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.
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.
"At all" is kinda contradictory part. Limiting harm to others would already necessitate limiting freedoms and the more people and closer together they live the more freedoms are limited.
Living in the middle of nowhere and a person can do almost whatever pops in their mind, almost absolute freedom.
Living in a city and there's a long list of laws/rules/regulations that already limit what one can do. Not that those are bad limitations.
Individuals should not limit other's freedom, and as such the law can restrict individual freedoms to that purpose.
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.
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.
Ad hominem fallacy.
He isn't saying that spreading hate is something that should be done or that it is good; rather, he is merely stating that there is a huge logical, epistemological, and ontological leap between "I hate X" (whatever that X represents) and "we should kill X" or "X should die."
Moreover, offense ( or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech. Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.
Of course you can always find one person that is offended. That's beside the point. The point is that communication in the US: broadcast media, politics, social media, etc., is far from "just offending someone". And that happens because nobody even cares about even "we should kill X" level messages anymore. They have become close to the new normal. It is a violent society going down a hate spiral at the moment, and being lenient on the perpetrators is not going to make it better.
Well, about these messages I have to agree with you, but I can't simply agree with absolutely anything else.
Oh, also straw-man fallacy.
It's amazing that for you, mischarachterization of my stance counts as making a point. I bet you "win" every argument you get in. Have fun in the non-existent black-and-white world you crave, completely devoid of nuance or understanding of subjectivity! I'll be over here in reality 😘
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 will restate what I mentioned in a previous comment:
Offense (or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech.
Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.
When LGBTQ+ people fought for their rights, when Black people did the same, or when abolitionists fought against slavery, all of these individuals were viewed as "hate groups" (in the terms of their respective eras), "violent groups," or "dangerous groups" because they were challenging the status quo and the power structures that oppressed them.
I understand that you have been shaped by a violent and hateful society. You don't really seem to notice all the hate that is currently spread by your politicians and your media anymore. Yes, personal offense cannot be the line as it is arbitrary, but you've raised the bar so high in the US, it is frightening. Have you really listened to your politicians or your media talking recently?
Let's see, I'm not from the United States so I don't know their situation well (although I must say that I HATE Trump anyway), but I'm from Venezuela, which is really much, MUCH worse; Nicolás Maduro was literally a fucking dictator who killed anyone who dared to mock him (if you've never heard of Helicoide, I recommend looking it up), and now that they took Maduro they left us with Delcys Rodríguez, who is another fucking harpy. I really cannot understand how someone who has not experienced a true dictatorship and who has not faced offense and repression for ideological reasons can say so calmly that freedom of expression should be limited; What blissful ignorance of yours to live in a bubble like that, you make me sick (with every intention to offend :3). It really seems absurd to me how you think that "emotional harm" is a valid criterion or is in any way different from offense; No, they can apply in different areas, but epistemically and ontologically they are the same: pure subjective whim, and an ideology that the world revolves around you and your problems.
I'll put it to you this other way:
- Or only some speeches are prohibited (therefore falling into totalitarian arbitrariness).
- Or all speeches are prohibited (and therefore language and existence themselves are also prohibited, in a non-metaphorical, non-figurative and non-hyperbolic, but literal sense).
- Or no speech is prohibited, but only real and concrete actions (a defamation, a social lynching, a false denunciation, a fraud, a robbery, a coup or a murder), and, at most, imperative speeches (not a mere "hatred of X" but an explicit "X should die").
Strict logic is the only reasonable law, and your ideology falls under the above reductio ad absurdum.
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.
I think so, in the sense that the tax is enforced by state violence. The system should be redesigned such that the school is no longer reliant on extorting non-consenting parties in order to function effectively.
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.
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
The problem is you hand government and courts the right to decide what is hate speech.
In the UK the government is already trying to classify anti-zionist speech as banned hate speech.
Laws are weapons, your enemies can use them against you.
