Hate Speech

[cots]

The United States Constitution is the outline of what our government is based on and guarantees us the right to free speech and also allows for the freedom to react to free speech. Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time. Currently hate speech encompasses speaking badly about people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Why is it currently deemed acceptable to discriminate against people who participate in hate speech? The people who are discriminating against others based on what they say are acting no better than the generations they have come to despise. It’s okay for them to financially ruin, publicly humiliate, mistreat, slander and generally destroy other peoples lives – something they claim they or others of hate speech are victims of.

What if in ten years the category of “political preference” suddenly becomes part of hate speech? What if in ten years you lose a job because of your comments about the current Government administration? How would you feel? It’s hypocritical to act in some of the same way that your say your “so-called” oppressors have.

Can people not see that their actions are which parallel those who participate in hate speech are no better or even worse? Are not we supposed to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes? It’s okay to label people by race (Government forms ask for your race, Doctors base your treatment on race, Political Parties pander to certain races – is this not racist?!?), but God forbid you simply do so in a manner that is not acceptable by a certain group of people.

If we are to learn from the past we must realize that if our actions are going to reflect those of the past that nothing is going to “change”. The fact is that there will always be a definition of what is considered “bad” and that you cannot control people to conform to what you consider to be “the right way” and ruining peoples lives because they do not agree with you or act the same way you do is only repeating history.

People claim to care about others, but this is only based on others who act in a way they deem to be collectively appropriate. Shouldn’t we treat people with respect due to the fact they are “human” - which is what we as a society claim to be doing. Examples of such are universal health care, counseling for prisoners, mental health treatment services, assistance with food and support for immigrants. In theory this is great, but limiting these services to those who you only deem fit to receive them (based on how they act or what they say) is defeating the purpose. Is it okay to deny these services to people because they simply said something you do not agree with?

So I ask you; how you do defend yourselves? How is ruining other peoples lives based solely on what they say a good way to go about doing things?

 

[FierceDeityLinkMask]

The United States Constitution is the outline of what our government is based on and guarantees us the right to free speech and also allows for the freedom to react to free speech. Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time. Currently hate speech encompasses speaking badly about people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. (Seems Legit so far)

Why is it currently deemed acceptable to discriminate against people who participate in hate speech? (Here we go.) The people who are discriminating against others based on what they say are acting no better than the generations they have come to despise. It’s okay for them to financially ruin, publicly humiliate, mistreat, slander and generally destroy other peoples lives – something they claim they or others of hate speech are victims of. (Nobody ruins someones life because they engage in hate speech. Often times when someone starts spewing hate and suffers for it, it's at some public place or public platform.)
What if in ten years the category of “political preference” suddenly becomes part of hate speech? What if in ten years you lose a job because of your comments about the current Government administration? (What if you suddenly had to take responsibility for the things you say???)
How would you feel? It’s hypocritical to act in some of the same way that your say your “so-called” oppressors have. (Who is a "so called" oppressor? LOL.)
Can people not see that their actions are which parallel those who participate in hate speech are no better or even worse? Are not we supposed to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes? It’s okay to label people by race (Government forms ask for your race, Doctors base your treatment on race, Political Parties pander to certain races – is this not racist?!?), but God forbid you simply do so in a manner that is not acceptable by a certain group of people. (Yeah goys it should totes be okay to throw slurs around at work. Why must people be fired for so called hate speech, am i right?)
If we are to learn from the past we must realize that if our actions are going to reflect those of the past that nothing is going to “change”. The fact is that there will always be a definition of what is considered “bad” and that you cannot control people to conform to what you consider to be “the right way” and ruining peoples lives because they do not agree with you or act the same way you do is only repeating history. (Blah)
People claim to care about others, but this is only based on others who act in a way they deem to be collectively appropriate. Shouldn’t we treat people with respect due to the fact they are “human” - which is what we as a society claim to be doing. Examples of such are universal health care, counseling for prisoners, mental health treatment services, assistance with food and support for immigrants. In theory this is great, but limiting these services to those who you only deem fit to receive them (based on how they act or what they say) is defeating the purpose. Is it okay to deny these services to people because they simply said something you do not agree with? (Nobody that argues for those services argues that these services shouldn't be available to everyone. NOBODY! Don't worry oppressed white men, most people on the left who argue for those services also want you to have them too.)
So I ask you; how you do defend yourselves? How is ruining other peoples lives based solely on what they say a good way to go about doing things? (As children we learn what to say and do in public and what to say and do in private. We learn that our actions have consequences. Toughen up and get over it.)

