Is Hate Speech Free Speech?

[Rebound]

When should hate speech be prohibited, and how?

For instance, if someone advocates for genocide against Jews, is it hate speech? Should it be banned? Most importantly, what if the speaker claims he was not advocating genocide while the listener believes he was advocating genocide?

One Definition of Hate Speech: “Any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” However, the Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is usually legal, unless it targets a person or group with imminent harm. Seems as though this puts universities in a pickle: If a group is calling for genocide, but not for immediately killing or hurting people, they are apparently exercising their legal free speech rights. How should the university respond?

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

When should hate speech be prohibited, and how?

For instance, if someone advocates for genocide against Jews, is it hate speech? Should it be banned? Most importantly, what if the speaker claims he was not advocating genocide while the listener believes he was advocating genocide?

One Definition of Hate Speech: “Any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” However, the Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is usually legal, unless it targets a person or group with imminent harm. Seems as though this puts universities in a pickle: If a group is calling for genocide, but not for immediately killing or hurting people, they are apparently exercising their legal free speech rights. How should the university respond?

"The" Supreme Court presumably is the United States Supreme Court as this is an American university link.

As such "hate speech" is regarded as a justifiable limit on freedom of expression in Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

People calling for genocide are usually and should be charged in Canada.  The decision to charge lays with the crown and police officers.   As such, Toronto police have been criticized for allowing threats and hateful comments to stand recently.

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"The" Supreme Court presumably is the United States Supreme Court as this is an American university link.

As such "hate speech" is regarded as a justifiable limit on freedom of expression in Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

People calling for genocide are usually and should be charged in Canada.  The decision to charge lays with the crown and police officers.   As such, Toronto police have been criticized for allowing threats and hateful comments to stand recently.

Sorry, I meant to refer to the US law, but really I’m interested in people’s opinions. After all, the decision to permit hate speech in America has been legislated from the bench, not by law.

[Deluge]

27 minutes ago, Rebound said:

When should hate speech be prohibited, and how?

For instance, if someone advocates for genocide against Jews, is it hate speech? Should it be banned? Most importantly, what if the speaker claims he was not advocating genocide while the listener believes he was advocating genocide?

One Definition of Hate Speech: “Any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” However, the Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is usually legal, unless it targets a person or group with imminent harm. Seems as though this puts universities in a pickle: If a group is calling for genocide, but not for immediately killing or hurting people, they are apparently exercising their legal free speech rights. How should the university respond?

It seems universities are teaching their college age children to trigger themselves over anything they or their radical professors don't like to hear. For example, when someone like Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro visit a left-leaning university, they are met with liberal students who are easily traumatized and readily insecure. It makes for entertaining video, but it illustrates how powerful the left has gotten with its bullshit take on "hate speech". 

[herbie]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

if someone advocates for genocide against Jews, is it hate speech?

Duhhh! that you should have to ask, other than to troll for negative responses from the most deplorable.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

When should hate speech be prohibited, and how?

When a leftist or a minority does it, it's always ok, so whether or not it's hate speech depends on who's talking.

Examples of "OK hate speech": https://www.westernstandard.news/news/trudeau-calls-the-unvaccinated-racist-and-misogynistic-extremists/article_a3bacece-2e14-5b8c-bf37-eddd672205f3.html

Got it?

[Michael Hardner]

Calling a racist a racist is hate speech against... uh.... racists. 

Please nobody offend anybody who calls this noble Canadian a bad name ....
 

 

[WestCanMan]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Calling a racist a racist is hate speech against... uh.... racists. 

Please nobody offend anybody who calls this noble Canadian a bad name ....

Gawd you're a small-minded little man.

Question for ya Mikey: If one muslim goes to an Arianna Grande concert with explosives and shrapnel strapped to his body and then detonates the bomb to kill as many children as he can, does that mean that every single muslim is a terrorist that wants to kill children? 