Imagine living in Queensland rn. Where the phrase “from the river to the sea” is banned…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-05/qld-hate-speech-laws-passed-parliament/106420306
"Hey Bob, want to kayak from the river to the sea tomorrow"
Government seething intensifies
I'd rather know someone is a nazi then not know
I don't know why you're being downvoted. A lot of extremists like to be heard. I like to know when they're coming.
Charlie Kirk would still be a piece of shit today if he wasn't out and loud about being a piece of shit.
Without a platform, he would likely have had a much smaller impact, and likely also not even be as extreme in his views.
Yes because otherwise you can shut down speech you dislike by labeling it "hate speech"
Canada restricts hate speech, as does most of Europe.
Yet its the US with the speech suppression issues going on right now.
You shouldn't base a law on "The current government is okay" simply because the next one might not be.
That implies the bad government will care about following the laws, or won't change the law or its enforcement
You shouldn't base a law on "The current government is okay"
The definition of hate speech doesn't change each time we get a new prime minister.
Even with everything going on in America right now, it definitely doesn't suppress free speech more than Germany or Britain. I mean the Palestine Action thing is still happening (while Reform gets to yap all day long, mind you).
And that's why you need a democratic process and not a dictatorship that decides unilaterally what is fine.
On the other hand, if you protect the nazis, you are one of them and you are letting them oppress whoever they want.
Personally, I know what side I prefer.
you want dictatorship of the majority? That just means minority groups (which may be the more moral group, eg anti slavery in the past, women's rights in the past, lgbt+ rights now, vegans now) will be oppressed instead. To protect minorities you need absolute free speech, not just democracy
I said a democratic process, not a majority vote. To protect minorities you need laws that protect minorities and individual rights, freedom of speech is secondary, and actually often contradicting with the first part of my sentence.
It's no mystery why the ones throwing "freedom of speech" all day long in all conversations are the nazis. If freedom of speech is king, then hate speech is tolerated. What needs to be of the utmost importance is the respect of individuals, and freedom of speech becomes a consequence of that.
How can minorities exist if they don't have the freedom to express their minority opinions even if they're 'hateful" to others? It sounds like only sanctioned minorities would be protected under your system, which makes no sense.
What about hating billionaires, I expect you would think that 'hate speech " is fine?
If individuals are respected, then their minority opinions will be fine as long as they are not breaking the rule of not blocking other's freedoms.
Billionaires are in many way hostile to society as a whole, and destroy the freedom of most people, by choice. Nothing forces them to do it, they aren't born that way or whatever else, and they are breaking the rule of respecting other's freedom; as such hating on billionaires is not hate speech, because they broke the rule first and are doing it willingly and with complete choice over the matter.
But you're right, there shouldn't be hate speech against billionaires, because they shouldn't be allowed to exist.
Hahaha, oh, yes, compare an ideal system to reality.
Sheesh
Clearly you've never heard of plurality
I think that if something is made illegal, it should be very clearly defined. "Hate speech" is wide open to interpretation and can easily be used to silence all kinds of speech. The issue isn't the obvious cases but where exactly we draw the line. If that line can't be made crystal clear, it's a slippery slope toward tyranny. Being offensive is okay - spreading hate and inciting violence isn't.
By voluntary associations (like a fediverse instance) absolutely not.
By government? Absolutely. What happens when disparaging the One True God Baby Jesus or His Followers is declared hate speech?
Whatever powers you give the government, you also give to the worst form of that government which you can imagine. The civil liberties that protect rapists and drug dealers are the same ones that are helping keep more people from being kidnapped by ICE in America.
This is an important point. There's a big difference between guys with guns telling you what you can say, and a local get-together. Sometimes people act like they should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want, even if they're like standing in someone else's house
More generally I think this https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorshipis a good way to think about things like this.
Everybody should be able to say anything they want, and everybody else should be able to make fun of them.
Or choose not to hire them, or ostracize them.
Hate speech is free speech. So is recording that hate speech and making sure that everyone the bigot knows is aware of their bigotry is free speech too.
Or choose not to hire them
This just allows capitalists to decide what is acceptable speech.
Or choose not to do business with them, or choose not to help them on the side of the road, or choose not to invite them to your parties, or choose not to let them on your property, or choose to sign them up for all the useless email and mail spam you can find...