 

[Attacker3]

Free Speech only applies to government prosecution. If you're on public property, you're allowed to say anything unless it's a direct call to violence. Hate speech doesn't exist, but bad reactions to things you say does.

 

[FAST6191]

"What if in ten years the category of “political preference” suddenly becomes part of hate speech? What if in ten years you lose a job because of your comments about the current Government administration?"
Such things are already present in DC I believe. Similarly you are appearing to confuse concepts. The government as a whole is not a person and thus can't be discriminated against. To be partyist or whatever you would have to deny say employment based on party affiliation or something like that. Different concept entirely.

"Doctors base your treatment on race"
"Is this not racist?"
No. People with a lot of melanin in their skin suffer proportionally less skin cancer, but might have a harder time with vitamin D. There are also a whole magnitude of other things associated with being from a relatively isolated genetic stocks for all those millennia. To that end it is often demonstrably useful to base treatment on such a thing.

"Political Parties pander to certain races"
"Is this not racist?"
They will probably tell you they target certain demographics in certain locations, not races (whatever that might be). I should also note racism tends to be defined using phrases like on the basis that you believe one race to be superior (or a given one to be inferior). Saying that you want to help fix a given race's problem not counting as that.

"So I ask you; how you do defend yourselves? How is ruining other peoples lives based solely on what they say a good way to go about doing things? "
Ruining is an odd one to qualify. While you are free to make the speech the repercussions of it are yours as well.

"slander"
Slander is against the law. You may have issues with the enforcement, or lack thereof, of such codes but its inclusion in your list poses you problems.

"Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time."
Not really. It tends to concern immutable characteristics that have no real relevance to the matter at hand (classic mental exercise being you meet a person on the street or interview them for a job, would that characteristic tell you much of anything about them or change their ability to do the job). Any further additions will likely have to be clarifications based around that principle. If things have changed it is usually considered a crying shame it got to that point in the first place where a ruling had to be made or a law repealed.

Different post but screw it.
"Free Speech only applies to government prosecution. If you're on public property, you're allowed to say anything unless it's a direct call to violence."
Ignoring that there are further qualifications with regards to intellectual property, the fire in a crowded theatre thing and a few others, then technically free speech is an ideal espoused by various enlightenment thinkers, one you are perfectly free to try to employ in your own life, as well as being one that various governments around the world attempt to include in their legal codes (often as a fairly fundamental aspect).



Back to the OP. I certainly have my issues with much of what you appear to be looking at (people being fired for jokes, stripped of what appear to be fairly key services or otherwise basic ones, and access to platforms that appear to be both representing the proverbial public square whilst being nominally curated but enjoying protections associated with being a simple data carrier, all for what can only be described as ideological reasons, said ideologies often running directly against notions of free speech and even logic at times) but your arguments are not terribly well formed, or indeed that relevant to it.

 

[chrisrlink]

free speech doesn't exist like in anger just now on a youtube video about nintendo winning that loverom's lawsuit "I wish someone had the balls to hack NO just like PSN years back" and "i do what i do not because of the roms issue but because they took down fan games upon completion" will i get in trouble? probably if Nintendo watches the comments on the vid but idc i have no future they cant take away anything i don't have everything already was, well the bailif better protect thos damn lawyers from me thats for sure

 

[GameboyMicro]

Your only option is to ignore those people. If they're that sensitive to words then I'd do my best NOT to converse with them. Find people that are willing to converse and not shit down your neck for saying something they might disagree with. Let's be real too, we live in a fucking twitter world now. Nowadays a 12 year old girl ho reads a buzzfeed article and rants on twitter is considered 'political' now.

