@@henrychristy2054 maybe in Canada and Europe or some other countries that are sliding into totalatarianism but in the US those laws would never survive a Supreme Court challenge. Because there is a Right to speak freely. There is no Right to not be offended. If there is the please show me where in the Constitution is resides.
@@brianwings6908 think about that. No it is not. A tenuous argument could be made that the right to not be offended is covered under the pursuit of happiness but when you boil it all down someone has to decide what is offensive and that has been constantly changing throughout history. During the Jim Crow era some whites thought that being in the presence of black people was offensive and now it has come full circle and some people of color find the presence of Caucasians to be more than they can tolerate. So no, stick with free speech because anything less stifles debate.
I wish I could remember the source of this quote,but my father would use it all the time.”Free speech is the right for anyone to be as openly stupid as they choose to be , without the fear of the government putting a stop to it.This allows the public the opportunity to know who all the idiots are!”
@@Toanleigh Well,that’s what you call consequences.Maybe the public will decide to not do business with the offensive party,or perhaps a potential employer may decide a particular job candidate doesn’t share the same values they are looking for in a new employee.There is a potential consequence to whatever you say,but Freedom of Speech means if you criticize the government you can’t be arrested by the government for saying it.A good example is The Dixie Chicks.
Don't give trudeau ideas. It kills him when people talk about him and tell them what they truly think of him. Don't think for 1 minute he isn't trying to figure out a way to jail the next person who does it for 50 years to prevent it from happening again. That's what fascists do
Narcissists are masters at cutting you out from giving them any constructive criticism. Eventually you become so resentful that you are just done trying to put some sense into them and the only thing you're left with is very much justified anger. So, you can do very little at that point. You can walk away, which is probably the smartest thing to do. You can yell the nastiest thing at them. Last option is physical and that's when they paint you as the abuser and they become the victim.
Fair point. Although, there seems to be room for what ones self can control in that situation. When we try not only to avoid but also overcome the eventuality that you alude to at the beginning of your statement, we've then helped our society positively grow stronger. Narcissistic behavior needs the light it doesn't deserve.
@@evancincala3675 Yes! Like exposing a criminal, it forwarns the people and proverbially severs the hand of the thief. Some people presume the world can be all sweetness and spice. That would be nice if it weren't for the fact that we have no way currently of helping a psychopath, who are narcissistic by default. Let's hope our work with manipulating the human genome can help humanity. Universal Sovereign Citizen P.S. good to see some positive and intelligent posts on Tube. Thank you. 👍
@@Chimera_166Who? Define your enemies or you just shadow boxing? Because I'm pretty sure there are people in America freaking out over their factual history being taught. *sigh* Sorry, forgot that's not "hate speech" it's *unpatriotic speech*, lol, silly me.
@@user-un7fp8rq9j Well, your mom either isn't thinking about what she's saying deep enough, or she is simply referring to if you are trying to bully someone.
Our use of the word Hate is simplistic, lazy, even childish and an impediment to understanding ourselves. Little kids will say they hate stuff. Resist the use of that word.
Well said! It is extremely childish. Who gets to define hate speech? A new antisemitic law just passed by our corrupt legislators now makes the Bible hate speech. We live in interesting times.
@AnthonyRodriguez-om6id often times looking to how one has contributed to our present, is the truth too hard to bear. So they blame society or those around them. Finding labels, etc. is their 'out' or justification when in fact they have full control of their outcome and choose to play the victim versus the victor.
My favorite quote from TNG "With the first link the chain is forged, the first speech censured, with the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Converting thought to speech is an excellent way to test the thought. If you don't truly believe it, the words will shrivel on your lips and shame will overwhelm you. (this only works for people who know shame) Keeping dark thoughts inside yourself will only allow them to grow and fester.
If the government gets to decide what is or isn't the truth, then... how long will it be before they are in your church (or any other place that is sacred to you)?
Hate speech is still free speech and it’s funny when liberals can use all that hate speech every chance they get, but if a conservative uses any speech they’re canceled, hated on, or canceled funny how they think their feelings matter.
