Should there be a punishment for hate speech?

Free speech exists for a reason. Let people say all the bullshit they want, just don't listen to anyone in particular.

No, you should be able to say what you want, face social repercussions sure but it shouldn't be punished by the government

Depends on the extent of the hate speech.

Two people in my town got sentenced to 35 years (one got 20, the other got 15) in total this week for hate speech towards Black people during a birthday party while waving the Dixie Flag from their trucks, which also included aggravated assault, terroristic threats, and a violation of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act. Both of them were in the courtroom, shedding tears and shit, like people were supposed to feel sorry for them after what they did. The one that got 20 years was pointing his shotgun at innocent adults and children, threatening to kill them. When the both of them are released from prison, they cannot return to Douglas County. That's one hell of a punishment, and its very fitting too.

Nah

>let them have some cake

If someone is producing hate speech in a threatening way, a violent way or in a way which promotes a criminal act, I think there are good grounds for legal action. If, on the other hand, someone is only sharing a set of views widely condemned as bigoted, I think it's rather dangerous for a court to intervene. Not many of us would have a problem if someone was arrested for shouting about racial superiority; we'd probably think that they're getting what they deserve. My concern in a case like this, however, is the possible implications. Over the past year or so, we've seen quite a re-defining of phrases like 'far-right', and can we truly predict what will be considered hate speech in even a few years' time?

As long as you keep providing those final options I don't know if you're going to get a straight answer, or perhaps that's your genius method of getting rid of the trolls from answering.

I'm no expert on the legal aspect of this but if the hate speech promotes violence then yes I think something should be done to stop them in most cases. Otherwise people have the right to speak their minds. Of course that doesn't mean other people can't call them complete wankers.

Let's look at the pros and cons of both ideas.

If we decide to ban hate speech,the first thing we'll need to do is define hate speech itself.As this topic is subjective,it's difficult to form a consensus on what is hate,and what is merely opinion.While banning controversial speech may prevent further hatred against a certain race,it also hinders a human being's ability to call what's wrong is wrong,or bring much needed attention to a pressing matter that involves a particular race without the fear of being labelled a racist.

Likewise,hate speech IS a major problem in our world that creates divide.It's not just a matter of discussing opinions,but powerful hate speeches can move people to the point they commit mass atrocities.Hate speech is a very powerful tool that we cannot just leave without restrictions.Words can create motivation,which can inspire human beings to do unspeakable things.

So ultimately,yes hate speech should be banned,that much everybody agrees on,but how?It's up to the left wing and right wing to reach an agreement on what is considered hate speech,and what actions need to be taken to censor it.Remember,does the public speaker/politician/whatever that you're following add valuable insight that contributes to the welfare of society,or are they simply intent on creating unwarranted harm on a certain group?

Words be words dog. No big.

Its my way of having fun, i like to insult myself

I think the existing rules governing free speech are sufficient. Inciting imminent lawless action, harassing, or verbally assaulting particular individuals is not protected by free speech.

not a chance, and mostly what Lunacyde said.

If someone is inciting physical violence against someone then yes. Otherwise, no. If someone is saying something hateful about Jewish people, or Asians blacks Muslim, etc then people can decide for themselves that they are an idiot. It should not be the governments job to determine for you what speech is approved and what speech is prohibited. We end up like North Korea or Cuba when start down that road.

I wouldn't even consider that a result of hate speech. From what you're saying, they were threatening to kill people and brandished weapons in the process. If they were just making racial slurs, they probably wouldn't have received any legal repercussions. Maybe disturbing the peace or something but nothing resulting in jail time, especially to that extent.

There is already a Punishment for hate speech. It's called public opinion.

This is also a very good answer. Put together they pretty much cover they whole issue.

agreed. As long as you aren't calling for violence you should be legally allowed to say whatever you want.

Depends on what country he lives in honestly. A lot of western countries don't allow hate speech.

@emperordmb: The United States. I live in Douglasville, Georgia.

This is kinda why I said that it depends on the extent of the hate speech. If it's nothing but talk, then yes. No punishment.

I say no because of the way people's mind works. There are examples where people become skewed by certain groups that certain ethnic groups or genders can't do certain things and only they are capable of it. For example only whites can be racist, only men can commit sex crimes or can't be the victim of a sex crime. Things like that is why I don't agree with punishment for free speech especially with the way things could go. For example say I have a black neighbor and he always has his music blaring 24 hours a day where it is shaking my windows. Then say after I ask him to turn it down 10 times he still refuses I get angry with him the 11th time and start yelling at him angrily while not using any hate speech. However due to society I would be blamed for hate speech even if I am innocent and will face trial and possible jail time due to situation at hand. While that said neighbor could call me every racist name in the book on a daily basis and he would get off without even a trial or a arrest. Society in the last 10 years has become so skewed that they believe in certain beliefs so much they will argue for it even there is clear evidence otherwise. That being said if the law was passed who is the say how far it will go? For example say me and a friend are at a public place discussing where we want to eat at for a meal. Say my friend says lets go to a Chinese restaurant. While I say in say a average speaking volume that I don't like Chinese food. Then say somebody calls the cops on me because apparently saying I don't like a certain food is considered a hate speech. While yes I know these pretty far out there as examples it still shows my point that given societal views the laws could become warped and instead of making things fair and even they get made to put down certain groups.

• Free speech
• Sticks and stones
• Deal with it

No. Hate speech is still free speech.

Only if threats are included.

