Are hate speech laws good for society?
>>71142093
There's no such thing as "hate speech".
How d you even define hate speech?
>>71142093
Offense can not be given, it can only be taken.
ALL FUCKING NIGGERS MUST FUCKING HANG
14/88 GAS THE LIKES RACE WAR NOW
>>71142275
Whatever leftist doesn't like at the moment.
>>71142093
deliciously thick HNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
hate speech is the easiest of the free speech family to get rid of. And hate speech is what the government define it as.
>>71142347
animal mother
>>71142275
Speech which either consists of, or earnestly attempts to justify, the hatred of a given ethnic / religious / otherwise protected group.
>>71142650
*+On the basis of their ethnicity / religion / whatever
>>71142093
What the fuck is a hate speech.
You westerners use some weird words
Like I can't say that someone is a nigger because he is blacker than charcoal?
>>71142275
White people advocating for their interests.
>>71142093
Define "hate speech".
Hate speech like "I hate niggers"
or hate speech like "I don't think 6 million jews died during WWII
>>71142854
Everything leftists don't like
>>71142093
Not really, they always end up getting abused. Don't get me wrong, I don't want "Radio Mille Collines" broadcasting all day starting race riots and getting innocent people killed and shit but in recent times "hate speech laws" have been used to shut down useful things like criticism of Islam.
>>71142093
No because hate speech can only be defined by who ever is the majority at the time. Jews and Muslims may be bad one day, then the next thing you know, you're taking in millions us Muslims and are trying to appease the 6 gorillian.
To some degree, they're necessary.
But the term is really hard to define, and anti-hate speech laws are very often used to supress opposition.
If you would, for example, make it illegal to advertise for the extermination of a certain group of people, most people would be ok with that. This is the ideal way of introducing anti-hate speech laws.
In reality though, they are often used to censor or persecute those who oppose established opinions or policies. The best example is the upcoming NPD ("""""far-right"""""" party in Germany) ban
>>71142650
how can you determine what hatred is though?
in britistan telling the truth about islam can be considered "hate speech"
is the truth hateful? should it be censored because someone's feelings got hurt?
>>71142093
Obviously yes, as you can easily regulate the society by knowing the language actors use in conversations, kind of predicting social interactions.
If hate speech becomes more institutionalized over the years, those in power, and those who know how to use it, will profit much.
No. Fuck you and fuck them.
>>71142347
>>71143104
>make it illegal to advertise for the extermination of a certain group of people
this would constitute a call to an illegal action and is therefore already against the law (at least in the united states)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Censorship is never good for society.
offence is always taken, never given
laws put in place to hinder offence will never be effective
>>71143338
Then you have all the regulation you need. Anything else is unnecessary and stupid. I'm jelly tbqh, America is the only country that allows its citizens true freedom of expression.
>>71142093
>Europe starts taking in Muzzies
>Muzzies start causing real, tangible problems
>Europe starts arresting natives for "hate speech"
>Suppresses discussion on problems associated with Muzzies
>No action taken to address Muzzie caused problems
>Muzzie problems get worse
It's kind of the same thing here with the nogs, though it's not enforced by the state, but rather cries of racism. We can't even have a real discussion about what is causing the problems in nog communities. Given that, we're not going to ever come up with a viable solution.
What many would call "hate speech" should not only be legal, it should be encouraged. If it actually is blind racism, bullshit will get called on it. If it is an actual observation, like 90% of nogs that are murdered are murdered by other nogs, people will have to stop and consider that fact.
>>71143380
> good for society
And how do you know what is good for society?
Are you by any chance one of those royal hebrews dear sir?
>>71142093
Her upper lip looks FAS as fuck but strangely appealing.
>>71142814
kek
>>71143767
countries that allow free speech is more stable and less violent than countries that don't.
>>71142093
I think there should be be an distinction between general and personal hate speech.
Like saying "Kill all [Insert Group of People Here]" should be acceptable, because you aren't threatening anyone directly
However, saying "I'm going to kill [Insert Person's Name Here]" should not be acceptable.
>>71142093
>Are hate speech laws good for society?
No, they protect the scum of society: Women and Muslims.
>>71142854
>>71142093
this shouldn't even be a question
of course not
If you are reading this right now and your country has hate speech laws of any sort, you do not have free speech.
>>71142093
Yes.
discussion = good.
hate speech = bad.
>>71142093
No. It gives the government too much power over ideas. No one should be in charge of policing thoughts.
>>71143193
It should be censored because history has shown that it's very much possible to sweep people into genocidal frenzy through the stoking of ethnic and religious hatred.
>>71142093
Nope
>>71143869
Bullshit.
>>71143985
>If you are reading this right now and your country has hate speech laws of any sort, you do not have free speech
tfw Canadians don't have free-speech or any property-rights
feels bad
>>71144165
We have property rights...
>>71142093
no, its a gateway to ban free speech altogether
same idea with gun control.
"hate" is a socially constructed word and can mean a variety of things.
Like "nigger" is hateful to blacks
While refuting a law that is being passed could be "hateful" to whatever the people in power want.
no, because anything can be labeled as hate speech.
funny how /pol/ suddenly gets pro freedom when its their freedom being threatened
>>71143953
What the fuck is happening in this picture?
