funny thing is, current leftist rhetoric could not exist as it is with hate speech laws. No more shitting on white people or men for being white and/or male.
You sure you want those hate speech laws?
>>56588856
Grow thicker skin.
Another video. You kids on /pol/ don't understand the value of hate speech laws because almost all of you are probably privileged white boys.
https://youtu.be/qpcSPsXCqtQ
>>56589146
It's easy for you to say because you're a white boy. Hate speech can be a real harm if you're a member of a less privileged group.
>>56589009
>implying they won't exempt themselves like they do now.
Look at that cunt in bongland who just got let off for tweeting "kill all white men"
>>56588856
>Brit Bong Speaks
Yep not interested, look at his shit country.
>>56589009
They are exempt. Remember, racism is privilege+power! And we define what that means!
>>56588856
Hate speech is part of free speech. That is completely retarded.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
> I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.
> To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term.
> But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.”
> For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.
>>56589275
>all of you are probably privileged white boys
Nice hate speech, racist
>>56588856
>makes the case for censorship laws
ftfy
Go live in Cuba if you can't deal with criticism
