Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know many of you live in the US, so this territory is legislatively safe... for the time being. But lets say you're the leader of a utopian land , would you choose to prosecute people for saying mean things? Threats of violence and defamation don't count.

**** no.

Also I find the idea of a utopia reprehensible in principle

Would you persecute :

- Anyone who explains the negativity of the doctrine of Islam.

- Anyone who criticises feminism

- Anyone who mentions that demographics aren't inherently equal and this includes also the brain and IQs.

- Anyone who mentions that transgenders are likely just mentally sick

- Anyone who mentions that John Hopkins university hospital has stopped doing gender-reassignment surgeries because they found out that most patients were not better off post-op.

Nay.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Nay.

Nay 110%

Originally posted by JMANGO
I know many of you live in the US, so this territory is legislatively safe... for the time being. But lets say you're the leader of a utopian land , would you choose to prosecute people for saying mean things? Threats of violence and defamation don't count.

Why is there hate speech in your Utopia?

I would not even make it Illegal to yell Fire in Movie Theaters.

Define hate speech that doesn't rely on subjective standards.

Yay. Hate speech should be considered a crime under "inciting a riot", which is against the law even in the US.

Originally posted by JMANGO
would you choose to prosecute people for saying mean things?

Absolutely not.

hate speech is not defined as "mean things" nor even defined as using slurs. OP is a confirmed bundle of sticks.

Originally posted by cdtm
Yay. Hate speech should be considered a crime under "inciting a riot", which is against the law even in the US.

but context doesnt matter in america, nor does nuance exist here anymore.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
but context doesnt matter in america

ti2bVS40cz0

Originally posted by Nibedicus
ti2bVS40cz0

Jokes? Sorry. Jokes are outlawed now. Too offensive. Unless that joke was told by someone like Samantha Bee, then it's hate speech and you must be punished for it.

Originally posted by cdtm
Yay. Hate speech should be considered a crime under "inciting a riot", which is against the law even in the US.
Which is authoritarian and stupid.

Originally posted by cdtm
Yay. Hate speech should be considered a crime under "inciting a riot", which is against the law even in the US. Bingo, Actions have consequencesOriginally posted by Bashar Teg
hate speech is not defined as "mean things" nor even defined as using slurs. OP is a confirmed bundle of sticks.



but context doesnt matter in america, nor does nuance exist here anymore. Agreed, when I was a boy we were asked to remember not to forget. It took a generation more to do exactly that with the help of Russian Internet Propaganda and Youtube talking heads.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Bingo, Actions have consequences Agreed, when I was a boy we were asked to remember not to forget. It took a generation more to do exactly that with the help of Russian Internet Propaganda and Youtube talking heads.
Actions yes, the expression of thoughts, no. You cannot violate someone's rights unless they violate someone else's rights. When you do that, you're a dictator.

Aiming to degrade people does not justify the degrading of people. We don't sacrifice principals for practicality.

Yeah, it really depends what we define as "hate speech". I wouldn't make saying "mean things" illegal. But actively verbally bullying someone should obviously have consequences.

It depends on how you define hate speech. far too many people consider anything they disagree with to be hate speech I've heard people call using the wrong pronoun both hate speech and violence.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
ti2bVS40cz0

Best part is still when he mimes a nazi f*cking the Von Trapps.

And yes, the guy in the video was investigated over it lol.

No freedom should ever be absolute (IMO). A person's freedoms end when another person's rights begin.

However, hate speech is a bit of a contradiction to me. It is fairly established that speech can cause direct damage to another person. Slander/libel, bullying, harassment, indoctrination/brainwashing (especially to commit hard to self/others), spreading of false and dangerous information (hey kids! eat tide pods! YUM!), inciting riots, etc. can all cause real harm.

But hate speech seems to be strange. I always see prejudice/racism/hate to go more in line with motive, but not as a crime itself. A person who gets assaulted due to racism is another person assaulted. One can argue that the crime of assault is made worse by the racism, but the crime itself is the assault. But without direct, observable and quantifiable harm how does one even objectively, and without bias, identify the harm? And if an action does not inflict direct, observable and quantifiable harm (when looked at without biases) why would the motivations behind the action suddenly turn it from a legal act to an illegal one?

I also don't see why minorities should be protected over that of the majority. Always an inconsistent notion to me. I believe that minorities should be given the same opportunities. Maybe helped via assistances/charities/aid sure, but given special privileges mandated by law? I can't agree with it without feeling like a hypocrite (being a POC myself). Laws vs hate speech should not be made to simply protect minorities from hate. It should be used to protect everyone from hate. Because, believe it or not, minorities can hate, too.