Barack Obama said "we have all seen this bigotry in our own lives at some point. We’ve heard it at times in our own homes. If we’re honest, perhaps we’ve heard prejudice in our own heads and felt it in our own hearts. We know that." Does that mean that all blacks are racist? Does it mean that all African Americans are racist? Does it mean that all Democrats are racist? Does it mean that all Americans are racist? Does it mean that all liberals are racist? You're one of his biggest fanboys, so what does it say about you, Mikey? Did Barack Obama out you as a racist?

FYI what Trudeau said absolutely qualifies as hate speech because it was a patently absurd and very serious slander against all unvaccinated people. Just because one unvaccinated trucker is a racist doesn't mean that we all are, do you get it, Mikey?

85% of people in North America are vaccinated, that means that there are a lot of pedophiles who are vaccinated, Mikey. In fact, probably every sex tourist got vaccinated so that they could fly overseas to have sex with child prostitutes. Seeing as they're vaccinated, does that make you a pedophile? Did I just prove, by your own brand of logic, that you're a pedophile, Mikey? 

How is it possible that you still haven't realized, after all this time, that being unvaccinated has nothing to do with a person's beliefs about race or women? You've had 3 years to think about whether or not being unvaccinated means that a person is likely to be a racist, misogynist or extremist. 3 years. Then you belch out that mindless drivel...

[Fluffypants]

Hate speech should be free speech because quantifying what is and isn't hate speech is way to subjective and far too easy for governments persecute people espousing different views. Also I want to know what people really think.

[TreeBeard]

5 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Hate speech should be free speech because quantifying what is and isn't hate speech is way to subjective and far too easy for governments persecute people espousing different views. Also I want to know what people really think.

It’s actually quite easy and done all the time in cases of slander and libel.  Why would hate speech be any different than those limits on speech?

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

It’s actually quite easy and done all the time in cases of slander and libel.  

Not really.

Slander is a tiny charge. You have to prove damages to collect on a slander suit, and if you just earn an hourly wage or a salary that amounts to almost nothing, unless maybe you lose your job. In reality only people with a public image to protect can get much from a slander charge.

Libel is a much bigger charge, but not many individuals get the chance to sue for libel.

In the case of hate speech like Trudeau's, who's to sue for libel?

Can I make a court case that "Trudeau's hate speech/libel affected me because some people know I'm unvaxed"? Of course not. It's not like vaxtards said anything of the sort to my face, and I don't care what they say online because no one of consequence values their opinions. 

Do the unvaxed file a class-action suit? Nah. His hate speech offended a lot of unvaxed people, but never harmed anyone to any great extent, so one's going to get compensation for it. In reality all it did was divide Canadians even further. 

Edited January 9, 2024 by WestCanMan

[eyeball]

On 1/8/2024 at 8:59 AM, Rebound said:

If a group is calling for genocide, but not for immediately killing or hurting people...

Then they're probably only imagining that group is calling for genocide. OTOH they could be perpetrating an accusation in a mirror.

Accusation in a mirror is a false claim that accuses the target of something that the perpetrator is doing or intends to do.[3][4] The name was used by an anonymous Rwandan propagandist in Note Relative à la Propagande d’Expansion et de Recrutement. Drawing on the ideas of Joseph Goebbels and Vladimir Lenin, he instructed colleagues to "impute to enemies exactly what they and their own party are planning to do"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror

Edited January 9, 2024 by eyeball

[Rebound]

On 1/8/2024 at 4:29 PM, herbie said:

Duhhh! that you should have to ask, other than to troll for negative responses from the most deplorable.

If you agree that calling for genocide against the Jews is hate speech, at what point can it be prohibited? 
 

We can all sit around and say, “He said something awful” all day long.  At what point can the government prosecute or prohibit?

Edited January 9, 2024 by Rebound

[Fluffypants]

17 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

It’s actually quite easy and done all the time in cases of slander and libel.  Why would hate speech be any different than those limits on speech?

Libel and slander isn't subjective and can be proven without bias. 