Don't tunnel on one thing. A freedom for everyone means a freedom for the capitalists, and the communists too.
I generally agree it's fine where there's an "equality of arms".
A freedom for everyone means a freedom for the capitalists, and the communists too.
By capitalists I mean business owners and/or bosses. Your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what you can say outside your job. That just lets the owners of corporations control speech.
That's... One way to look at it. On the other hand, if I were an employer, should I be required to keep people on payroll if they were going around saying "I work for Bytemeister, and I think Hitler was right and we should have exterminated the Jews"? That's going to affect my business badly, it's going to cost me my quality of life, if not my entire business.
Yes - not because I particularly like the idea of bigoted speech, but because like most Governments have already started to demonstrate over age verification, any tool of censorship you allow to be used against your enemy will eventually be turned back against you
This is what the paradox of tolerance is all about. Extending tolerance to those who are intolerant of others only serves to enable the rise and eventual dominance of intolerance, thus undermining the original principle. The only way to combat this is (ironically) to be intolerant of such behaviour on both a cultural and systemic level.
There is no paradox once you realize that it is not a law, but a social contract.
Those that are intolerant remove themselves from the social contract, and are no longer protected by it. This then allows them to be no longer tolerated by the tolerant, preserving that contract for those who obey it.
Yeah, honestly when viewed this (the correct) way it becomes ridiculous to call it a paradox at all.
Tolerate everything except intolerance.
When is freedom of speech ever not equivalent to freedom of consequences from said speech?
Consequences as in the government punishing someone, and consequences as in people mocking and ostracizing someone aren't the same thing. Just as the person who said something has the right to say that thing, other people have the right to for example not watch that person's show anymore.
Yes. I don’t trust anyone to draw the line on what does or doesn’t count as hate speech.
Now, calls to violence are little more black-and-white. I can see a ban on that.
Calls to violence are already not protected as free speech under the first amendment. Niether is obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Most of that just protects the ruling class.
It protects everyone
Or are you OK with someone yelling "I'm going to kill you" and you have no legal recourse?
I said most not all. Learn to read.
Honestly, I'm kind of split. Here in France hate speech is actually isn't allowed which sounds good but the problem becomes that the government decides what is hate speech
Specific well-defined instances of hate speech like "all members of group XYZ deserve to die" should be banned IMO. More ambiguous things should not, otherwise the government can start banning political sentiments that it does not like.
Putin and his friends absolutely deserve to die. I'm not really killing anyone, but I can say that (well, outside of Russia, because freedom of speech doesn't work there). Freedom of speech allows me to say how exactly I don't like him and his gang.
Also, from reading about cases where people were jailed for something they have said - if it's allowed to prosecute people for anything, somebody might try to mess with your words to make you look guilty. For example, the law regarding "rehabilitating nazism" was used to prosecute people who were saying something about USSR working with nazi Germany in the beginning of WW2, or similar. Examples (sorry, too long to type so It's llm summaries:
- A person in Perm was fined 200,000 rubles for sharing an article that mentioned the “joint attack on Poland by the USSR and Germany” in 1939, which the authorities portrayed as “rehabilitating Nazism.”
- A woman in Smolensk was fined for posting a historical photo of her home under Nazi occupation, where a Wehrmacht flag and soldiers appeared in the background.
So if you make a word or a concept "bad", someone will try to use it maliciously, at some point. It doesn't help when court is not independent, that opens up a road to charging many people you don't like on daily basis.
That does not sound like a charitable interpretation of my argument. For example
A woman in Smolensk was fined for posting a historical photo of her home under Nazi occupation, where a Wehrmacht flag and soldiers appeared in the background.
This has nothing to do with well-defined instances of hate speech. Even the Putin example is quite far fetched, though I guess I should have used a more precise example
I mean, if you create any precedent of prosecuting someone over "bad words", you are fucked long-term
Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man
Yep
And also I have to rewatch Lebowski now
This is already covered by existing laws
Depends on the country?