It's not the Left who are calling, emailing, texting election officials with threats of torture, rape, murder. Attacking me or my property. It's the Right doing this. I'd say I have the right not to be harrassed or threatened. No matter how much you "hate me." (This week, some guy was arrested for threatening to behead Biden. Is that "protected speech"?)
the only 'but' in free speech is that you are not free from the consequences. You are free to go and cuss out your boss, but you are not free from getting fired if you do.
Free speech suffers when there are consequences. The rhetoric you're using is not totally untrue, but it's being used to rationalize attacking people for their ideas and speech, and thus it is a threat to free speech and democracy.
I actually saw that we were opening a Pandora’s box way back in the 1990’s when we started passing hate crimes legislation that made penalties for offenses that were already illegal worse solely based on the thoughts of the individuals who commit them and in many cases, it automatically assigns this thought as the motive, even if it had no relevance to why the individual committed the crime, solely based on the race/religion/gender/sexual orientation of the victim when the crime is committed by a straight white male.
I grew up chanting on the playground “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt”. It is still true, even more so if it’s someone I don’t know. Life is good either way
Why is it so difficult that people should recognize that while we all seek to express ourselves we might be wrong or the other party might be wrong and that’s OK and even if we disagree, we can work together to come to some commonality and if or when that becomes impossible, we can just agree that we disagree on that subject.
If you can't express yourself with words, those emotions and feelings can turn into a hate crime instead of hate speech. Saying negative things actually allows you to get that negative emotion out of you with less harm than physical.
I appreciate vague speech which can be interpreted in a number of ways. It leaves someone wondering what did they mean when they said that? It makes one think. It also keeps mystery. Everyone talking about truth like there are only binary true or false, but many things can't be fully understood. The complexities should serve as a reminder of the awe and humility to realize that we may never know truth, but that the mystery itself serves a value that excites the mind and soul. There is much more to any subject than a simple binary. We should be allowed to speak whether true, false, or anything else
In this context: Is there a difference between hatspeach and calling for violence? For example "I think all people of X should be beaten". And when this is not okay what is about psychological violence? An after that are we not again at the point a victim can decide what is violence?
i feel as there should be some exceptions by law. Including “ false accusations and threats” i feel as if these in some cases should have the ability to result in law enforcement
We have that already. But you have to prove that real harm was done by the false accusation. This hassles and burn of proof prevents most people from endlessly sueing everyone all the time over the dumbest stuff.
People should have the right to free speech. I have the right to walk away and not listen to it. They don’t have a right yell in my face, prevent me from leaving or speaking, harass, stalk, dox, or insight violence against me from their social media following.
This is one of the reasons why I don't mind people speaking their mind. I've come to understand that the most "toxic" people are the ones that don't talk but do.
If you can't speak out, air your concerns or opinions about something important and you are forced to keep silent or comply, it can fester inside of you and distort into maybe something very dark and destructive
"Hate speech" today is simply any speech that makes them uncomfortable. When people can't vocalize their feelings, they strike out with violence instead. Bad state of affairs when you tell people to shut up
Yes. Exactly. The problem is with the power, who yields the power, who decides what is and what isn’t hate speech…. Better that each person has the freedom to say whatever they want and allow others to understand who they are and act accordingly.
If I’m allowed to express My anger, good or bad, through My words, any further iteration, diminishes in urgency, and magnitude. Equal to the effort towards My words.
My Gran taught me that anthing before the word "But" can be ignored. It's at best, trying to manipulate you into a positive frame of reference so you'll agree with what comes next, or at worst, at outright lie.
Even on U tube,if you tweet an unpopular,or controversial opinion, on a subject, it seems you get reported by people who disagree, and you get censored for hate speech. Do they really expect people to go through life, without,ever offending ANYONE ?
It’s worse than that. Hate speech isn’t pleasant, but if you’re deprived of the ability to express yourself with words, you’re left with the only other way to express yourself: action.
