Is Hate Speech Free Speech?

[Yakuda]

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

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.

Why wasn't trump convicted of seditious conspiracy like his so called "buddies"? How can anyone be held responsible for the actions of others? If I tell you to put $1 million in my bank account are you compelled to comply just because I said it? No because people are responsible for their own behavior. Plan and simple. 

[Rebound]

9 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Why wasn't trump convicted of seditious conspiracy like his so called "buddies"? How can anyone be held responsible for the actions of others? If I tell you to put $1 million in my bank account are you compelled to comply just because I said it? No because people are responsible for their own behavior. Plan and simple. 

Trump is charged with 91 felonies. That’s far more than enough to put him in jail for life.

Edited January 10 by Rebound

[Yakuda]

26 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Trump is charged with 91 felonies. That’s far more than enough to put him in jail for life.

That wasn't my question. Care to answer the question? 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

1. So then its proper to expand that ban to speech people don't like?
2. That's really what this "hate" speech thing is all about.
3. While I'm opposed to most bans on speech ...
4. but my greater concern is again, WHO decides WHAT constitutes hate speech.
5. I hope you can see the problems with such a thing. 

1. "Not liking it" is not grounds for banning speech, no.
2. No, it's not.
3.  "Most" ?  So not all ?  Why just above you said it should "scare" everyone to just propose banning speech. 
4. WHO decides is who decides everything - government and the courts before the public.  I say "before" because they are at a minimum witness to the process, although they should be consulted.  In most cases they are, however clearly there are things that are kept from the public.
5. I think a healthy public begets a healthy (and light touch) government.  If people didn't buy snake oil, there wouldn't need to be a law about it. 

[Yakuda]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "Not liking it" is not grounds for banning speech, no.
2. No, it's not.
3.  "Most" ?  So not all ?  Why just above you said it should "scare" everyone to just propose banning speech. 
4. WHO decides is who decides everything - government and the courts before the public.  I say "before" because they are at a minimum witness to the process, although they should be consulted.  In most cases they are, however clearly there are things that are kept from the public.
5. I think a healthy public begets a healthy (and light touch) government.  If people didn't buy snake oil, there wouldn't need to be a law about it. 

Yes it is.

The government and the courts????? Not very impressive or comforting. They once declared slavery legal.

People stupid enough to buy snake oil should deal with the consequences. Maybe you need a mommy I don't. 

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

That wasn't my question. Care to answer the question? 

Trump wasn’t convicted because his case hasn’t reached trial.

The prosecutors did not charge him with seditious conspiracy relating to January 6 because they chose the four charges which they felt were easiest to succeed with. They still have the option to add seditious conspiracy to the list of charges if they wish. This is called prosecutorial discretion.

[Yakuda]

21 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Trump wasn’t convicted because his case hasn’t reached trial.

The prosecutors did not charge him with seditious conspiracy relating to January 6 because they chose the four charges which they felt were easiest to succeed with. They still have the option to add seditious conspiracy to the list of charges if they wish. This is called prosecutorial discretion.

So then then claim that he incited an insurrection was just a left wing lie. No one associated with that day was convicted of insurrection or sedition and trump never will be either. Their discretion is based on the fact that what was claimed never happened. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

1. Yes it is.

2. The government and the courts????? Not very impressive or comforting. They once declared slavery legal.

3. People stupid enough to buy snake oil should deal with the consequences. Maybe you need a mommy I don't. 

1. How ?
2. Ok, well you yourself allowed for some bans on speech, implied by your own words.  Who would YOU want to do it if not the government/courts ?
3. Based on what I'm reading I would say you might.

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. How ?
2. Ok, well you yourself allowed for some bans on speech, implied by your own words.  Who would YOU want to do it if not the government/courts ?
3. Based on what I'm reading I would say you might.

There are weak minded individuals who believe misgendering is hard speech and best and violence at worse. Please stop pretending.

You're confused. Government and the courts are all we have but are far from perfect and therefore suggesting something is legal doesn't make it good or just. Behavior is what matters as that moves us closer to objective standard of what's actually dangerous. Words may hurt people feelings, that doesn't make them dangerous. 

As I said and as you affirm, you may need a mommy but don't. 

[godzilla]

there is no free speech. that's pretty obvious. if you say something that is untrue about my business and it costs me money then you will pay for that... so, it's not free.

or if, as in case of Rudy Giuliani, you lie about me and cause me to have to move or change my name... thats not free either.

when speech is hate speech is a very interesting question. when it affects an entire group of people then it just gets difficult to directly relate the event (the speech) to some poor outcome for the affected group.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

Why wasn't trump convicted of seditious conspiracy like his so called "buddies"? 

I expect is simply a pragmatic choice. If you can put a crook behind bars with something easier to prove and skip all the silly wrangling about free speech and word definitions, do it. Take the concrete case as an easy (or easier) layup Add new charges later if you want to. A little like Al Capone and tax evasion. 

[impartialobserver]

You are free to produce hate speech and not fear of being arrested or being prosecuted in a criminal court. Now, that does not preclude one from civil lawsuits. If you think that hate speech is prosecuted then listen to a lot of gangster rap or black/death metal.. they say some pretty dark, vile, and hateful things. 

[Yakuda]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I expect is simply a pragmatic choice. If you can put a crook behind bars with something easier to prove and skip all the silly wrangling about free speech and word definitions, do it. Take the concrete case as an easy (or easier) layup Add new charges later if you want to. A little like Al Capone and tax evasion. 

They didn't get Capone on tax evasion because it was easier they couldn't get him on anything else. 