Nope , and that's why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies
This does not implies that we should never suppress it either
Hate speech laws are fascist. As in, they are laws that differentiate between people. Some are protected but not beholden, while others are beholden but not protected. These laws are already used to protect cultist child abusers from criticism.
always remember that Jews are not Semites but saying anything negative against them is anti-semitism. while Palestinians are Semites but hate speech and hate crimes against them are allowed.
I mean, the free speech folks have been seriously vindicated by Zionist crackdowns on Palestinian solidarity in post-Oct 2023 Europe, Germany and Britain being the most famous culprits. And it's not like the far right in either of those countries has been meaningfully impeded by hate speech laws, so why even bother?
If it were not, it would just be inviting the government take a massive dump all over it.
Despite the crapshow that is the current US government, you can't be arrested for standing in front of the Whitehouse shouting your support for whatever idea or group you beleive in (granted you are a Citizen of the USA).
Compare that to something like the UK where people have been charged and thrown in jail for wearing a t shirt or holding a sign, even outside of a protest because the government can just designate whatever it wants to be "hate speech".
Private spaces like social media are not bound by this which is fine, but social media is so ridiculously controlled and filtered as a result, that you're better off sticking to a non mainstream platform (like lemmy) where your comments won't get banned and deleted for stepping out of line.
You have to be a citizen for the constitution to apply?
just so it’s clear - a lot of the constitution, especially the 1st amendment, applies to everyone in the country. citizen or not.
No, its just that the current administration has been going around and depoting visa and greencard holders.
I know it already is but should it be?
In countries that care about their people, it isn't. You do not have the freedom to intentionally hurt others, physically or verbally.
It really depends on who defines what hate speech is.
Is questioning the Zionist genocide hate speech? Is being an outspoken socialist hate speech against capitalists? Is stating you want to separate church and state hateful against Christians? Is supporting Palestine hate speech in the UK?
I'm a fan of free speech. Unless it is literally inciting violence or panic.
It's fucked up innocent people holding Palestine action signs are being arrested in the UK. Attacking free speech is what leads to situations like that.
I feel like this is the only right answer and even then who decides what "inciting violence" is. As disgusting as it gets the only free speech in my mind is 100% free speech. Anything less is just free attack surface for those looking to oppress.
Isn't it suspicious you're the one who said "Fuck them" about Gaza children?
Yes it should. "your freedom ends when you start to hurt my feelings" is just plain censorship, as anything you don't like can be labeled as hate speech
This is exceptionally bad in my homeland (Ukraine) So much so that if I explain the situation here, I'll just get banned here because it can be labeled as hate speech
as anything you don't like can be labeled as hate speech
That's not actually how it happens. Countries can define what is and isn't allowed, and I don't think "hurt feelings" are the definition for hate speech anywhere in the world.
I don't believe hate speech should be protected speech, we've been following hate speech laws in Canada since the 1960s and as far as I've lived, the spirit of these laws strikes me as "my freedoms end where yours begins."
Yes. The reason why is because there's no clear definition on what hate speech even is. Regulating something that has no clear definition and often is context dependent infringes on regular speech.
The US extremist version of freedom of speech that also means freedom from consequences to what you say has nothing to do in a functional society. Which is why only the far right parties try to adopt it.
That's not how the freedom of speech works in the US. It frees you from consequences from the government, in theory. Not in general.
In practice it doesn't even work against the government when they choose to ignore it.
Yes, but limiting any speech that does not specifically suggest violence or other illegal acts should also be included in freedom of speech.
What good is freedom of speech if 90% of the time someone can force you to censor yourself or just outright censor you themselves.
Examples include people being forced to beep out "murder", "kill", or "firearm" or say a different word instead. The mechanism for enforcing these changes or even encouraging them should be fined.
I really wonder how many people in this thread have ever had hate speech directed at themselves.
Theyre also ignoring that the government is ultimately who will decide what hate speech is, not common sense. They could very easily decide “anti christian ideology,” such as lgbtq people existing, is hate speech.