@@yngtylrdrdn The slippery slope argument can be a logical fallacy. I cited those exceptions for good reason, and they have been well established for many years. No need for them to be extended any further.
Hate is just one emotion, if you ban expressing one, then all other emotions should be banned! No opinion should ever be banned or restricted in expression. People are entitled to be wrong in the listener's mind.
The clear hatred of something bad for yourself is not about what is necessarily bad for those you might voice your hatred to. Self promotion and thumbscrewing others is opposing edifying with sincerity the appreciation for volunteers who give of themselves and uplift others without even expecting any merit for it, which usually shortens the time and energy for such monetarily unproductive activities after giving up your wealth with no balance against personal expenses. Profit is the required corruption to live with a corrupted environment. Good people can’t afford to be good by being in competition against the corruption of the existing wealth. No exceptions I know of unless accepting martyrdom. I dislike that.
The problem with hate speech is that it implies/activates violence when it comes to groups or persons. You can hate what people do or say, but not the person per se. Am I wrong?
The first amendment is a law against the passing of laws which abridge speech there are either no other examples of that law or very few. Laws which are “analogous” are not even close to being equivalent with it.
So crazy, I knew from the moment I heard about “Hate Speech” or “Hate Crimes”, years ago, I knew the laws were designed to undermine freedom. Crime is crime, and there is no hate speech, there are only ideas that benefit humanity and those that do not.
There should be no laws against hate speech, because when the notion is applied, it seems to be applied for ideological reasons. It seems to be applied so that you can't contradict, or push back against, a certain ideology; for example if you say that women are not as good as piloting aeroplanes as men, then you will be accused of hate speech
👍 Besides, people who support hate speech laws don't want a legalistically well-defined law but a vaguely outlined one. So that the law can become a handy tool to silence opposition. Vaguely defined laws are always bad laws, even if they have good intent to begin with.
I believe in free speech, but people should not be allowed to curse people out. There are so many ways to communicate your point without calling people derogatory names. When you say curse words, it makes you sound uneducated as there are several other clean words you could replace those with.
There is no right to not be offended.
T here is now, hate speech is prohibited
@@henrychristy2054 maybe in Canada and Europe or some other countries that are sliding into totalatarianism but in the US those laws would never survive a Supreme Court challenge. Because there is a Right to speak freely. There is no Right to not be offended. If there is the please show me where in the Constitution is resides.
@@henrychristy2054 Saying trans women aren't women isn't hate speech.
But isn't being offended a form of free speech and hence protected?😂
@@brianwings6908 think about that. No it is not. A tenuous argument could be made that the right to not be offended is covered under the pursuit of happiness but when you boil it all down someone has to decide what is offensive and that has been constantly changing throughout history. During the Jim Crow era some whites thought that being in the presence of black people was offensive and now it has come full circle and some people of color find the presence of Caucasians to be more than they can tolerate. So no, stick with free speech because anything less stifles debate.
I wish I could remember the source of this quote,but my father would use it all the time.”Free speech is the right for anyone to be as openly stupid as they choose to be , without the fear of the government putting a stop to it.This allows the public the opportunity to know who all the idiots are!”
Agreed, Speech is Speech whether you are offended or angered by it, it is still Speech
What if the public is stupid? It certainly is the case now.
Cool.
And what does the public do with those people?
@@Toanleigh Well,that’s what you call consequences.Maybe the public will decide to not do business with the offensive party,or perhaps a potential employer may decide a particular job candidate doesn’t share the same values they are looking for in a new employee.There is a potential consequence to whatever you say,but Freedom of Speech means if you criticize the government you can’t be arrested by the government for saying it.A good example is The Dixie Chicks.
A wise father that married your mother and you were lucky to be raised by a wise man.
Totally agree. I phrase I've recently started using: "I am not legally required to respect you." And my speech should not be limited because of it.