That fact is alleging trump incited insurrection was an outright lie. 

[Yakuda]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

You are free to produce hate speech and not fear of being arrested or being prosecuted in a criminal court. Now, that does not preclude one from civil lawsuits. If you think that hate speech is prosecuted then listen to a lot of gangster rap or black/death metal.. they say some pretty dark, vile, and hateful things. 

Which only proves the point that "hate"speech laws arena political weapon. 

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

Which only proves the point that "hate"speech laws arena political weapon. 

were you meaning to say, "are a political weapon"

if so, you do not understand the divide between criminal and civil law. 

[taxme]

On 1/8/2024 at 8:59 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?

Ever heard of this old saying? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me".

As long as there is no violence involved, then calling some snowflake a name, should not be seen as promoting hate. One could say that they hate Muslims out loud in the public. So, is that to be considered an hate crime just for saying so in public? Fifty years ago, if someone said that the government was planning on creating an hate law in the future, they would have been laughed at and ridiculed. If Peter was white, and said to Stevie who was black, that i hate you, would he now be able to be charged with an hate crime? No doubt that with an hate law on the books, there is the possibility that Peter could be charged with an hate crime. Hey, we never know, eh? 

Besides, we already have laws that will not allow violence towards any person or group that is already written in the criminal code of Canada. So, why have another similar law also? There appears to be more to this hate law than what we really think it does mean. This is just my conspiracy beliefs kicking in here once again. Ha-ha-ha. 

[taxme]

On 1/8/2024 at 9:21 AM, 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.

The words hate speech are just words. If someone wants to call someone else a nasty derogatory name, so be it. All that will do is just hurt someone's feelings, and make the name caller look hateful looking and ridiculous. That's life. Live with it. 

As the old saying goes: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". 

Some members her have called me some pretty hatred looking words, but i will be a man about it and take it. That is life. Only snowflakes will cry hate crime when someone calls them a nasty name. Those snowflakes need to really grow the hell up. 😇

[taxme]

On 1/8/2024 at 2:17 PM, WestCanMan said:

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?

Lefty liberal snowflakes will never get anything right. They are just to bunch of emotional children with emotional mental problems to even try to reason or deal with. They are just a bunch of snowflake Karen's. They do live among us alright. 😁

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

1. There are weak minded individuals who believe misgendering is hard speech and best and violence at worse. Please stop pretending.

2. You're confused. Government and the courts are all we have but are far from perfect and therefore suggesting something is legal doesn't make it good or just.
 

1. So ?  You have a complaint about weak minded individuals, it seems.  I recommend you stay indoors.
2. You didn't answer my question.  You want speech banned.  Who would do that ?

 

[Yakuda]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So ?  You have a complaint about weak minded individuals, it seems.  I recommend you stay indoors.
2. You didn't answer my question.  You want speech banned.  Who would do that ?

 

No they better because I'm not interested in how offended people might be. 

 

Oh but I did answer it. 

[Yakuda]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So ?  You have a complaint about weak minded individuals, it seems.  I recommend you stay indoors.
2. You didn't answer my question.  You want speech banned.  Who would do that ?

 

BTW it's not accurate to say I want to ban speech. I said speech is banned not that I want it not be. I don't think any speech should very rarely be banned. 

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No they better because I'm not interested in how offended people might be. 

Nor is anyone interested in you being offended by their offense or... whatever...

Speech is not generally "banned" because it's offensive.  There are some rare edge cases in the UK I think where cops went overboard, but for the most part it's very rare.  Hyperbolic and paranoid delusions that the trans people are coming to ban speech are constructed for the hair-pulling set and are not conducive to public discussion between normal citizens.

22 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

BTW it's not accurate to say I want to ban speech. I said speech is banned not that I want it not be. I don't think any speech should very rarely be banned. 

But you're not opposed to them?  Ok.  Fair enough.  I guess you're saying you don't feel additional bans are necessary, if I may conjecture.

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nor is anyone interested in you being offended by their offense or... whatever...

Speech is not generally "banned" because it's offensive.  There are some rare edge cases in the UK I think where cops went overboard, but for the most part it's very rare.  Hyperbolic and paranoid delusions that the trans people are coming to ban speech are constructed for the hair-pulling set and are not conducive to public discussion between normal citizens.

But you're not opposed to them?  Ok.  Fair enough.  I guess you're saying you don't feel additional bans are necessary, if I may conjecture.

Oh you're a brit. Didn't they arrest someone for praying?

Well transpeople do scream and whine about being misgendered. Normal people don't need to participate on the delusions of others. 

Well unless you have clear evidence that speech leads directly to injury, it should never be banned. Again if words compel people to action then send me $1 million.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

Oh you're a brit. Didn't they arrest someone for praying?

Well transpeople do scream and whine about being misgendered. Normal people don't need to participate on the delusions of others. 

Well unless you have clear evidence that speech leads directly to injury, it should never be banned. Again if words compel people to action then send me $1 million.

Of course words compel people.  Where would we be without rhetoric?

But nobody's banning speech.  A lot of ignorant people seem to be upset that politeness is a common value, I think.  That's all it is.

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, Yakuda said:

They didn't get Capone on tax evasion because it was easier they couldn't get him on anything else. 

That fact is alleging trump incited insurrection was an outright lie. 

Sounds easier.

And no, he absolutely did incite the insurrection. The only reason those people marched down to storm the Capitol and hunt our legislators is because Trump told them lies for months, riled them up again that day and told them that stopping the certification was an existential crisis for the country.

Partisan hacks will equivocate, but that's a fact.