I think we basically accomplish the same thing with libel and criminal statutes. There’s a pretty clear line. It’s kept limited to a strict victim-perpetrator dynamic, where you’re not going to get arbitrary speech suppression where no one was harmed.
Yes
/full stop
Stochastic terrorism should be a crime. As it is, only if it's from the left. The right wing media as well as the current occupant of the executive branch, get away with it regularly.
they fear anything that is "left" of far right, it threatens thier grip on power.
Can you think of a useful purpose it serves?
No, but it's better to have it protected by free speech than it would be to have governments decide what constitutes hate speech.
Huh? At least if hate speech is clearly and strictly defined in the law, this is the same as asking "Should owning a weapon without any controls be a civil right? I know it already is but should it be?"
In most countries hate speech is illegal. Anything else would be outright moronic.
No, hate speech should not be protected, and there's an obvious reason for that. We already recognize that speech that purposely harms people is not protected, for example going into a theater room and screaming FIRE causing people to panic and stampede and killing someone the person will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That is not so different from someone going online and saying "gay people should be killed" and causing people to go out and do that, in fact I would even drop the involuntary from the charges against that person, because his intention was clearly to incite someone to do it. I'm not taking away the responsibility from the person who committed the act, but this situation is similar to a how in a group planning a crime even the boss who was in every meeting telling people to commit the crime but did not actually participate in gets charged with. And the same excuses apply "No, I didn't think that because I told them to go and kill someone they would do it" is not a valid defense for a mafia boss, and it shouldn't be for any person with public influence.
I think it should. People should me able to say what they want. Even the most stupid or hateful things. They are thinking them anyway, it's not like hat it's going to disappear with a ban on hat speech. Hate speech is the expression of the hateful thinking but not the root.
Ban on hate speech would be like puting on a blind and thinking that you made the sun dissapear.
Ban on hate speech would be like puting on a blind and thinking that you made the sun dissapear.
This isn't true.
Think about how much more common certain kinds of rhetoric have become since Trump became president.
People (especially those with power or influence) saying things not only increases the likelihood that others will believe it, but makes it easier that these people will find validation and reinforce their beliefs.
You can be okay with that, but it's wrong to deny that it happens.
I think it is mostly because people feel more free to express those thoughts because the president of the US share those thoughts.
But they thought like that to begin with, that's why they voted for him.
I think it's an uncomfortable truth, but people genuinely think like that not because they have been brainwashed or because propaganda. The same our political thoughts are based their political thoughts are based too.
I think it's important not underestimate the opponent, because then we won't really understand why it rose to power. I think it's a mistake thinking that baning hate speech will prevent something like Trump getting elected. I live in Europe where hate speech is mostly banned. Still the turn to the far right is growing even faster and more right than the US. People don't say nasty things in public, political representatives don't say those things in public. Because there's laws against that. But people think nasty things and say them in private all the time. Because they have developed a political thinking around that. And it's not that simple as "they became radical because a political representative said a bad thing on twitter" they developed those political thoughts the same we all developed our political thoughts.
There's definitely a lot more to it, but research tends to show that hate is learned, not innate. Making the spreading of this kind of bigotry illegal won't make it disappear, but it will make it harder to platform. And without a platform, it becomes harder to spread. Not impossible. But harder.
But Trump became president partially because of the backlash to the Obama era language and tone policing.
I think that's a bit cherry-picked. I can't even remember tone-policing being a defining part of Obama's presidency..
It was pretty common on Reddit around that time with people saying you were trans phobic if you didn’t want to sleep with trans people.
Reddit edge lords aren't really the zeitgeist
Is that different since Trump's presidency?
Yeah I would say they’ve given ground on that quite a bit. They’re busy trying to defend a trans persons right to exist so they don’t really have the momentum to start calling you phobic if you don’t start sleeping with every gender under the sun.
I can't say that I've observed the same thing as you, but regardless, I don't think that's attributable to either president in either case.
I know it already is but should it be?