Ohhh Ima use this one!
oooh thats a good one
Don't give trudeau ideas. It kills him when people talk about him and tell them what they truly think of him. Don't think for 1 minute he isn't trying to figure out a way to jail the next person who does it for 50 years to prevent it from happening again. That's what fascists do
Narcissists are masters at cutting you out from giving them any constructive criticism. Eventually you become so resentful that you are just done trying to put some sense into them and the only thing you're left with is very much justified anger. So, you can do very little at that point. You can walk away, which is probably the smartest thing to do. You can yell the nastiest thing at them. Last option is physical and that's when they paint you as the abuser and they become the victim.
Fair point. Although, there seems to be room for what ones self can control in that situation. When we try not only to avoid but also overcome the eventuality that you alude to at the beginning of your statement, we've then helped our society positively grow stronger.
Narcissistic behavior needs the light it doesn't deserve.
@@evancincala3675
Yes!
Like exposing a criminal, it forwarns the people and proverbially severs the hand of the thief.
Some people presume the world can be all sweetness and spice. That would be nice if it weren't for the fact that we have no way currently of helping a psychopath, who are narcissistic by default.
Let's hope our work with manipulating the human genome can help humanity.
Universal Sovereign Citizen
P.S. good to see some positive and intelligent posts on Tube.
Thank you. 👍
Narcissists are a subset. Unless you are saying all leftists are narcissists.😂😂😂😂😂😂
Who will they scream for? They’ll either be on the “abusers” side or dead.
Narcissist... here is you're God..
I demand hate speech be free.
That way, I will know where your head and heart truly are.
My thoughts exactly. If people are compelled to keep it to themselves, I lose the choice of who I let in my environment.
Wait..where the hell is " hate speech " not aloud?!?!
@@Supermoneygang12 we are not talking about inciting to violence, or threats to commit violent acts against you or someone ? Right ?
@Supermoneygang12
And New Zealand
In fact, in Australia and New Zealand, they don't even have free speech, yet alone hate speech rights
@@gheorgheionut3783"aloud"? Surely you meant "allowed".
EXACTLY!!!!! Finally someone who understands what "Free speech" means
Hate speech is a nothing term. Hate speech is whatever someone else doesn’t like.
They call disagreement "hate speech"
@@Chimera_166Who? Define your enemies or you just shadow boxing?
Because I'm pretty sure there are people in America freaking out over their factual history being taught.
*sigh* Sorry, forgot that's not "hate speech" it's *unpatriotic speech*, lol, silly me.
@@goldfishyI'm pretty sure it is defined, no?
@@Toanleigh From Wikipedia: “Hate speech is a term with varied meaning. It has no single, consistent definition.”
I've always said this..When it comes to rights there is no such thing as hate speech..its just speech period
sometimes hate speech is just telling the ugly truth that other people don't want to hear.....
sometimes hate speech is just telling the truth about yourself that other people don't want to hear
@@user-un7fp8rq9jyour mother is agreeable. If nothing mean was ever said nothing would get done. Ugly truths over pretty lies
@@davidhull2060 USA is a terrorist country, i hope you were ready for that ugly truth.
But sometimes it is ugly, hurtful racism
@@user-un7fp8rq9j Well, your mom either isn't thinking about what she's saying deep enough, or she is simply referring to if you are trying to bully someone.
Truth is called "hate" by those who hate the truth.
Now, that's a quote!
There is also hate speech, which is what he's talking about. He's saying it should be allowed, because then you have true free speech
There is a difference between hate speech and speech that you hate
The law for freedom of speech is to keep the government from imprisoning citizens for speaking against the government
Hate is called "truth" by those truth the hate
There’s a difference between what is hate speech and speech that you hate.
It's within the butt.. .
Both of which should be protected by law
@HaIsKuL It is. First Ammendment.
@@WorgenGrrl Not everyone lives in the US tho
Everybody loves free speech until a Muslim comes to your church with hate and a crowd
Words are actions to ppl with short tempers
While we're at it, I'm banning love speech, anger speech, sad speech, happy speech, tearful speech..... The list goes on.
