Thread: Freedom of Speech Vs. Hate Speech

Originally Posted by jockeys

here's the thing, speech is protected, calls to action are not. for instance (this is just an example, I don't actually hate Zoroastrians)

"I hate Zoroastrians. I think they're hella lame, and you should all hate them, too. Let's form a club so we can hate them more effectively, and send out flyers and have parades about how lame they are. Let's brainwash kids with propaganda about how lame they are so they'll grow up to hate them, also."
This is legal.

"I hate Zoroastrians, let's go lynch some."
This is not legal.

See the difference?

yes i see the difference and its a valid point...
but deep inside i feel -and this is my opinion- that both are really more similar than you think...
people start with statement #1 and 9 out of 10 will end up with statement #2

Originally Posted by pio

yes i see the difference and its a valid point...
but deep inside i feel -and this is my opinion- that both are really more similar than you think...
people start with statement #1 and 9 out of 10 will end up with statement #2

Then they have broken the law. EVERY time they go to #2. And EVERY time they stay with #1, they have not. This is freedom of speech. Once the speech itself becomes "an action," like a call to lynch....then, it may lose the protection.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Then they have broken the law. EVERY time they go to #2. And EVERY time they stay with #1, they have not. This is freedom of speech. Once the speech itself becomes "an action," like a call to lynch....then, it may lose the protection.

all right!
point taken...

But for the sake of argument...isn't the government job try to avoid #2?
if you allow #1 without control there is no way you can avoid #2...

its like saying i can shoot at you and as long as i don't hit you its not a crime (i know...lame argument here)

pio-->

until they break the law, they haven't broken the law.

drinking MIGHT lead to drunk driving. getting married MIGHT lead to beating your wife. buying a gun MIGHT lead to homicide. buying a corvette MIGHT lead to speeding. (ok, ok, pretty much definitely WILL lead to speeding)

but until you cross the line, it's allowed. your example is a poor one, discharging a firearm is illegal in most places, whether you hit anyone or not.

by your logic, corvettes should be illegal because 99% of the people who buy them speed at some point. Minority Report, anyone?

it's unConstitutional to punish people for what they MIGHT do in the future.

Originally Posted by jockeys

pio-->

until they break the law, they haven't broken the law.

drinking MIGHT lead to drunk driving. getting married MIGHT lead to beating your wife. buying a gun MIGHT lead to homicide. buying a corvette MIGHT lead to speeding. (ok, ok, pretty much definitely WILL lead to speeding)

but until you cross the line, it's allowed. your example is a poor one, discharging a firearm is illegal in most places, whether you hit anyone or not.

by your logic, corvettes should be illegal because 99% of the people who buy them speed at some point. Minority Report, anyone?

i know my argument was lame and really weak...
i guess i see the point...

although i can argue that all the examples might be invalid...
drinking and driving is ILLEGAL....08% is just 2 beers in most people...

marriage not hate (most of the times anyways)...

guns...that why we have laws and some people want to have even more control on who can buy what weapons. Most states you can have guns for PERSONAL use...you can go into walmart carrying a gun in your hands... (this is another topic in itself so lets not go into this one)

but hate speech...
if you want to say whatever you want to yourself or your friends...be my guess...but when you bring the rest of the people and MAKE them hear ho much you hate x o y kind of people...that just wrong...
maybe not illegal but still wrong...

on another thread someone said that a good reason to invade Iran is because they are using their freedom of speech to say they hate the people from Israel they want to kill them all...they haven't done anything yet (afaik)...so how is that different from hate speech in the states?


(just want to keep the argument alive since i'm bored!)

bleh... I just deleted post number two for this thread

it isn't worth my time, sorry Matt it's no reflection on you, but rather the ignorance of certain posters and the (deleted this too)

Originally Posted by pio

although i can argue that all the examples might be invalid...
drinking and driving is ILLEGAL....08% is just 2 beers in most people...

but hate speech...
if you want to say whatever you want to yourself or your friends...be my guess...but when you bring the rest of the people and MAKE them hear ho much you hate x o y kind of people...that just wrong...
maybe not illegal but still wrong...

1. exactly. and calling for lynching is ILLEGAL. but hate speech and buying beer are both legal, even though they MAY lead to illegal things. look up "prior restraint" it's a related topic, and relevant here.
2. you say it's wrong... what's your basis? clearly, it is not legally wrong, as it's protected speech. perhaps you mean ethically? well, ethics vary from person to person so that's not a very valid basis.

I've heard it said that your rights end where another person's begin. using that definition, hate speech is allowed. I can say "I hate Zoroastrians" and it's legal because Zoroastrians have no right to not be offended. I cannot say (without punishment) "lynch Zoroastrians!" because they DO have a right to not be lynched.

there is a very clear line. the problem is that in the PC world of today, people seem to think they have a right not to be offended. **** that. freedom of speech means I have to right to be as offensive as I like, as long as I don't harm anyone else's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Saying offensive stuff doesn't cross the line. Calling for them to be killed or put into camps or whatever DOES. Simple as that.

you can't restrict free speech, 1A sees to that. you CAN punish illegal actions (whether or not they were influenced by said speech) so that's how it works. freedom of speech is SO precious to me. I would rather see 100 racist assholes preaching hate on soapboxes in the park than see ONE person be punished for expressing their opinion. that slippery slope is way too dangerous to even set one foot on.

so, while I disagree with you, and think your reasoning is poor and would lead to a tyrannical government... I would fight and die to protect your right to say it, even though I completely disagree with what you're saying. I would fight and die to protect the rights of street corner preachers; no matter how idiotic and wrong-headed, racist klan members; no matter how ignorant and spiteful, loony conspiracy theorists; no matter how implausible and ridiculous, anti-government protestors; even if I support what they are protesting against.

why? because it's the most important freedom we have.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I've heard it said that your rights end where another person's begin. using that definition, hate speech is allowed. I can say "I hate Zoroastrians" and it's legal because Zoroastrians have no right to not be offended. I cannot say (without punishment) "lynch Zoroastrians!" because they DO have a right to not be lynched.

so you are saying you have to RIGHT to offend me and i have no right to get offended?

i don't think this is true...i have the right to be offended and to tell you so, its called the freedom of speech...goes both ways...

although again...freedom of speech is to protect the citizens FROM the government, not the citizens from the citizens, or the government from the citizens...

Originally Posted by jockeys

so, while I disagree with you, and think your reasoning is poor and would lead to a tyrannical government... I would fight and die to protect your right to say it, even though I completely disagree with what you're saying. I would fight and die to protect the rights of street corner preachers; no matter how idiotic and wrong-headed, racist klan members; no matter how ignorant and spiteful, loony conspiracy theorists; no matter how implausible and ridiculous, anti-government protestors; even if I support what they are protesting against.

in this i can only agree with you!

Originally Posted by pio

so you are saying you have to RIGHT to offend me and i have no right to get offended?

i don't think this is true...i have the right to be offended and to tell you so, its called the freedom of speech...goes both ways...

Almost....you have no right to NOT be offended. edit: The way I heard this best summed up in the USA is that the Bill of Rights (which contains the 1st amendment) is not a civility code.
OF COURSE you have the right to be upset by his words, and to tell him so! It DOES go both ways.

Originally Posted by pio

in this i can only agree with you!

ABSOLUTELY!!!