Thread: Freedom of Speech Vs. Hate Speech

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 pio

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

You have the right to be offended as you choose.

You have NO right to insist that others avoid saying anything that offends you.

Originally Posted by pio

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

you can get offended if you want, but being offended is not a valid reason to violate or limit 1A

so i can verbaly abuse you if i want and you cant legaly do nothing about it...
even if i'm provoking you?
just because its the 1A?
or am i taking your point the wrong way?

Originally Posted by pio

so i can verbaly abuse you if i want and you cant legaly do nothing about it...
even if i'm provoking you?
just because its the 1A?
or am i taking your point the wrong way?

Yes, to a degree. When it gets to the point of harassment, there may be legal steps he can take to get you to stop. If you are "provoking" him, it may fall into a thin exception to freedom of speech called "fighting words" in which (if I remember correctly, it ahs been a long time) mere words (once again) rise to the level of an ACTION, which is not protected udner the 1st amnedment. I don't remember the specifics, I am sorry.

If every morning when I left my house you stood there as I walked to work (I drive, but take the point) screaming obscenities and vulgarities at me, I could likely force this to stop. If you THREATEN me, (a threat is an action!), I could likely take legal action.

In the case of the "fighting words" above, there MIGHT be cases (I seem to remember at least one jurisdiction in which this is true...any recent law students recall?) one could even force the words to stop with a physical altercation, and not be liable for the assault (was this civilly or criminally, I do not remember).

So who decide if i crossed the line?

if the extremist group x are ralling against group y just using words like...
"God Hates you", "you are infirior to us", "you should die", "you look like a [put something derogative here]"...inst that fighting words, provoking? or are they just simply hate speech protected over the 1A?

just trying to undestand why "hate speech" is not "fighting words"...
i would think both have the same result...

Originally Posted by pio

So who decide if i crossed the line?

if the extremist group x are ralling against group y just using words like...
"God Hates you", "you are infirior to us", "you should die", "you look like a [put something derogative here]"...inst that fighting words, provoking? or are they just simply hate speech protected over the 1A?

just trying to undestand why "hate speech" is not "fighting words"...
i would think both have the same result...

"Fighting words" involve threats. One is allowed to defend against threats. Calling someone names is not "fighting words". We learn this as kids: "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me".

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!!!