It's why hate crime charges make no sense to me. Stabbing someone because they are a certain race isn't really any better than just stabbing someone because you felt like randomly stabbing someone.

As long as a person isn't inciting violence, people need to chill.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's why hate crime charges make no sense to me. Stabbing someone because they are a certain race isn't really any better than just stabbing someone because you felt like randomly stabbing someone.

As long as a person isn't inciting violence, people need to chill.

I will disagree here.

Like I said, hate falls in line with motive. Motive can greatly affect how vile a crime is.

Stabbing someone for self defense/fear for safety or due to mental illness can diminish the severity of the crime. Very different from stabbing someone in a crime of passion. Even worse if it was as an attack against a collective (due to the further fear and intimidation it can spread).

But something has to qualify as a crime first. Motivation would be one factor that determines severity.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I will disagree here.

Like I said, hate falls in line with motive. Motive can greatly affect how vile a crime is.

Stabbing someone for self defense/fear for safety or due to mental illness can diminish the severity of the crime. Very different from stabbing someone in a crime of passion. Even worse if it was as an attack against a collective (due to the further fear and intimidation it can spread).

But something has to qualify as a crime first. Motivation would be one factor that determines severity.

Yes stabbing someone in self defense I am fine with. But if you are in full control and choose to stab somebody...whether to rob them or for fun or because of their race...I think the punishment should be the same.

Also...damn:

JkO0nk8OKz4

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes stabbing someone in self defense I am fine with. But if you are in full control and choose to stab somebody...whether to rob them or for fun or because of their race...I think the punishment should be the same.

One can certainly categorize "for fun/for crime/hate" as equal in severity in terms of motivation and I'll have no problem with it. However, it can be argued that hate takes it one step further due to the fact that it can also spread fear/intimidation and incite similar/retaliatory actions against others. As with terrorism (which is also motivated by hate), hate motivated crimes can also cause harm that have a greater range than that of the immediately affected victim.

Also, reading my previous post:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
But hate speech seems to be strange. I always see prejudice/racism/hate to go more in line with motive, but not as a crime itself. A person who gets assaulted due to racism is another person assaulted. One can argue that the crime of assault is made worse by the racism, but the crime itself is the assault. But without direct, observable and quantifiable harm how does one even objectively, and without bias, identify the harm? And if an action does not inflict direct, observable and quantifiable harm (when looked at without biases) why would the motivations behind the action suddenly turn it from a legal act to an illegal one?

Where "crime itself is assault" was followed directly by "But without direct, observable.." almost looks like I meant assault has no "direct, observable and quantifiable harm". This is not the case.

Was supposed to be 2 separate paragraphs. Assault, of course, has obvious harm.

Well that's not speech but a call to action. Like how you can be an accessory to a murder. It's not the speech. It's the call to action

To punish someone by seizing their private property or imprisoning them is "degrading" them.

Because hate speech does not signal the intent to ignore laws made to protect other people's rights. Hate speech isn't a violation of someone else's rights, hence to violate someone's rights because they use hate speech is to be a dictator.

Damn Rocky, this is some
http://static5.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/11120/111205740/5186915-9854899327-13hif.gif

I think free speech becomes hate speech when it incites physical violence against a particular group. For instance, there are laws against murder and theft so if the speech calls people to perform these illegal actions on specific people, it becomes hate speech and the speaker should be charged with being an accessory to anyone who performs these actions.

Originally posted by gauntlet o doom
I think free speech becomes hate speech when it incites physical violence against a particular group. For instance, there are laws against murder and theft so if the speech calls people to perform these illegal actions on specific people, it becomes hate speech and the speaker should be charged with being an accessory to anyone who performs these actions.

Then it's not speech you're indicting it's the call to action.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
To punish someone by seizing their private property or imprisoning them is "degrading" them.

Because hate speech does not signal the intent to ignore laws made to protect other people's rights. Hate speech isn't a violation of someone else's rights, hence to violate someone's rights because they use hate speech is to be a dictator. When someone's private property impinges on the respect and safety of a whole group it is not degrading them to remove it. It is preventinting the group being abused being further degraded. When someone else's rights are affecting the rights of others, a cap needs to be placed on them. Free Speech laws helped propagate slavery... Free Speech is capped easily if you are rich enough. Take out a super injunction and sue, it's Trumps way, it's America's way.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
When someone's private property impinges on the respect
Respect isn't a right.