That is funny 😂 Ban it all huh, no kidding😂
'Freedom of speech isn't freedom for the thought you love, it's freedom for the thought you hate the most"
~Larry Flynt
Our use of the word Hate is simplistic, lazy, even childish and an impediment to understanding ourselves. Little kids will say they hate stuff. Resist the use of that word.
Well said! It is extremely childish.
Who gets to define hate speech?
A new antisemitic law just passed by our corrupt legislators now makes the Bible hate speech.
We live in interesting times.
People have become woozies. They can't take the truth, digest, nor process the truth.
Which truth? We can handle “our truth” and “my truth” just fine.
@AnthonyRodriguez-om6id often times looking to how one has contributed to our present, is the truth too hard to bear. So they blame society or those around them. Finding labels, etc. is their 'out' or justification when in fact they have full control of their outcome and choose to play the victim versus the victor.
My favorite quote from TNG "With the first link the chain is forged, the first speech censured, with the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
"freedom of speech, i can guarantee, but freedom after speech, i cannot."
-Idi Amin
Most people won't turn violent so long as they can vent.
Take away their ability to vent, and well... you reap what you sow.
Converting thought to speech is an excellent way to test the thought. If you don't truly believe it, the words will shrivel on your lips and shame will overwhelm you. (this only works for people who know shame) Keeping dark thoughts inside yourself will only allow them to grow and fester.
If you hate me, I’d rather you tell me than show me.
if you prevent people from talking shit... they will take that energy to the physical world
If the government gets to decide what is or isn't the truth, then... how long will it be before they are in your church (or any other place that is sacred to you)?
Hate speech is still free speech and it’s funny when liberals can use all that hate speech every chance they get, but if a conservative uses any speech they’re canceled, hated on, or canceled funny how they think their feelings matter.
That was the goal ! It worked perfectly!
It's (D)ifferent
It's not the Left who are calling, emailing, texting election officials with threats of torture, rape, murder. Attacking me or my property. It's the Right doing this.
I'd say I have the right not to be harrassed or threatened. No matter how much you "hate me."
(This week, some guy was arrested for threatening to behead Biden. Is that "protected speech"?)
"Hate speech" is telling the truth about privileged...oops... *protected* categories of people.
The question is who exactly gets to define hate.
Better to vent than hold it in until you snap.
The fact that people can allow other people’s words affect them is baffling to me.
the only 'but' in free speech is that you are not free from the consequences. You are free to go and cuss out your boss, but you are not free from getting fired if you do.
Free speech suffers when there are consequences.
The rhetoric you're using is not totally untrue, but it's being used to rationalize attacking people for their ideas and speech, and thus it is a threat to free speech and democracy.
the government is not my boss
And along with free speech is the right to ignore fools 😅
How do you reconcile free speech when anything you say can and will be used against you?
I actually saw that we were opening a Pandora’s box way back in the 1990’s when we started passing hate crimes legislation that made penalties for offenses that were already illegal worse solely based on the thoughts of the individuals who commit them and in many cases, it automatically assigns this thought as the motive, even if it had no relevance to why the individual committed the crime, solely based on the race/religion/gender/sexual orientation of the victim when the crime is committed by a straight white male.
I grew up chanting on the playground “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt”. It is still true, even more so if it’s someone I don’t know. Life is good either way
Why is it so difficult that people should recognize that while we all seek to express ourselves we might be wrong or the other party might be wrong and that’s OK and even if we disagree, we can work together to come to some commonality and if or when that becomes impossible, we can just agree that we disagree on that subject.
I agree 100%. I don’t care how mean or nasty the speech is that someone is spewing. Let them say it! It’s the only least worse option we have.
Too easy. We have mostly lost free speech and this nonsense isn't making it any better.
Sooooo sad.
If you can't express yourself with words, those emotions and feelings can turn into a hate crime instead of hate speech. Saying negative things actually allows you to get that negative emotion out of you with less harm than physical.
