Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
It's ridiculous. As long as it's going to be around, there will be no equality.
But if we have the freedom of speech, it cannot be stopped.
Yea, we can speak about anything we want, but not put harm towards other people. You know what happens when you have these hate-groups being allowed to speak. All they do is cause riots and people are killed.
Oy Vay!?!
So what do you want now? Thought police?
We do have freedom of speech, that is our constitutional right – Sooo, you want to give up one of your freedoms because you don't like what someone said?
Where are you going to draw the line?
Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)
Oy Vay!?!
So what do you want now? Thought police?
We do have freedom of speech, that is our constitutional right – Sooo, you want to give up one of your freedoms because you don't like what someone said?
Where are you going to draw the line?
Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)
Freedom of speech is a constitutional right. Anything beyond that is up to the morals and conscience of each person. Peer pressure figures in there somewhere too.
If somebody is really so thinskinned as to turn a comment into an incentive for a fight, then they should go back to their nursery school and play with their Little Tykes. There nobody cares what color/sexual orientation they are. That, or they should just get over themselves and realize that not everybody is going to agree with them.
The problem with controlling "hate speech" is that of who defines hate speech. Since (at the moment) that determination is left to the person whose feelings are hurt that is a problem. Stopping the calling of childish names and slurs is not the goal. The goal is control. At what point does honest disagreement become hate speech? Have we conquered hate speech when people are too afraid to speak their minds and disagree? Or have we simply given over our lives and liberties out of cowardice.
The Constitution does not give you any rights. We are born with rights. The Constitution was written to prevent government from passing laws to infringe on these rights.;)
rebuttals by the opposition will look for anything to incite negative emotions when they can't rebut the facts. Look at all the Americans who opposed more spending. We are all racists who hate anything just because Obama's black. When I last looked the idiots in Congress where mostly white and they are more to blame than he is.
Why do you even mention race? Doesn’t the fact that people are brave enough to question his decisions prove that they are in fact not racist, because theyknow that people like you will accuse them instantly of being racist. Stop playing the race card and let Obama defend his decisons based on facts and not by the colour of his skin. The last time I checked he was the president, not the black president.
Hate speech is way too loose a term.
Is saying "I think homosexuality is a sin and an abomination" Hate speech?
Consistent oppression, abuse and personal demeanment is probably unconstitutional, but How does that tie in with hate speech?
Could someone for this proposition please define it properly?
The right to free speech was meant for unpopular speech. People should have the right to say anything they want.
No. I would go further and ask "what is hate speech" and "who defines it?". Offensive speech is not censurable by the government. Neither is hate speech. The test that has since been put in place by SCOTUS is speech which poses and incites and imminent danger to public order or safety (such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre).
This does not mean it is necessarily wise or appropriate to use, but if we are to begin using government to determine what speech is acceptable, what points of view are acceptable, I feel this is a dangerous precedent. If the government may silence racists or homophobes, on the grounds that they are unpopular and hold hateful opinions then other unpopular views which hold less hateful opinions may be silenced by governments, such as the views of political parties out of power or the views of religious figures, prominent scientific researchers, atheists, etc. If this seems like a stretch, consider that there was a UN resolution on speech governing the condemnation of religion which was ostensibly for free exercise but in reality will be used to silence religious criticism by more theologically governed countries (effectively silencing some political opposition). For those who are not fans of international law, Ireland did something similar and passed a blasphemy law just last year.
We may use cultural and social pressures with minimal interference to silence such speakers without the need to bring in the big guns of legal force.
People take free speech too far and use it an excuse to say whatever they want, especially when they are debating and can't think of anything else to say that would be a good rebuttal to the facts. It's not that the group of people's feelings are hurt, but that hate speech very often leads to violence and intimidation towards the group being hated.
Also, our vary basic laws are based on morals. People aren't looking for free speech to be modified so that you won't be able to say anything that won't hurt people's feelings. Speaking solely for myself, the main problem is the people who are allowed to call people all sorts of racial, homophobic and other slurs on an almost a national level. Most people would disagree and know they there's something wrong the person doing the hating but there are others who will take what's being said to heart and follow through with the discrimiation and whatever else is being encouraged.
I know that people aren't always going to be nice and won't always agree but why should someone be allowed to call me some sort of slur??