 

[tbb043]

"Hate speech" needs protection more than any other speech. I mean no one attempts to infringe on something because it's popular or too kind or whatever. No, just if it gets someone all butthurt, then they try and stop it starting by calling it "hate speech".

 

[AmandaRose]

You have the right to free speech
As long as
You're not dumb enough to actually try it

 

[guicrith]

Free speech means you have the right to say it without being locked up or killed, thats it!
This applys to threats of violence too, your not going to be locked up for threatening violence, you are going to be locked up to prevent you from committing violence, the threat just gives probable cause for the preventing.

"Free Speech" doesnt mean you can say it without consequences from others, or that a company or person is required to host it.
If you want to stand on the corner of the side walk shouting whatever crazy shit you think, it is your right, its also others right to shout back or ban you from whatever non government service they operate.

If that is an issue for someone then there are "anything goes" platforms such as gab.ai, 4chan and kiwifarms.

But everyone else wants to discuss things such as emulation or console hacking without the random attacks over petty disagreements and that is OK too.

 

[cots]

"Hate speech" needs protection more than any other speech. I mean no one attempts to infringe on something because it's popular or too kind or whatever. No, just if it gets someone all butthurt, then they try and stop it starting by calling it "hate speech".

You have a good point. Simply disagreeing with someone is somehow considered "hate speech" if if involves certain characteristics such as race or sexual identity. What I find to be the problem is the way society is handling people who are accused of participating in "hate speech". Did you post something that is now considered homophobic 10 years ago? If so you should lose your job or the position you've been appointed to when in all reality it was acceptable and not consided hate speech at the time of the post.

 

[FAST6191]

Did you post something that is now considered homophobic 10 years ago?

Is there anything considered homophobic now that would not be considered as such 10 years ago*? There are plenty that appear to experience a complete sense of humour failure, or indeed removal, but that is not the same issue. There is also the "when do we write things off as harmless youthful transgressions, especially as the internet might as well be forever".

*I suppose in before "that's appropriating gay culture".

 

[Subtle Demise]

You have the right to free speech
As long as
You're not dumb enough to actually try it

Sad but true.

My thoughts on the matter are that no government has any right to legislate hate speech. What is considered hate speech has become so broad and subjective, that it opens the door for government to use it as a tool to suppress political dissent.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Free speech means you have the right to say it without being locked up or killed, thats it!
This applys to threats of violence too, your not going to be locked up for threatening violence, you are going to be locked up to prevent you from committing violence, the threat just gives probable cause for the preventing.

See, I think threats of violence should be investigated, and proper steps taken to protect the potential victim, but speech is speech and most threats are made during heated moments and most people making them have no intention of ever following through. The phrase "was that a threat?" also proves that what is considered a threat is also subjective and subject to abuse by authority.

 

[cots]

Sad but true.

My thoughts on the matter are that no government has any right to legislate hate speech. What is considered hate speech has become so broad and subjective, that it opens the door for government to use it as a tool to suppress political dissent.

Which is what the Democrats are pushing for. They are littering their media sites with examples of how it's okay to ruin others lives because they say something that you don't agree with and have policies in place "like hate crimes" that take into account what you said during the crime and if they consider it hate speech they throw on 10 extra years in Prison. Although, you shouldn't be committing crimes in the first place.

 

[Subtle Demise]

Which is what the Democrats are pushing for.

I try not to play into the left vs. Right dichotomy, being a centrist independent myself, but you seem to be correct about that. Suppression of any speech is dangerous and sets a terrifying precedent.

 

[cots]

I try not to play into the left vs. Right dichotomy, being a centrist independent myself, but you seem to be correct about that. Suppression of any speech is dangerous and sets a terrifying precedent.

