Should hate speech exist?

Because no one will defend anyone yelling "Fire" in a movie theater or "Bomb" in an airport, I won't ask if freedom of speech should be absolute.

But should speech being especially offensive, racist, or hostile be subject to legal consequences?

If, say, the Grand wizard of the KKK never actually touched anyone, and just talked his venom between D&D sessions in his grandmas basement with his buddies (Or is it Rednecks who do that? I honestly get racist rednecks and racist neckbeards confused..)

If it's true that getting insulted is no excuse to punch someone in the nose, should it be ok to arrest them for it?

Hate speech is complicated, obviously. A lot of things that would fall under the term would fall under other terms, too.

If someone targets a person due to their sexuality, race, gender, etc. in public and continually harasses them about it, then that would be harassment regardless of whether it's 'hate speech'.

If someone used a platform to direct attacks at people, that's incitement to violence regardless of whether it's 'hate speech'.

Those things seem fairly clear to me.

If 'hate speech' includes people saying what they like in private, making bad or edgy jokes, or expressing an unpopular opinion, then I don't think any of those things should be crimes. That's all a part of free speech.

The problem is who decides what hate speech is?

I'm against scenarios that were mentioned in the OP like screaming "Fire". But if it's just something that is mean...meh.

Social media platforms allow you to block people who do this. I do not think they should be arrested but it does happen in other countries, first world countries.

Originally posted by cdtm
But should speech being especially offensive, racist, or hostile be subject to legal consequences?

No.

Originally posted by Surtur
The problem is who decides what hate speech is?

Bingo. "Hate speech" is a very subjective term. What is hate speech to one person may not be to someone else. And even if everyone did agree on what constitutes hate speech it's still unconstitutional to criminalize it. So-called "hate speech" is protected by the first amendment.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Bingo. "Hate speech" is a very subjective term. What is hate speech to one person may not be to someone else. And even if everyone did agree on what constitutes hate speech it's still unconstitutional to criminalize it. So-called "hate speech" is protected by the first amendment.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
durwank

Are you just a mindless troll at this point or do you disagree that "hate speech" is a subjective term?

Interesting the video, doesn't show anyone attacking the Police...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/1/21277530/trump-speech-police-violence-dc-tear-gas

I do love how you whine like a b*tch about the blaze but will post Vox links.

Made me laugh 👆

Originally posted by Surtur
Are you just a mindless troll at this point or do you disagree that "hate speech" is a subjective term?

You should just place him on ignore, Surt, like I did several weeks back. Yes, he's a mindless troll.

Originally posted by Surtur
I do love how you whine like a b*tch about the blaze but will post Vox links.

Made me laugh 👆

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You should just place him on ignore, Surt, like I did several weeks back. Yes, he's a mindless troll.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Bingo. "Hate speech" is a very subjective term. What is hate speech to one person may not be to someone else. And even if everyone did agree on what constitutes hate speech it's still unconstitutional to criminalize it. So-called "hate speech" is protected by the first amendment.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Interesting the video, doesn't show anyone attacking the Police...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/1/21277530/trump-speech-police-violence-dc-tear-gas

I saw a different video 2 days ago (when this controversy first broke) that shows the protesters not being peaceful.

Amazing how two different can come to the exact opposite conclusions based on the information they consume.

If video evidence exists that shows the protesters using violence, would you change your mind? Would Vox?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I saw a different video 2 days ago (when this controversy first broke) that shows the protesters not being peaceful.

Amazing how two different can come to the exact opposite conclusions based on the information they consume.

If video evidence exists that shows the protesters using violence, would you change your mind? Would Vox?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
👆

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Surely you can find that video DDM... my suspicion is it is probably some fake gaslighting shit from the Blaze. Amirite?

No. 🙂

But you didn't answer my questions:

If video evidence exists that shows the protesters using violence, would you change your mind? Would Vox?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. 🙂

But you didn't answer my questions:

If video evidence exists that shows the protesters using violence, would you change your mind? Would Vox?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
would depend on the corroborating evidence. You got lots of Priests backing its veracity?

Why would I need priests to back or contradict video evidence? Why wouldn't the video evidence speak for itself and to hell with tweets?

hmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would I need priests to back or contradict video evidence? Why wouldn't the video evidence speak for itself and to hell with tweets?

hmm

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Why wouldn't you?

The only thing that needs to exist is any video evidence of non-peaceful protester's.

Anything that happens after that, including tear gas that will obviously disperse into the atmosphere like it is supposed to, is irrelevant.

🙂

The "eyewitnesses" testimonies mean nothing in the face of objective truths.

Does it concern you that someone may have recorded non-peaceful protesters? Surely you haven't been spamming the forum with a narrative that could be proven wrong with video evidence, right? 🙂