Proposal: Hate Speech needs to be protected

Status
Not open for further replies.
phlogistician said:
You just contradicted yourself. You said people have a right to speak freely, and then said people don't have a right to say certain things. Which is it?
Click to expand...

No, I said that your right to freedom of speech ends when it starts violating the rights of others.
 
Cowboy said:
No, I said that your right to freedom of speech ends when it starts violating the rights of others.
Click to expand...

OK, so you are being vague. That doesn't make your point. What 'rights' to people have, when it comes to being spoken to?

Are you saying that threats and intimidation are not OK?

Are you saying that racial slurs are?

Are you saying that it's OK for a group of people to follow an ethnic minority, homosexual, or emo kid, and make them feel frightened, by continuously haranguing them with insults?
 
Cowboy said:
How did you reach that conclusion?
Click to expand...

Because none of you has stated a clear position on what language is acceptable. Which words are OK to use, and when speech becomes intimidation. As too many hide behind the word 'free', I can only assume there is no limit to what people can say to each other in your eyes, no matter how offensive, or derogatory.
 
Its as simple as this, free speech includes artist, moral, personal ect. expression. So if things such as racial slurs, insulting or taboo comments, or explict speech is restricted and censored, we are therfor censoring the very essence of free speech. Expression does not include physicaly attacking someone, but does give you the right to, on private property or by persmission, express what ever you want. Wether you want to express how much you hate a person, president, political beliefs, country, state, race, religion ect. is your right, and does not infringe on the rights of others, who may make the same statments and expressions towards you or your president, political beliefs, country, state, race, religion ect.
 
Psycho Bound said:
Its as simple as this, free speech includes artist, moral, personal ect. expression. So if things such as racial slurs, insulting or taboo comments, or explict speech is restricted and censored, we are therfor censoring the very essence of free speech. Expression does not include physicaly attacking someone, but does give you the right to, on private property or by persmission, express what ever you want. Wether you want to express how much you hate a person, president, political beliefs, country, state, race, religion ect. is your right, and does not infringe on the rights of others, who may make the same statments and expressions towards you or your president, political beliefs, country, state, race, religion ect.
Click to expand...

And in public? Is it your right. under freedom of speech, to follow someone down the street, using racial slurs against them? For five people to do that to one person?
 
phlogistician said:
And in public? Is it your right. under freedom of speech, to follow someone down the street, using racial slurs against them? For five people to do that to one person?
Click to expand...

As long as it does not become physicaly violent, yes. I don't believe that the government should own any public land, because the people are supposed to own the government. So, as a citizen of the US, the public area is equally mine as his/hers. So, as long as it is not physical, racial (or other) expression should be allowed
 
Same as how bands and political repersintives should have the right to express in the same manner when playing a gig, holding a political ralley, ect. on public property
 
Psycho Bound said:
As long as it does not become physicaly violent, yes. .... So, as long as it is not physical, racial (or other) expression should be allowed
Click to expand...

So threats of violence are OK in your mind, as long as it doesn't escalate to violence?

How does the person being abused, know it isn't going to escalate, and not to be fearful? Especially if outnumbered?
 
phlogistician said:
So threats of violence are OK in your mind, as long as it doesn't escalate to violence?

How does the person being abused, know it isn't going to escalate, and not to be fearful? Especially if outnumbered?
Click to expand...

To be blunt, yes.
Emoutions of one person is not the primary concern of another. Im quite sorry youre afraid, but thers nothing I can do about that
 
phlogistician said:
OK, so you are being vague. That doesn't make your point. What 'rights' to people have, when it comes to being spoken to?

Are you saying that threats and intimidation are not OK?

Are you saying that racial slurs are?

Are you saying that it's OK for a group of people to follow an ethnic minority, homosexual, or emo kid, and make them feel frightened, by continuously haranguing them with insults?
Click to expand...

You don't have a right to threaten or intentionally intimidate others. There's an obvious difference between following someone around, threatening them, calling them names, etc. and just yelling an insult out the car window as you drive by.

I don't think any word or phrase should be banned or punishable by law. But certain behaviors should be. Threatening people, stalking people, slandering people, shouldn't be (and generally aren't) considered "free speech".
 
phlogistician said:
Because none of you has stated a clear position on what language is acceptable. Which words are OK to use, and when speech becomes intimidation. As too many hide behind the word 'free', I can only assume there is no limit to what people can say to each other in your eyes, no matter how offensive, or derogatory.
Click to expand...

I don't think any words should be on some government-sponsored "do not use" list. I believe that people have a right to not be threatened or harassed, but this doesn't mean they have a right to be shielded from comments or words they find offensive.

I think that most rational people would agree that following someone all over town, calling them names and threatening to kick their ass crosses the line from simple speech to stalking/harassment/whatever. On the other hand, yelling "Fuck you, honkey!" out a car window while driving by may be rude, hurtful and asshole-like, but there isn't anything inherently threatening about it.
 
sifreak21 said:
freedom of speach is a joke we dont have it now and probably never will
Click to expand...

the fact you can say that without me going freedom of speach is a wonderful thing. we have it now and always will under our government. GOD BLESS AMERICA shows some freedom of speech
 
Psycho Bound said:
the fact you can say that without me going freedom of speach is a wonderful thing. we have it now and always will under our government. GOD BLESS AMERICA shows some freedom of speech
Click to expand...

go to target or any electronics store buy a video camera. have a friend tape you go up to a cop and say. "in my opinion your a fucking douschbag, instead of sitting there trying to catch people speeding do something useful. there are tons of murders robberies and rape going on and your sitting here.

after that when your friend posts bail for your then post the video on here..

OHH on top of that tell someone that tell someone as a joke you want to murder the president you will be in jail before ent gets out of your mouth. yet we still have free speech right?
 
Cowboy said:
I don't think any words should be on some government-sponsored "do not use" list. I believe that people have a right to not be threatened or harassed, but this doesn't mean they have a right to be shielded from comments or words they find offensive.

I think that most rational people would agree that following someone all over town, calling them names and threatening to kick their ass crosses the line from simple speech to stalking/harassment/whatever. On the other hand, yelling "Fuck you, honkey!" out a car window while driving by may be rude, hurtful and asshole-like, but there isn't anything inherently threatening about it.
Click to expand...

OK, so we are on the same page, but you should see, that by agreeing there are limits, such as not supporting threats and intimidation, we have dispensed with the fallacious notion of 'free' speech, and are now merely debating where we draw the line on the limitations of speech.

We now just have to agree what constitutes harassment and intimidation.
 
Psycho Bound said:
To be blunt, yes.
Emoutions of one person is not the primary concern of another. Im quite sorry youre afraid, but thers nothing I can do about that
Click to expand...

Oh dear, when you start to say things like 'I'm sorry youre (sic) afraid' it's clear you do not understand what's being said.

I am arguing a hypothetical to underline the fault in your logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top