If the Republicans were doing the same I would have mentioned their political party instead.

 

[Subtle Demise]

If the Republicans were doing the same I would have mentioned their political party instead.

To be fair, I do see a lot of right wingers (not necessarily the politicians themselves, but the people supporting them) pushing their idea of a Christian theocracy, saying things like freedom of religion is not freedom from religon (which in the case of public school and other government institutions, they are wrong!), and wanting things like satanism and the occult to be illegal, which is definitely trampling on free speech. Like I said though, these people tend not to gain any political foothold thankfully. On the other hand, an outspoken socialist has been elected to Congress on the basis of being "a common person, one of us" and anyone who criticizes her ideals are just jealous because "she's an attractive hispanic female, so you must be racist and misogynist." Dark times ahead my friend.

 

[notimp]

Free speech in general is something that pretty much never was an actual thing. If state interests are concerned f.e. no one even cares about constitutional rights anymore - at least not "on the spot". (Ups - millitary law? Now you are guilty until proven innocent. Haha - value reversal... )

You could also take a look at the Snowden case, and how confident he was, that the US whistleblower protection laws would provide him with a fair trial. But that would be US bashing again, and the general notion is rather, that free speech never was an actual thing in general.

What is a thing in western democracies though is the right of public opposition. So that current critics of the status quo also can mobilize, congregate, and actually get a public voice and forum. Interestingly enough - this mostly resulted in forms of "managed oppositions" with real propensity for "change" (doesnt have to be the good kind.. ) strangely enough at least recently having been seen developing either on the outer edges of societies, or on "new fronts" (the traditional left and right, protesting on the streets of france "together"). Which is shorthand for "managed opposition" usually also serves the status quo - which isnt necessarily a bad thing. Because as an intelligent leader, you adopt some opposition talkingpoints - and then have managed change.

There are two additional "fields" where free speech "loosing out" comes into play - one is the private sector as someone already stated - that is in no way held to any standards against censorship, in fact for them its message control basically throughout the whole thing. The rather "new" (last 20 years ) development here is, that the private sector in the west got the "primat" over politics. So that in many cases the goals of the private sector have decided political action more so, than any communal, or national, or political goals (you could have voted on) to begin with. (Thanks to the CEO of Airbus BTW, who has delivered the chinese all our engineering secrets on a silver platter, for the small price of ordering 100 airplanes over 10 years. Now they are building their own. You were a true european hero.) This has to do with politics having lost all their big narratives or convictions. People argue that since the 80s i has basically been political opportunitism serving a globalized capitalism, with national interests coming into play maybe once in a while.

The current "most likely" scenrio of continued corporate influence on politics has been coined "censorocracy", so increased censorship in all public venues - incentives to act within unwritten guidlines, and so on... (Chinas "social score" model, partly also applied in the west, since those are the new "hot" technologies of social control (before that it was democracy, before that it was, ...)).

So censorship actually is increasing, even in the west.

There are f.e. documented instances of famous chinese desidents, being blocked on facebook, for writing critical articles about the chinese government. Those are corporate policies at play.

Another social mechanism along those lines is universal "human rights", which are actually violated more frequently than ever, because to put it vaguely global power systems are shifting, and faced with that, no one cares so much to be seen as "the good guy" in the public media system of another country. It still works to "mark the mad guys" towards your own populations, but at the same time - you pronounce all your "needed" dictators of the world as a "necessary evil" and dont measure them by the same standards.

Thats the main criticism we europeans always hear in foreign policy. That we measure things by different standards. And its actually true.

The UN are currently basically defunct, and human rights also somewhat on a downwards slope.

Thats the short and oversimplified overall assessment.

Also - you cant hold the majority responsible towards western constitutional standards on morality grounds. The majority will always think alike and try to lynch everyone that doenst make it bigger. Mass behavioral psychology - you cant change that. You need constitutional courts to stop that behavior. (Elitism.. )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

"Regulating hate speech" is basically censorship. You can do it - but then you have to be extremely careful, that this doesnt become a slippery slope towards the authoritarian model.