Although I agree, any speech that intends immediate harm shouldn't be tolerated. Such as threats of harm.
It is my experience that I am surrounded by a population that likes to express itself through others opinions ….
I appreciate vague speech which can be interpreted in a number of ways. It leaves someone wondering what did they mean when they said that? It makes one think. It also keeps mystery. Everyone talking about truth like there are only binary true or false, but many things can't be fully understood. The complexities should serve as a reminder of the awe and humility to realize that we may never know truth, but that the mystery itself serves a value that excites the mind and soul. There is much more to any subject than a simple binary. We should be allowed to speak whether true, false, or anything else
Hang tight. Took me eight years but I have a little something for this problem. Thank you Dr Peterson for your inspiration and knowledge sharing. 🙏
Correct. Hate speech is still speech. I have defended your right to say anything short of calling for specific violence.
In this context:
Is there a difference between hatspeach and calling for violence? For example "I think all people of X should be beaten".
And when this is not okay what is about psychological violence?
An after that are we not again at the point a victim can decide what is violence?
i feel as there should be some exceptions by law. Including “ false accusations and threats” i feel as if these in some cases should have the ability to result in law enforcement
We have that already. But you have to prove that real harm was done by the false accusation. This hassles and burn of proof prevents most people from endlessly sueing everyone all the time over the dumbest stuff.
All freedoms come with great responsibility.
China: What you said something against CCP? Its camp for you
“Micro aggression” is an extension of “hate speech” classification.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from _consequences_ of said speech.
People should have the right to free speech. I have the right to walk away and not listen to it. They don’t have a right yell in my face, prevent me from leaving or speaking, harass, stalk, dox, or insight violence against me from their social media following.
People hate each other, and if they're not allowed to say that they do, they'll figure out a different way to show it.
That was a great audio loop. Good job editor!
Hate speech is just speech.
Somehow it protects porn though. Morally bankrupt.
Luckily in America we have a Constitution that specifically says that our rights are God given and not by man.
This is one of the reasons why I don't mind people speaking their mind. I've come to understand that the most "toxic" people are the ones that don't talk but do.
If you can't speak out, air your concerns or opinions about something important and you are forced to keep silent or comply, it can fester inside of you and distort into maybe something very dark and destructive
I use that quote and do believe in that quote. It is when the speech turns into actions against someone, that it becomes wrong.
That Voltaire quote was fiercely stated I believe by Austin in defense of Sam Houston regarding freeing slaves in Texas.
"Hate speech" today is simply any speech that makes them uncomfortable. When people can't vocalize their feelings, they strike out with violence instead. Bad state of affairs when you tell people to shut up
He's 100 percent right, shame but true
Who gets to determine what constitutes hate speech? Such a power is too great for any group or any person to wield. It will ALWAYS be abused.
I should think the world safer if you can tell me you hate me than have you predisposed to violence against me and can't tell me why.
Our response to hate speech probably shouldn't be to silence speech, especially because it only makes them more hateful
Yes. Exactly. The problem is with the power, who yields the power, who decides what is and what isn’t hate speech…. Better that each person has the freedom to say whatever they want and allow others to understand who they are and act accordingly.
If I’m allowed to express My anger, good or bad,
through My words,
any further iteration,
diminishes in urgency,
and magnitude.
Equal to the effort towards
My words.
Make this a law and we will be victims of other people's, or the government 's idea of what constitutes free speech
I meant hate speech, sorry
Calling someone a racist, a bigot, xenophobic, etc. now that’s hate speech of the worse kind.
It’s all legal jargon
My Gran taught me that anthing before the word "But" can be ignored. It's at best, trying to manipulate you into a positive frame of reference so you'll agree with what comes next, or at worst, at outright lie.
Does modern art helps develop morals and values or does it do the complete opposite?
Even on U tube,if you tweet an unpopular,or controversial opinion, on a subject, it seems you get reported by people who disagree, and you get censored for hate speech. Do they really expect people to go through life, without,ever offending ANYONE ?
