Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Article

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Article

This is a discussion on Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Article within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Please read this article in its entirety, especially the end. In your opinion, what action do you think the guy is saying we should take? ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Article

  1. #1
    Member Array GoldenSaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    306

    Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Article

    Please read this article in its entirety, especially the end. In your opinion, what action do you think the guy is saying we should take?

    Free Speech vs. Hate Speech -- Politics Daily
    __________________________
    Does My Wallet Make Me Look Fat? It shouldn't because Obama is taking all my money.


  2. #2
    Member Array Horsetrader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    now: here and there
    Posts
    225
    It seems pretty clear, just look at the last two lines. He OBSERVES that the government through the judicial system is taking action against "hate speech" and recommends that "we should do the same". The author really ignores the true crux of the subject and that is "please DEFINE hate speech?"

    He gives the example of the radio host who suggested that Glen Beck should commit suicide on TV for uttering "Obama is a RASCIST". So exactly WHO is uttering hate speech ? Not Glen Beck, in my book, who consistently uses LOGIC and FACTS to reach his conclusions. If you say both Glen and the other guy are engaging in "hate speech", then we have problem #2: Is it possible to disagree passionately and NEVER, EVER use our FREE SPEECH in a manner that takes it into YOUR DEFINITION Of hate speech ?

    Frankly this path to outlawing speech that somebody (and who do we get to be an impartial judge?) may be offended by seems to be more like SILENCING the opposition than anything else. I vote for FREE SPEECH and if it offends you than get a tougher skin. The action the article writer is suggesting (in my opinion) is that we should (as any elementary teacher would put it) "self monitor" our speech, so as not to be so offensive to those who disagree with us. Yeah, right. Doesn't work in the classroom either, bub.
    "Improvise, adapt, overcome."

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,418
    Seems pretty clear that one can say a fair amount in opposition to anyone else and be said to exercise the freedom of speech. It also seems pretty clear that effectively calling for the death of the opposition, even in supposed "shock jock" jest, is hateful and designed to inflame and incite.

    I'm with you, though. To limit speech legally in any area other than seriously calling for the death of someone is to open up a serious Pandora's Box of potential abuse for claims of sedition and other malarkey in order to silence those with differing views. Better to not even go there and allow such authority to those who would almost certainly abuse it.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #4
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,160
    No comment, my head hurts from reading the entire thing.
    "In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." -
    -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

  5. #5
    Member Array Random's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clayton NC
    Posts
    399
    Inoffensive speech does not need protection.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by Random View Post
    Inoffensive speech does not need protection.
    Nor does offensive speech.

    Speech which advocates violence because of race, religion, sex, etc. is "hate speech."

    Speech which advocates violence for the sake of violence is "hate speech."

    Speech which advocates suicide, or punishment because of a disagree over viewpoint on issues is NOT "hate speech" unless it is designed to motivate another to ACT on the inference that the violence is acceptable to counter and eliminate opposing views.

  7. #7
    Member Array Random's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clayton NC
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Random
    Inoffensive speech does not need protection.
    Nor does offensive speech.
    Actually, the REASON for protection of free speech is the protection of offensive speech. As long as it remains SPEECH, it SHOULD be protected, however vile. Someone can spew all the hate they want, and has the RIGHT to do so. That RIGHT should NOT be infringed simply because someone finds it offensive.

    Even offensive speech deserves protection

    INOFFENSIVE speech doesn't need protection because people don't generally try to silence it. OFFENSIVE speech needs protection because people often DO try to silence it.

    Speech which advocates violence because of race, religion, sex, etc. is "hate speech."

    Speech which advocates violence for the sake of violence is "hate speech."
    There is a big difference between advocating violence and simply being offensive.

    "Nappy-headed ho's" - was that "hate speech"? Many people would define it as such. But is SHOULD be protected.

    The problem is that today, "hate speech" is defined FAR more widely than simply advocating violence.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Another source of danger to free speech?
    By DaveH in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 12th, 2008, 10:12 AM
  2. Good article on Iran's Presidents speech
    By osanmike in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2006, 10:47 AM
  3. Rice Says Gun Rights Are as Important as Right to Free Speech and Religion
    By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 14th, 2005, 09:10 PM
  4. Speech by CA Sen. McClintock
    By Captain Crunch in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 28th, 2004, 11:10 PM

Search tags for this page

free speech shouldnt protect hate speech
,

free speech vs offensive speech quotes

,
free speech vs. hate speech quotes
,
hate speech scholarly articles
,
hate speech vs. free speech scholarly article
,
protection inoffensive speech quote
,
to free speech vs hate speech summary article
Click on a term to search for related topics.