>>71144236
Do you have allodial title?
>>71143953
Ugh I bet it was a black lab aswell. If it was a golden retriever they'd make it look like he was the one who's racist.
>>71143985
There are fucking laws here that say that we can't poke fun at the king or leaders of allied countries.
yes, because anything can be labelled as hate speech.
>>71142093
no
unless it's calling for violence against someone or something (cuz then it's threat) you should be allowed to say whateva the fuck you want
>>71144376
Yeah, and there are like 30 people in the world who care consistently. Who gives a shit?
>>71142093
yes.
>>71142275
insulting people because they have a physical trait you don't like.
>>71144545
So I can insult faggots, jews, and any man of a different nation than my own
>>71144236
There is no mention of any property-rights in our 'Charter of Rights'
>"The class-action suit Authorson v. Canada on July 17, 2003 when the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government and against mentally disabled war veterans. The government amended the Veteran Affairs Act to avoid paying hundreds of millions in interest on pension benefits the government had held in trust for about 30,000 veterans.
The Supreme Court stated: "Parliament has the right to expropriate property, even without compensation, if it has made its intention clear and, in s. 5.1(4), Parliament's expropriative intent is clear and unambiguous" and that "the Bill of Rights does not protect against the expropriation of property by the passage of unambiguous legislation." They even ruled that the Bill of Rights "does not impose on Parliament the duty to provide a hearing before the enactment of legislation."
>This appalling Supreme Court ruling joins a growing list of similar lower court rulings and once again confirms what respected constitutional expert, Peter Hogg, wrote in 1992, "The omission of property rights from Section 7 [of the Charter] greatly reduces its scope. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or even a fair procedure for the taking of property by the government. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of fair treatment by courts, tribunals or officials with power over purely economic interests of individuals or corporations."
>"Parliament has the right to expropriate property, even without compensation."
- Supreme Court of Canada - July 17, 2003
>"The right to 'enjoyment of property' is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society."
- Manitoba Court of Appeal - February 4th, 1999
>>71143869
>infgraphUsAtGuns.png
Sure, who are you quoting?
>>71144427
>Do you have allodial title?
No, we have something called "fee simple" which is basically analogous.
>>71142621
Originally Kubrick planned to have him cut the head off the VC sniper at the end but he didn't want to make gore porn.
>>71144660
That's because we have Common law, we don't need to explicitly state everything in one document like some Yuro-slaves.
>>71142093
Terrible idea
>governments get to define what hate speech is
>criticism of the government falls under hate speech
OH WHAT A FUCKING COINCIDENCE
Seriously hate speech laws would be the death of the United States in my eyes
>>71142093
Hate is a natural emotion, trying to censor someone for expressing that emotion is the definition of tyranny.
>>71142093
Any restriction on freedom of speech is inherently anti-democratic
>>71142093
You tell me, Hollywood mayor banned Trump from having a rally because he considers what Trump says as hatespeech.
Anyone that advocate hate speech laws should be fucking shot immediately. They forfeit their right to life.
>>71144071
implying that genocide is never justified.
Even your liberal heros are advocating white genocide daily.
>We must ban hate speech to protect minorities from violence. It's for the good of us all.
"Well, I suppose..."
>We must expand the definition of hate speech to include even criticisms of these groups, so no one feels pressured to change their lifestyle.
"I guess that makes sense..."
>We must expand the definition of hate speech to include any behavioral expressions that offend these groups. If you disagree, you are a bigot.
"Well, I'm not a bigot..."
>The state is the only thing holding back the tide of hate speech; therefore we must expand the definition of hate speech to include any criticisms of the state.
"Of course, big brother."
>>71144798
Tyranny is the natural state of man. The world was quenched in the blood spilled by tyrants.
>>71142093
>that face
>>71144165
Obvs leaf is going to have a unicorn on the coat of arms
>>71144789
Well I mean, most countries already have that in form of laws against inciting rebellion.
>>71142882
Lol my sides are fucking gone
>>71143985
if you can't say what you want without fear of consequences, you do not have free speech
therefore, the US is just as bad as everyone else in terms of "free speech"
>>71142964
reddit is here and so on.
>>71142093
Yes hate speech prevents society's free speech. you should be more progressive virgin
>>71145788
Yes, hate speech is free speech. By fucking definition. That whore needs to get rid of her Cardinals hat, she doesn't deserve it
>>71143226
Argument's, such as the one you have decided to defend, wherein the limiting of speech is based on what those deemed by society at the time to be more Victimized find to be offensive TO THEM, are the enemy of free society and will be the another nail in the coffin as Marxist and Totalitarians such as you and all the other SJW and Leftists who so seemingly seem to take all of your political goals from 1984, and when you spout this kind of bullshit it only more clarifies why Europe is facing the largest threat to its existence that it has ever faced. I hope you know that your ancestors weep.
So with that I have one last thing to say to you
>"Go Fuck Yourself You Unscrupulous Charlatan"
>>71142093
>Are hate speech laws good for society?
No
t. currently living in 1984