BDS would seem to suggest otherwise. We care less about actual hatred than criticisms of our ethnostate agendas, but it's through the perceived hatred that cry-bullies thrive. Hate speech laws only make their bullying more effective. Look at Palestinian action in the UK. The lack of these laws protect us more than they would help our political rivals, who would love to see them pass. Billionaires can give a Nazi salute at CPAC with virtually no consequences and no laws were unanimously passed to provide those consequences, whereas BDS was widely adopted. TLDR, you can't trust politicians to tell us what hatred is.
"hate speech" gets classified depending on how abstract it is. if you make a fair point to complain about something/somebody else, that's one thing. when you directly attack someone else and call for physical violence against them, that's not free speech, that's a crime and should be forbidden.
No, and it's not as bad as americans think, it isn't like something experimental, it's a reality.
hate speech isnt, because it just promotes violence, discrimination against minorities, and it further perpetuates the bigotry.
YES. Someone or something will manipulate criteria for what is hate speech OR ANTISEMITISM, all for its convenience to support genocide or BILLIONAIRE to oppress common people. Imagine if it's not protected by laws. Fuck censorship, BURN ISRAEL AND KILL BILLIONAIRE!
just a reminder- the 1st amendment is an amendment. When the people running things on behalf of their monied backers want to change things, they can change them and will.
your right to speech is not something an amendment can create or remove.
we already have laws against inciting violence, so there’s that.
but when uncle sam says you are no longer allowed to say “fuck israel and zionism” - remember, you are in the right to to say it.
I think the government should only regulate credible threats made with the intent to terrify, with the onus on the prosecutor to prove that the threat meets both criteria. This is how the first amendment is already applied, you can say anything short of yelling bomb in an airport or saying you will kill someone while showing them a picture of their house.
That being said, the government should allow private citizens to sue when speech still harms, but does not meet the criteria for a credible threat, such as; libel, slander, hate speech, or particularly dangerous misinformation. However the government should not be allowed to pursue these cases on their own, only act as mediator alongside a jury. The burden must also be on the accuser to demonstrate such harm.
This way there is still a legal path to restricting hate speech, but with a bar so high it's only worth going after the most egregious offenders. If you allow the government to define hate speech, then you open a path to censorship of political opinions. On the other hand, if you regulate nothing, you get people screaming bomb in at airports or trying to convince you that drinking industrial bleach can cure almost everything.
I think hate speech should be censored online and from the press, but allowed irl
Wanna say controvertial shit, own up to it in person lol.
Dont just hide behind a keyboard
(Should require a court to approve of such censorship
Something like a Grand Jury thats sitting for a long term, but require a 3/4 supermajority to censor it)
You cant sockpuppet IRL lol
If for no other reason than to make bigots go full mask off so we know who they are, yes.
abolish all laws, and let oppressed people deal with hate speech the way they want
Define "hate speech"
Despite interesting debates. I think they all ignore the big issue: the internet.
The internet was set up by people who all deeply, deeply, deeply believed in the idea that in a pool of ideas the best will rise to the top. That pure freedom leads to the best humanity has to offer. It was the time of Richard Dawkins memes and evolutionary thinking. Dawkins, and all the new atheïsts, presented it like this was the way nature actually worked and that we should set up the internet accordingly.
All websites from twitter to reddit to even Lemmy has been set up in this manner.. And whenever Lemmy when it gets popular, will suffer the same fate as all other publicly upvoted popularity aggregators. It's all based on the same principles.
We've figured out that freedom of expression can only exist when there are strict rules around it and the enforcement that comes with that.
Works inside a closed system! Too many bad actors/sites across borderlines all directions in the real world.
Nah. It's better when it's not.
I think speech that a reasonable person would know to cause danger to others should be illegal.
Like trying to start a human stampede by yelling "fire" in a crowded stadium should be illegal. Having a club where you talk about how great it'd be if a certain group of people would be murdered, and here are some ways to get away with murder? Should be illegal.
And even if you do think that freedom of speech should include objectively harmful and dangerous speech, Americans need to understand that limits on speech can be placed in more places than not. Private places and businesses can exclude people for things people say. This is much more true on the internet, which is a global space.
No
NO?
No. They should get fined for every statement