It’s worse than that. Hate speech isn’t pleasant, but if you’re deprived of the ability to express yourself with words, you’re left with the only other way to express yourself: action.
Yeah, I agree with that 100% As long as there is no direct incitement to violence, or revealing what should reasonably be private, anything goes.
With those two exceptions it creates a slippery slope. You only agree with this 96%
@@yngtylrdrdn The slippery slope argument can be a logical fallacy. I cited those exceptions for good reason, and they have been well established for many years. No need for them to be extended any further.
I agree, the issue is when hate speech incites to act upon it, that's when stops becoming a speech.
Bingo. Free speech includes speech you don’t like.
Hate crimes should also be abolished. They're just crimes folks.
There is freedom of speech everywhere. It is freedom after speech that determines your freedom.
Free speech is absolute, there is nothing you can SAY that should be illegal. Only ACTIONS can or should be illegal.
Hate is just one emotion, if you ban expressing one, then all other emotions should be banned! No opinion should ever be banned or restricted in expression. People are entitled to be wrong in the listener's mind.
I tend to ask, who gets to define hate speech?
The clear hatred of something bad for yourself is not about what is necessarily bad for those you might voice your hatred to. Self promotion and thumbscrewing others is opposing edifying with sincerity the appreciation for volunteers who give of themselves and uplift others without even expecting any merit for it, which usually shortens the time and energy for such monetarily unproductive activities after giving up your wealth with no balance against personal expenses. Profit is the required corruption to live with a corrupted environment. Good people can’t afford to be good by being in competition against the corruption of the existing wealth. No exceptions I know of unless accepting martyrdom. I dislike that.
The problem with hate speech is that it implies/activates violence when it comes to groups or persons.
You can hate what people do or say, but not the person per se.
Am I wrong?
Who defines what hate speech is?
Hate against what?
Plants,things,people,animals?
Is it allowed to say I hate chili?
The first amendment is a law against the passing of laws which abridge speech there are either no other examples of that law or very few. Laws which are “analogous” are not even close to being equivalent with it.
Please tell that to Texas and Florida. And other us states passing hate speech laws.
I was just saying this recently that hate speech laws are proving to be a bad road
You see when people cant say hatred they move to action eventually.
Fuckin spot on! ❤❤❤❤
So crazy, I knew from the moment I heard about “Hate Speech” or “Hate Crimes”, years ago, I knew the laws were designed to undermine freedom. Crime is crime, and there is no hate speech, there are only ideas that benefit humanity and those that do not.
There should be no laws against hate speech, because when the notion is applied, it seems to be applied for ideological reasons. It seems to be applied so that you can't contradict, or push back against, a certain ideology; for example if you say that women are not as good as piloting aeroplanes as men, then you will be accused of hate speech
Hate speech is free speech regardless of your feelings. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!.
Voltaire never said this, but he did say "lie my friends, lie, there will always come something useful out of it".
*this comment was removed from UA-cam because it supported freedom and logic*
How were you able to make it so bold a print?
@@glensmillie5101 * add little stars before and after*
@@Prometheus669 *thankyooooo*
Hate speech doesn't exist
Hate is not a crime.
👍 Besides, people who support hate speech laws don't want a legalistically well-defined law but a vaguely outlined one. So that the law can become a handy tool to silence opposition.
Vaguely defined laws are always bad laws, even if they have good intent to begin with.
The difference omitted is the difference between speech and threat's.
Threat of violence is not "speech".
We shouldn't have law that prohibit "hate speech" because its very hard to distinguish "hate speech" and " speech that I dont like"
If a society is not allowed to say hate, they will enact it.
Here's the simple quote. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me😮
No free speach in America
I believe in free speech, but people should not be allowed to curse people out. There are so many ways to communicate your point without calling people derogatory names. When you say curse words, it makes you sound uneducated as there are several other clean words you could replace those with.
It's OK to disagree. Should be teaching how to navigate those conversations respectfully.