Daily reminder that banning hate speech doesn't affect free speech.
you can't have one without the other.
>>563682
You mistakenly said "without" instead of "with"
>>563681
This desu sempai.
FAGGOT GAINT NIGGER PAKI CUNT FAT FUCK KILL NON WHITES
>>563682
Can this shitty /pol/ leaked meme please die?
Hate speech IS NOT free speech, and both are completely and unequivocally incompatible!
This is literally the definition of hate speech. Of course people on the internet in general don't think there is a difference because they don't bother to read the laws.
There's a reason that hate speech has been so narrowly construed. Why do you think /pol/ is allowed to exist? Because even that isn't considered "hate speech" under American law.
Please define hate speech in a way that doesn't encompass any and all criticism of the establishment.
>I think modern Feminism is corrupt and should not be treated as synonymous with equality. The arguments and actions of individuals within the movement are not consistent with the belief that women are equal in value and ability to men, and here are some examples of double standards they hold.
>YOU ARE BANNED FOR INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
>>563704
What's so bad about feminism? Do you not believe women should be equal to men?
>>563704
>dae feminists are the real oppressors?
>>563707
me on the far left
>>563705
I believe they ARE equal as individuals in every way that matters. They have the same rights and opportunities as men and then some.
Any perceived inequality as a collective is irrelevant because reality is not a team sport. A majority of male CEOs does not give more power to all men everywhere, it just means those individual men have power.
If a woman is prevented from attaining a position of power due do fear of being called "bossy" or some other mild insult, that's a personal problem and should be taken exactly as seriously as a man having the same fear: not at all, she's just a wimp and not qualified for that position.
If you claim this is a problem ALL women face to such a degree that they need to be protected from words, then you do not believe women are equal to men.
>>563716
They make less money for the same amount of work.
When women are in a male dominated field, they experience something called the 'glass ceiling'. Men in a female dominated field experience something called the 'glass escalator'.
Nothing will change as long as most of the people in office are old white dudes. We need more female and POC leaders.
>>563722
>inb4 /pol/ infographic
>>563722
>They make less money for the same amount of work.
1. Good thing that's been illegal since 1963!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963
2. Even if that were true, there would be an incentive to hire only women in the highest-paying jobs, because companies only care about their bottom line. Those jobs would not be male-dominated for long.
Women make less money on average because they EARN less money. Take off your tinfoil hat and deal with it.
>>563704
Tumblr extremist minority is a poor example of feminism but I am sure you know that /pol/ troll.
>>563740
When both the current president and the leading Democrat presidential candidate are parroting the wage gap myth, it has gone beyond Tumblr.
>>563682
This is not true
>>563724
>Laws work
Cute.
>>563705
>Do you not believe women should be equal to men?
I don't.
>>563774
Retard detected. If women were paid less money for the same work as men, no company would ever hire men
>>563781
Nice logic senpai.
>>563803
Nice conspiracy theory.
Care to explain what all these companies gain by throwing their money away? Let me guess, they just hate all women cuz evil.
ITT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLHMhQIk2vY
>>563704
Why do say "modern Feminism" and not "Feminism", or simply just "women"? Feminism is merely female nature given political advocacy. Those women involved throughout have never cared about equality and only found social cohesive foothold at the direct expense of men.
Anyway, women should never have been given the vote because their natural in-group preferences violate the principles of democracy. I think people who focus on Feminism a lot don't really understand the mechanics at play here.
>>563705
Egalitarianism is ignorance at best and shitty political rhetoric at worst.
Men and women are different from an evolutionary and will never be equal. Humans are also gynocentric and the female of the species has full control over which traits are passed on through sexual selection, meaning by default human socities are consciously and unconsciously heavily biased in favour of the women folk and this with in all likelihood never change within the species.
If one were to care about equality among the sexes then it would mean effectively placing limitations on the legal rights of women in favour of men and remove their ultimate right to decide whether or not a man becomes a father.
Something most societies will stand for as men have evolved to accept disposability in order to serve the womb bearers while women have evolved to be more demanding and entitled. It helped creating a safer and more secure environment for their offspring.
>>563722
>they make less money for the same amount of work.
No, they don't. In fact women earn more than men for the same award rate due to paid maternity leave.
>>563681
Maybe not, but defining hate speech does.
>>563689
Unlike in the Eurosphere, Americans do not see a difference. and legally there is none
>>563805
That isn't a great example due to the fact that pay is not regularly scaled to employee productivity. Even if women were paid less, generally speaking the extra productivity men are capable of is worth paying extra for as it creates more profit than the hypothetical added expenses of hiring the men as opposed to the cheaper women.
Even for the sake of argument it is ultimately a red herring when the question ought be not what are men and women being paid but what are the values of employing men and women.
People aren't entitled to an income from companies and if they want that entitlement, they ought seek it from their government in the form of an arbitrary pension received for merely existing as a legal citizen. Governments are there to provide cerain minimum living standards to individuals, not businesses. We don't elect people into business on the pretence that they will be representative public servants like government members are, afterall.