-R24

No as long you don't threaten people you should be free to say what you want.

If it were punishable, freedom of speech would lose its power.

No, if you jail people for being jerks everybody will end up being jailed sooner or later.

There really isn't such a thing as free speech.

Rather the burden is on the state (or an individual in a civil case) to prove that such speech was intended to and caused harm to another. In the case shown in @static_shock's post there was a deliberate attempt to intimidate and threaten, to infringe on the rights of others. People are not entitled to speech that has such results.

This is different from a person ranting about how they don't like X group of people on a website because someone can easily, and with no real burden, stop reading that website, or a book for that matter. Showing up at a crowded event, and stirring up violence is no different than yelling FIRE! in a theater, the classic example of where free speech ends. The grey area being organizing an even that could be considered to incite a riot, such as when the KKK marched through Skokie, IL which had at the time (and may still) the largest number of holocaust survivors in the US. Of course this was before 9/11 and the potential to refuse them a permit as a terrorist organization.

The other grey area, and one to tread really softly in, is when an individual may be culpable for conspiracy to incite violence via hate speech in writing or events. As I stated before there is no direct harm as a person can leave such events or choose not to read it. However, there is potential for legal action in the repeated attempt to incite. While I do believe there are some individuals who could be prosecuted in this manner. I would vastly prefer that they be sought out for other crimes they often commit (tax evasion etc) since this is an area that could get out of control very quickly.

As with all things legal the discussion must be nuanced and careful. Unfortunately self-righteous indignation seems to rule our society, although that should not be surprising given its origins.

Man the word 'speech' attracts Americans easily

@mikepeterson: @bluehope: @toratorn: Freedom of Speech isn't the ability to say whatever you want...

Freedom of speech was founded on the principle that the things you say won't cause harm to you but at the same time it isn't something that will cause harm to others. It's a double edge sword.

If you are a dick to someone based on some prejudice you aren't going to be jailed but if are going to incite violence, threaten or attack people then that's hate speech. Which is punishable and does not fall in "freedom of speech".

A clear understanding of both will help in the future.

Exactly

What, are you living in 15th century?

I never talked about allowing threats or inciting violence so you're not really refuting anything in my post.

No and Lunacyde probably put it best. I think things are fine the way they are now. Though there are those that would wish to limit free speech, if given the chance resulting in punishment of some sort. I'm pretty sure countries like Canada, Britain and Germany among others in the west already have laws in place regarding hate speech though. They have something in common with countries run by tyrants (regarding this matter).

No.

Who becomes the arbiters of what is considered hate speech and what isn't?

You can't limit free speech for some and not for all. It's all or nothing.

Just for curiosity's sake, if you knew someone that openly hated blacks or whites but never supported violence against anyone would you support punishing them?

@dementordad: I like your reply. Well said. I wouldn't say there is no freedom of speech though. I would say that there is a degree of freedom to express yourself so long as that expression does not infringe upon the rights of others or result in lawless action.

Like all rights there are limits and stipulations. I just hope that we don't confuse them to the point we begin to lose them.

Meh, who knows? What is considered "hate speech" constantly changes.

I definitely see anti-semitism in any form being a criminal offense by the end of the year. They will use all the recent collection of bomb threats as reason.

No, I wouldn't.

You may not get punished for hate speech, but it will hurt others mentally.

Jaycool2 is not cool that's hate speech am I going to jail no

The definition for what both free speech and hate speech mean vary wildly depending on the source or the person you ask. Personally I'd say no, people should not be persecuted for hate speech via the law and I'd argue that all forms of speech should be allowed. And yes, I would include verbal assault and harassment in with this, even if I don't agree and reject to such actions personally. Regardless, if someone were to, say, attack someone verbally based on race or whatever, the majority of modern Western society will immediately condemn such a view/action regardless. However, if said speech escalates into violence, then I'd say the government can get involved. If it remains solely verbal and not physical, then no government intervention should be required in my view.

However, if we're talking about hate based speech in the work place, then it maybe a different story. However, I believe this depends on the business/institution in which a person works for and said business's attitudes to this rather than the government itself. If a company has a clause that states there shall be no such speech in their workplace, then considering the person works there, they should respect such rules as assigned in their contract when they received the position.

No.

@lunacyde:

I guess I generally disagree with the notion of inherent and inalienable rights. Rather I believe there are rights we bestow upon each other in order to create a civil society. This fits better with the reality of the situation which is that we choose not to limit the rights of of individuals except in cases where they are clearly, by intent or negligence, depriving others of their rights. In other words there is no right to free speech, rather there is a social contract allowing for the maximum freedom for all by limiting only those who are sociopathic or wantonly negligent. This is where most of the decisions rendered on free speech have landed in the Supreme Court.

So long as you're not actually threatening a person or group of people, you should be able to say what you like imo, regardless of who it offends.

There is punishment for what some groups consider hate speech and the more famous you are the more they will come after you.

If they find you guilty of there versions of hate speech they will do things from mock you to potentially attack you on the streets and everything in between from going after your family to trying, trying to destroy you socially and make you lose your job.

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them they cry.”

Above example of hate speech.

Generally, you shouldn't be punished for hate speech. But if you are using it to directly harass people verbally rather than on an internet platform, then it's a different story.

That is not hate speech. Geeze That is just prejudice and ignorance. People need to learn the difference. You're assuming hate there.

Hate speech is like

All woman are evil and deserve to hurt.

Men are the scum of the earth and kill all men.

This