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

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. durwank

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 if blaze has video please post it.

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

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? Surely you can find that video DDM... my suspicion is it is probably some fake gaslighting shit from the Blaze. Amirite?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!


https://i.imgur.com/DhhuACb.jpg

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? would depend on the corroborating evidence. You got lots of Priests backing its veracity?

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 Why wouldn't you? You've disregarded my video evidence supported by priests from the church observations. I need the Pope at least on your side.

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?

Originally posted by dadudemon
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? Disagree, I posted video corroborated by priests from the church, to be honest I need the Pope and perhaps a couple of saints to believe differently.

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?

ddm? gaslighting? you take that back!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
ddm? gaslighting? you take that back! Voltron Assemble, where are the other alt right gaslighting trolls today?

likely on twitter making antifa accounts to throw more kerosine on the reichstag fire. (using the u.s.s.r. icons, with no awareness)

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
likely on twitter making antifa accounts to throw more kerosine on the reichstag fire. (using the u.s.s.r. icons, with no awareness) This seems likely!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
ddm? gaslighting? you take that back!

I do not know why he does this. It is not convincing anyone who is not already convinced. And it is a lot of effort to troll people who are just going to ignore it. He spends all of his time defending conservative positions, and pretending not to be conservative. Who is he trying to convince, himself or everyone else?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I do not know why he does this. It is not convincing anyone who is not already convinced. And it is a lot of effort to troll people who are just going to ignore it. He spends all of his time defending conservative positions, and pretending not to be conservative. Who is he trying to convince, himself or everyone else? I said something similar a while back, DDM just makes no sense at the moment.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I do not know why he does this. It is not convincing anyone who is not already convinced. And it is a lot of effort to troll people who are just going to ignore it. He spends all of his time defending conservative positions, and pretending not to be conservative. Who is he trying to convince, himself or everyone else?

People like you disagreeing with the hard facts and science are just being obstinate fools - you calling me pointing out the science and facts as "gas lighting" is a coping mechanism for the cognitive dissonance you and others feel.

I don't take your cognitive dissonance coping mechanisms as a personal insult - the facts are still there regardless of your feelings.

Originally posted by dadudemon
People like you disagreeing with the hard facts and science are just being obstinate fools - you calling me pointing out the science and facts as "gas lighting" is a coping mechanism for the cognitive dissonance you and others feel.

I don't take your cognitive dissonance coping mechanisms as a personal insult - the facts are still there regardless of your feelings. Oh DDM, tsk, tsk!

Originally posted by dadudemon
People like you disagreeing with the hard facts and science are just being obstinate fools - you calling me pointing out the science and facts as "gas lighting" is a coping mechanism for the cognitive dissonance you and others feel.

I don't take your cognitive dissonance coping mechanisms as a personal insult - the facts are still there regardless of your feelings.

Facts do not care about your feelings. That is why you are a conservative gaslighter even though pretend not to be.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is why you are a conservative gaslighter even though pretend not to be.

Please do point to my political positions that demonstrate I am a conservative.




I think it upsets people like you that I'm intelligent and educated enough to question and point out the flaws in anything simply because I don't fall for the populist leftist narrative. If I don't fall instep with the anti-fact based emotionally knee-jerk narrative, I'm automatically an enemy of "the left." Oh no! Anything but being grouped in with mindless, group-think, emotional reactionaries! I wanted to be part of that gang so badly! weep

LoL@Adam stealing a phrase ("facts don't care about your feelings" coined by the Conservative Ben Shapiro. That's what leftists do though when they aren't creative enough to come up with their own stuff. They steal it from people on the right and pass it off as their own.

Which is what leftists across the country are doing all while they claim they're fighting against fascism lol.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please do point to my political positions that demonstrate I am a conservative.




I think it upsets people like you that I'm intelligent and educated enough to question and point out the flaws in anything simply because I don't fall for the populist leftist narrative. If I don't fall instep with the anti-fact based emotionally knee-jerk narrative, I'm automatically an enemy of "the left." Oh no! Anything but being grouped in with mindless, group-think, emotional reactionaries! I wanted to be part of that gang so badly! weep

You really do get to them, they can't even properly use the term gas lighting you have their brains so frazzled.

Originally posted by Surtur
You really do get to them, they can't even properly use the term gas lighting you have their brains so frazzled.

Thanks, Surtur. With this type of sycophantic back-patting, your dear leader is sure to give you belly scratches, for sure.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks, Surtur. With this type of sycophantic back-patting, your dear leader is sure to give you belly scratches, for sure.

https://media.giphy.com/media/14pRRy6tPfQMFy/giphy.gif

Yes hate speech should exist. How else am I supposed to offend people.