What do you think of hate speech laws?

Should America have hate speech laws? Should countries with hate speech laws have them or get rid of them? Even though I do live in a country with them, I am personally against hate speech law as I think they limit free speech too much.

Although 51% of Democrats think that America should have hate-speech laws, which is interesting.

There is no need for them when slander and libel laws are already in place.

TBH It totally depends on how the law is implemented. In some cases hate speech is used to oppress and cause upset to people intentionally, and for nothing other than spite, for example people preaching anti-abortion outside of abortions clinics. That's a type of hate speech, and is way too extreme and damaging. I once heard a good quote regarding freedom of speech, this was it.

Although free speech is an important value, it is not the only one. Human dignity, equality, freedom to live without harassment and intimidation, social harmony, mutual respect, and protection of one’s good name and honor are also central to the good life and deserve to be safeguarded. Because these values conflict, either inherently or in particular contexts, they need to be balanced.”

There are, moreover, many regulations of speech to which no one objects, punishing, for example, commercial fraud, graffiti, or courtroom perjury. Hate speech bans are no different.’

Also, this slightly altered quote is why you find the government banning hate speech.

‘It is vital for governments to take a clear stand in principle against hatred and intolerance. Western democracies must set an example. Even if they fight discrimination in other ways, they should ban hate speech to set an example for their citizens and on the world stage. Some people would say that vulnerable groups must “just learn to live with” hate speech.’

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

In order for safety measures to exist, the application of freedom must be compromised.

I'm in favor of speech restrictions regarding slander, libel, vandalism, perjury and incitement to violence, because those are typically fairly clear cut in both meaning and intent and have tangible and immediate consequences. Hate speech laws are one of those concepts that sound nice but are absolutely terrible; governments across the world that have equivalents of these laws (they call them different things like "sentiment laws") have used them to ban and burn books and imprison people for saying things they or the groups in power don't like. Giving the government the ability to decide what's offensive and what should be banned is a recipe for disaster. Theresa May wanted (or still wants, as far as I know) to punish people whose words showed "a lack of respect" for the rule of law. That is ridiculous. Respect is always nice to receive, but absolutely no one is just entitled to respect, and I cannot imagine the kind of arrogance it takes for a government official to demand that people only be able to post respectful messages about the government. It's all well and good until the shoe's on the other foot, and everyone imagines all these laws are ever used for is to stop people from saying overtly objectionable things. The laws that would stop the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing soldiers' funerals are the same ones that send Iranian cartoonists to jail for decades because they mock the Ayatollah.

@saren: I'm sure most hate speech if it's truly done in a way which is seen as harassment could be dealt with under harassment laws anyways.

At any rate, I don't think there's a need to worry about such laws coming to the States anytime soon given that just two days ago, the Supreme Court ruled to overturn the conviction of a guy who made vague and indirect threats on Facebook about going on a school shooting and was then charged under a federal law against threatening messages.

As far as my opinion goes. One should have the right to say whatever he wants. Hate speech included as long he is not calling for violence or directly negatively influencing someone else.

I'd rather die than live without freedom of speech.

Also, America already has hate speech laws.

Free speech = allowing hate speech.

I don't think we do.

Certain hate speech has a history of being followed up with violent action. I think people have a problem with violent action accompanying the speech.

I have a problem with "violence-speech", the act of threatening violence. Of course, there are plenty of people who speak pretty calmly about wanting to wipe groups of people they don't like off the face of the earth but just because they say it calmly does not mean they are not threatening violence.

In the United States of America, as long as your not threatening someone's life through theft or destroying their body with murder then you can pretty much do whatever you want. Tolerance has to do with allowing someone to exist but it does not mean you accept their opinion that guides their way of life.

Basically, do whatever you want but remember: Thieves and murders are not welcome here.

They should be free to say whatever they want, but be held accountable by other people's freedom to yell back

This of course, as long as there are no actual negative effects to anyone such as oppression.

The entire idea of hate speech laws is stupid. And I don't want any part of it. I don't care if there's some guy or chick out there saying the meanest and most ignorant things. Close your ears and deal with it. That's something we just have to deal with personally, and a price we have to pay for freedom of speech. A price I'll be glad to pay. America didn't go through all those wars for nothing. We don't need the big bad government coming to the rescue of people's hurt feelings. Hate crimes though are entirely different.

I didn't know it was possible, but I just lost respect for the Democrats.

Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. You should not go to jail just because your words hurt someone's feelings. How can anybody think it is reasonable to lock someone us for saying mean words?

@frozen said:

Do you know the details behind this poll?

Hate speech laws? Let me tell you how much I hate them. In 1977, our country......

Seriously? Of course there shouldn't be hate speech laws. As long as it doesn't present a clear and present danger to the country's safety people have the freedom to say whatever they want no matter how offensive or how hurtful.

I like the "imminent danger" argument with this type of stuff. People can say whatever they want, but words used to start a fight, or threaten someone need to be dealt with.

We have very vague hate speech laws, that are really difficult to enforce.

Individuals under the laws have the privilege to have free discourse , however as you've seen they have been altered . Free discourse in the United states appears to be free, however that is a hallucination where reecently they've been changing it . There ought to be a scarcely discernible difference of free discourse , and violent free discourse .

Humanity isn't ready to have freedom of speech. They should be stripped of such a right and punished (e.g. life in prison, death) for anything even remotely hateful said towards a specific group of people.

So you're saying that anyone that says anything remotely hateful towards a certain group, should die?

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've read this morning, which is a pretty mighty feat.

To be fair this topic is pretty broad. There's a difference between sending someone to jail for calling someone a racial slur than actually advocating ethnic cleansing. Even John Stuart Mill understood that the intolerant forfeit all rights of expression whenever they attempt to intimidate or persecute others for expressing their own rights. This doesn't mean we have a right to murder anyone who openly identifies themselves as a bigot but it does mean bigots can go to jail if they promote violence towards people they dislike. However, in a fair world, people making death threats to bigots should also be charged under these laws.

@dngn4774:

My view is that speech is not and cannot be illegal in and of itself. People mention the concept of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, but in that instance, it's not the words that are the crime but the reckless endangerment and disturbance of the peace. Similarly, saying you hate someone is not and should never be illegal, but conspiring to do them physical harm is and should always be illegal. In the case of threatening, it again isn't the actual words that are criminal but the intention to injure.

Truth: The new hate speech

@thegreatvampirekillerx: the haters say thier speech is the truth bruh