[TreeBeard]

13 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

Libel and slander isn't subjective and can be proven without bias. 

Why couldn’t hate speech be determined as well then?  Why would it be different?

Edited January 10, 2024 by TreeBeard

[TreeBeard]

29 minutes ago, Rebound said:

If you agree that calling for genocide against the Jews is hate speech, at what point can it be prohibited? 
 

We can all sit around and say, “He said something awful” all day long.  At what point can the government prosecute or prohibit?

If we agree that lying about someone and damaging their reputation is slander, where can it be prohibited?  This same thing is determined by the courts all the time.  Legislation is passed and the courts interpret it. 

[Rebound]

25 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If we agree that lying about someone and damaging their reputation is slander, where can it be prohibited?  This same thing is determined by the courts all the time.  Legislation is passed and the courts interpret it. 

In the US, calling for genocide is free speech. It might be hate speech, but it cannot be punished. 

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

In the US, calling for genocide is free speech. It might be hate speech, but it cannot be punished. 

OK. I thought you asked if we agree that it was hate speech and how that could be enforced if it was.  
If the question is “is it free speech” then the answer is yes.  Obviously in America it is.  

[impartialobserver]

Hate speech is still speech. The law protects you from being arrested/detained/etc for such speech. Now, are you free from the consequences of such speech? No and nor should a person be. 

[herbie]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

f you agree that calling for genocide against the Jews is hate speech, at what point can it be prohibited? 

WTH do you mean at what point? Say it on a proper forum, your post will be erased and you'll be booted. Print it on a pamphlet and you'll be arrested. Stand on a soap box on the corner and hope you're arrested before the crowd gets to you.

 

[robosmith]

23 minutes ago, herbie said:

WTH do you mean at what point? Say it on a proper forum, your post will be erased and you'll be booted. Print it on a pamphlet and you'll be arrested. Stand on a soap box on the corner and hope you're arrested before the crowd gets to you.

 

In the US you cannot be arrested for hate speech unless you've incited others to act on their hate with a crime.

Then you might be arrested for conspiracy, but the main target would be the actor. Unless it was a huge mob all incited at the same time, or there was extensive PLANNING which can be proven, like Trump and his cronies did.

[Rebound]

29 minutes ago, herbie said:

WTH do you mean at what point? Say it on a proper forum, your post will be erased and you'll be booted. Print it on a pamphlet and you'll be arrested. Stand on a soap box on the corner and hope you're arrested before the crowd gets to you.

 

I don’t think that, in the US, printing a pamphlet calling for genocide is a crime, and yelling it in public cannot get you arrested. That’s how it stands today, under court ruling. Apparently, only a Constitutional amendment or a different Supreme Court could change that.

[Yakuda]

On 1/8/2024 at 11:59 AM, Rebound said:

When should hate speech be prohibited, and how?

For instance, if someone advocates for genocide against Jews, is it hate speech? Should it be banned? Most importantly, what if the speaker claims he was not advocating genocide while the listener believes he was advocating genocide?

One Definition of Hate Speech: “Any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” However, the Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is usually legal, unless it targets a person or group with imminent harm. Seems as though this puts universities in a pickle: If a group is calling for genocide, but not for immediately killing or hurting people, they are apparently exercising their legal free speech rights. How should the university respond?

A speaker cannot be held responsible for how others interpret what they said. That's nonsensical. 

The problem with all this is who gets to decide what constitutes hate speech. I certainly don't trust any leftist to do it. 

And the fact the people are even advocating for the banning of speech should scare everyone but apparently some can't wait to ban speech. That's the stuff of dictatorships. 

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

 

And the fact the people are even advocating for the banning of speech should scare everyone 

Speech is already banned, in several contexts.

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Speech is already banned, in several contexts.

So then its proper to expand that ban to speech people don't like? That's really what this "hate" speech thing is all about.

While I'm opposed to most bans on speech but my greater concern is again, WHO decides WHAT constitutes hate speech. I hope you can see the problems with such a thing.