[GoldenSaber]

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

 

[Horsetrader]

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.

 

[ccw9mm]

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.

 

[kpw]

No comment, my head hurts from reading the entire thing. :frown:

 

[Random]

Inoffensive speech does not need protection.

 

[Rob P.]

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.

 

[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.