Literally any sort of dissent can be spun to fit those qualifications. Consequence is a result of luck, we judge on the action, and merely expressing hatred is not an infringement of someone's rights. Hence to infringe someone's rights over it is completely unjustified.


To take someone's rights/freedoms is degrading them. Hence it can only ever be justified when they are violating someone's rights.


The irony here is that slavery violated people's right to free speech. And many justifications of this used an identical justification to the one you're presenting. If a slave speaks against his master, he can justifably be punished because he's accompanying to potential rebellion against said master. This is a technique used by literally every dictator ever. Silence speech on the basis that it will cause chaos and endanger people's safety. This is nonsense. If an act itself is not violating or threatening to violate someone's rights, you have no buisness to violate the actor's rights.


Ah, so your solution for the subversion of free speech, is to further subvert free speech?

That makes sense.

To lay slavery at the feet of freedom of speech is utterly asinine.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
To lay slavery at the feet of freedom of speech is utterly asinine.

Yep, but it's Putinbot so...not surprised.

Yeah here's an idea, maybe Blacks would've been genuinely oppressed in America longer if they were not allowed to speak freely.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah here's an idea, maybe Blacks would've been genuinely oppressed in America longer if they were not allowed to speak freely.

I can all but guarantee Putinbot is one of those dimwits that will say that the whole conservative embracing of free speech really isn't about free speech, just getting to espouse "alt right ideas".

He would, of course, be 100% wrong in that. It's not about the alt right, as it's not nearly just the "alt right" speakers that suffer.

Bet you he'd even label Jordan Peterson alt right.

He probably supports the Dankula verdict lol

Free Speech went hand in hand with Slavery for a long time in the US. You may not like it. But it's true, the voice of the poor and minorities is always less free than the voice of the wealthy. You may not like it, but it's true.

Let's avoid the word respect if people want to play semantics and use dignity.

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

(Hate speak undermines article one)

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

(Hate Speak undermines article 2)

In fact almost all articles are undermined by hate speak.

Freedom of Speach nutjobs who don't understand peoples Freedoms end when they affect others always cite

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

However whilst this appears to advocate absolute freedom of speech it is modiefied by

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Which limits the rights of an individual when it affects another's human rights.

I know Alt-right internet nutjobs hate the UDHR personally I see it as one of the greatest texts ever written.

Freedom of speech actually helped end slavery. And while it's true that the voice of the poor and disenfranchised is always diminished compared to the powerful and the wealthy(this is true in every society, regardless of the laws), the 1st Amendment mitigates this as much as possible. In a way that hate speech laws never could.

Nowhere in the UDHR does it say that people have a right to not be offended. And while the UDHR is a great document, it doesn't hold a candle to the US Constitution.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Freedom of speech actually helped end slavery. And while it's true that the voice of the poor and disenfranchised is always diminished compared to the powerful and the wealthy(this is true in every society, regardless of the laws), the 1st Amendment mitigates this as much as possible. In a way that hate speech laws never could.

Nowhere in the UDHR does it say that people have a right to not be offended. And while the UDHR is a great document, it doesn't hold a candle to the US Constitution. Umm, the civil war helped end slavery, Freedom of speech helped end segregation officially, but it never ended defacto separation. In fact, things like hyper-segregation and residential segregation across the states are still very strong. Interestingly both were declining very slowly till 2016... Now they are almost static.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Umm, the civil war helped end slavery, Freedom of speech helped end segregation officially, but it never ended defacto separation. In fact things like hyper-segregation and residential segregation across the states are still very strong. Interestingly both were declining very slowly till 2016...
And what do you think helped bring the man into power who sparked the civil way? Freedom of speech.

What happened in 2016 that apparently sped up the decline of segregation?

Nay. Who would want to be Sweden?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
And what do you think helped bring the man into power who sparked the civil way? Freedom of speech.

What happened in 2016 that apparently sped up the decline of segregation? Well, Wars are non-deterministic they turn on events, if the Confederacy had won the civil war slavery could still be going on today, many argue Atlanta was the point they were broken and the yankee victory became inevitable.

I think 2016 was another turning point, whether it is long lasting or not we won't know for years, I do not bigots feel free to spread bile.

not = know

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Then it's not speech you're indicting it's the call to action.

speech
spiːtʃ/Submit
noun
2.
a formal address or discourse delivered to an audience.
"he gave a speech about the company"

Originally posted by gauntlet o doom
speech
spiːtʃ/Submit
noun
2.
a formal address or discourse delivered to an audience.
"he gave a speech about the company"

OMG

Go read Brandenburg v. Ohio. So again, it's not the speech you're indicting but the call to action.