The modern "left" is also renown for trying to impress each other by "who is more socially repressed", and trying to deplatform everyone that doenst conform to arbitrary PC speech rules - which is a freaking horrible and frightening thing.

Because If we cant vent our conflicts in speech (because we lack the words, or all potential leaders of social movements have been "deplatformed" successfully), guess whats next... (Looking at france...)

 

[notimp]

(As children we learn what to say and do in public and what to say and do in private. We learn that our actions have consequences. Toughen up and get over it.)

Who is a good serve? Who's a good serve!

That guy learned self censorship on the facebook and in his family. What a wonderful story.

Then he started bullying people that speak out against perceived issues!

In germany we have a phrase for that. "Bow towards the mighty, while kicking the weak with you boots". Its there to basically describe the worst kind of human out there.

But then currently this is also a viable motto for the left. Of course, all while complaining, how much they had to bow... Strangely they also arent connecting with voters anymore. In most of the world..

Now lets all fight climate change! For the children! (Ups sorry, cynicism...)

Ah, there is also a running gag in history departments. Humanity never learned from the past. (Once the symbols where gone, so was the "learning effect"..

This only changed with humanity developing the atom bomb, and the Nash equilibrium. That stuff, for some reason seems to hold.. (No one wants to be seen as the leader that destroyed the world, in that instance they all listen to their advisers... ))

 

[subtleglow87]

wikipedia: Chilling_effect

Example: "The point is to create an atmosphere where all criticism of Israel is seen as dangerous and risky, so that people won't even try to speak out"

Kind of like how programming was fine but all of a sudden some mentally ill people started pushing codes of conduct.

 

[PanTheFaun]

The United States Constitution is the outline of what our government is based on and guarantees us the right to free speech and also allows for the freedom to react to free speech. Hate speech is anything that discriminates against another individual based on various factors that have changed throughout time. Currently hate speech encompasses speaking badly about people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Why is it currently deemed acceptable to discriminate against people who participate in hate speech? The people who are discriminating against others based on what they say are acting no better than the generations they have come to despise. It’s okay for them to financially ruin, publicly humiliate, mistreat, slander and generally destroy other peoples lives – something they claim they or others of hate speech are victims of.

What if in ten years the category of “political preference” suddenly becomes part of hate speech? What if in ten years you lose a job because of your comments about the current Government administration? How would you feel? It’s hypocritical to act in some of the same way that your say your “so-called” oppressors have.

Can people not see that their actions are which parallel those who participate in hate speech are no better or even worse? Are not we supposed to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes? It’s okay to label people by race (Government forms ask for your race, Doctors base your treatment on race, Political Parties pander to certain races – is this not racist?!?), but God forbid you simply do so in a manner that is not acceptable by a certain group of people.

If we are to learn from the past we must realize that if our actions are going to reflect those of the past that nothing is going to “change”. The fact is that there will always be a definition of what is considered “bad” and that you cannot control people to conform to what you consider to be “the right way” and ruining peoples lives because they do not agree with you or act the same way you do is only repeating history.

People claim to care about others, but this is only based on others who act in a way they deem to be collectively appropriate. Shouldn’t we treat people with respect due to the fact they are “human” - which is what we as a society claim to be doing. Examples of such are universal health care, counseling for prisoners, mental health treatment services, assistance with food and support for immigrants. In theory this is great, but limiting these services to those who you only deem fit to receive them (based on how they act or what they say) is defeating the purpose. Is it okay to deny these services to people because they simply said something you do not agree with?

So I ask you; how you do defend yourselves? How is ruining other peoples lives based solely on what they say a good way to go about doing things?

I believe you should be able to say whatever you want as long as you aren't threatening violence of any sort. It's pretty scary nowadays what can be done to a person just for a difference of opinion.