>>563831
Go into a cinema and start yelling "fire".
That falls under the same reasoning as "hate speech" legislations.
I really wish Americans would spend more time reading and less time posting.
>>563839
>I don't want muslims refugees in my country
>their third world religion justifies killing people
This is hate speech in Canada.
>>563704
I don't know about USA, but in Canada hate speech is defined as any speech that is either intended to or likely to incite violence against a distinct group of people in society. And which is not a private conversation.
An example of something that was held to NOT be hate speech in Canada was an Aboriginal man who, in an interview, said Hitler did nothing wrong and that Jews control the world:
http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skpc/doc/2009/2009skpc10/2009skpc10.html
Even though he was speaking publicly, he was acquitted from hate speech charges because it was obvious that he wasn't trying to incite hatred, even if it were possible for hatred to be created by what he was saying.
Is that a sufficiently narrow definition of hate speech? Because that's Canada's. I'm sure it's even more narrow in USA where freedom of expression is even more vehemently guarded.
>>563839
Well no not under american jurisprudence. yelling fire in a theater is not only dishonest but is a clear attempt to incite immediate panic and hurt people.
but saying nasty things about someone sex or race does not cause immediate violence, nor is it necessarily a call to violence.
so unless your calling for the immediate violent attack on a specific person or group of people, it would not be illegal under American law
>>563774
If you think that the law which literally forces people to pay them the same doesn't work, then why would any similar equalizer laws work?
Should hate speech be banned on 4chan?
>>563841
>kill thousands of brown children in drone strikes
>wage war against iraq for 13 years
>wow what why would muslims randomly kill people in america? it must be the culture lol
>>563890
That's actually very weird. Since when do nations let enemy nationals into their countries?
>>563947
we felt bad about destroying their country
>>563950
Now you have a muslim president that wants to take away your means of defence so these people can go on a killing spree.
All in the name of progessive. If it ever happens USA will have to change its name as it is no longer USA
Quoting the Korran should be considered hate speech then
fucking losers. if you want censorship go to red-
[THIS POST IS NOT AVAILABLE IN EU MEMBER STATES DUE TO THE HATEFUL AND/OR VIOLENT NATURE OF ITS CONTENT. ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO ACCESS CENSURED CONTENT WILL RESULT IN PROSECUTION TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW UNDER CONSPIRACY AND ACCESSORY GUIDELINES FOUND IN EU RESOLUTION #3648.]
>censorship of any kind
>>563972
Hahahahaha what a
[THIS POST IS NOT AVAILABLE IN EU MEMBER STATES DUE TO THE HATEFUL AND/OR VIOLENT NATURE OF ITS CONTENT. ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO ACCESS CENSURED CONTENT WILL RESULT IN PROSECUTION TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW UNDER CONSPIRACY AND ACCESSORY GUIDELINES FOUND IN EU RESOLUTION #3648.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
>>563681
But that's not the modern definition of "hate speech".
That quote might have made sense 15 or 20 years ago, when hate speech actually meant something.
>>563850
>Well no not under american jurisprudence.
>yelling fire in a theater is not only dishonest but is a clear attempt to incite immediate panic and hurt people.
Yes, hence it falls under the same reasoning used to validate the concept of hate speech. Americans really are fucking delusional when they like to claim that their nation protects freedom of speech when it really doesn't. All you have to do is say the wrong thing in the wrong context or to the wrong people and all of a sudden your free speech is used as a basis to remove your freedoms.
Keep up the mental gymnastics, though. It's what the nation is infamous for.
>>563976
Terrible trash journalism isn't a valid appeal to any authority.
>>563681
this quote is just untrue
There's no such thing as free speech on the Internet to begin with. Everything is privately owned here, including this site. Every site is perfectly free to enforce whatever content policies it likes. That's not anyone "trampling over your right to free speech" - you're trespassing on *their* property, so what they say goes. It's same as someone running onto your lawn and shouting racist epithets all day long. You can tell them to shut the fuck up or leave, and if they refuse, you can remove them by force if necessary.
Free speech exists, but it's limited to private and (to a degree) public property. Those Westboro jackasses can picket funerals all day long shouting such intelligent slogans as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags" without being disbanded, so there you go. Don't complain that free speech doesn't exist.
>>564916
Absolutely, but I still think it's important to fight for your right to free speech, or complain when they're trying to censor you, even on privately owned websites. The internet has become the most effective way to spread new ideas or to criticize and challenge the media, the government, or mainstream thought, whether you're a political thinker, a journalist, a writer, or a dissident in general.
When even the EU decides to step in to force websites to delete certain content according to ambiguous guidelines, or when the regressive left actively goes after everyone who disagrees with them, it becomes a real issue.
SJWs please leave. You never managed to ban /pol/ the first time, irk why you keep trying
>inb4 op is b8
Also where did milkless go
