Is "Hate speech" free speech?

[the_randomizer]

Milo is a gigantic retard. Either that or he's smart enough to know spewing a bunch of moronic hate speech is a great way to become popular and make money off of weak minded people.

Either way he's free to say what he wants.
If we censor some speech, we have to censor all speech. Being offensive is incredibly subjective.
Just let people say what they want to say. Doesn't actually affect anyone or anything in most cases.

Though I will say I wouldn't be bothered or upset if someone beat the shit out of a guy like Milo or the Westboro Baptist Church (if they're even still relevant, been a long time since I saw that name in headlines for doing something ignorant and stupid).

I hope you're not defending those fucking stupid rioters in Berkley. If anything, people protesting by destroying public property, setting cars on fire and trying to do all they can to prevent someone from speaking a public event all the proves how stupid those people are.

 

[AtomSmasherMazionga]

Free Speech For The Dumb, My friends, Free Speech For The Dumb.

 

[osaka35]

"Yiannopoulos, a 32-year-old right-wing provocateur, is a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and a self-proclaimed internet troll whose comments have been criticized as racist, misogynist, anti-Muslim and white supremacist"

They have every right to not let him speak at their event. Free speech only pertains to public speech, not private speech (which is what happened in this case). The rhetoric "hate speech is not free speech" is the worst way to define free speech though.

 

[emigre]

Re: Milo

The guy is a massive cunt. You've got to an insecure mess to look up to him.

On topic, No. Free speech doesn't exist.

 

[RevPokemon]

"Yiannopoulos, a 32-year-old right-wing provocateur, is a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and a self-proclaimed internet troll whose comments have been criticized as racist, misogynist, anti-Muslim and white supremacist"

They have every right to not let him speak at their event. Free speech only pertains to public speech, not private speech (which is what happened in this case)

Well in this case you have a lot that can be argued since the fact that it is pertaining to a publicly funded university which changes the situation.

EDIT: Also so long as such speech does not constitute "fighting words" than it should be protected under the 1st amendment.

 

[Hells Malice]

I hope you're not defending those fucking stupid rioters in Berkley

You mean do I support rampant stupidity damaging public property and maiming people either protesting or supporting free speech?
Do I even have to answer such a stupid question?

No. Obviously not. Savages like that would've done better jumping off a cliff. Rioters aren't making any sort of a point other than destruction for the sake of destruction at any chance they get.

To understand what I said originally, if the rioters happened to beat the shit out of Milo, or worse, then I probably wouldn't have been even slightly bothered. I'd probably laugh. However everything else they did (attacking innocent people and destroying property) makes them worthless garbage. They're worse than Milo, given Milo just offends people and the rioters physically assaulted them. It's not hard to see why they're worse.
I'm not going to sit around and advocate that people physically assault or kill someone, but like I said i'm not going to be sad or upset if it does happen to someone really asking for it like Milo.

 

[osaka35]

Well in this case you have a lot that can be argued since the fact that it is pertaining to a publicly funded university which changes the situation.

a lot less publicly funded than they used to be I think they've actually changed it to "publicly supported" to illustrate the shift from being mostly publicly supported to being supported so little by the public dollar. It's why college costs continue to rise and colleges are still trying to cut cost. but that's neither here nor there.

In regards to free speech, the college has the ability to pick and choose who speaks. They do not have the right to tell him what he can and cannot say, the most they can do is "please don't say this". He can't be sued or charges brought against him for what he says, for example (unless he says "go kill someone" or something...well, he can be sued for slander, but that's a bit different conversation). What the college did was exercise its ability to choose who speaks.

They did not censor his speech, merely chose not to give him a platform for his speech.

 

[RevPokemon]

In regards to free speech, the college has the ability to pick and choose who speaks. They do not have the right to tell him what he can and cannot say, the most they can do is "please don't say this". He can't be sued or charges brought against him for what he says, for example (unless he says "go kill someone" or something). What the college did was exercise its ability to choose who speaks.

They did not censor his speech, merely chose not to give him a platform for his speech.

It still in a sense does deny himself his rights as the College Republican group were allowed to invite him on their own time and money to the point such as how most student groups are ran. So no the college in this instance did not really have the right to deny him from speaking.

 

[osaka35]

It still in a sense does deny himself his rights as the College Republican group were allowed to invite him on their own time and money to the point such as how most student groups are ran. So no the college in this instance did not really have the right to deny him from speaking.

It'll depend on the agreement the groups enter into with the college. Do they give the college final say on such things in order to be acknowledged as an official group by the university? Or are they given free reign? If free reign, I completely agree.

Even if they're legally allowed to not give him a platform to speak, I'd personally invite him to a debate to thrash him with proper logic.

 

[RevPokemon]

It'll depend on the agreement the groups enter into with the college. Do they give the college final say on such things in order to be acknowledged as an official group by the university? Or are they given free reign? If free reign, I completely agree.

Even if they're legally allowed to not give him a platform to speak, I'd personally invite him to a debate to thrash him with proper logic.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...y-on-Heels-of-Violent-Protests-412787173.html
From what I have seen is that so long as the organization is not taking funds from the university than yes they can invite who ever they want.

 

[Lucifer666]

There's a difference between what you're legally allowed to say (anything) and what you SHOULD be saying as a decent human being.

Free speech is not an invitation to abuse your rights. If you're not who people are protesting for (and not helping out), then stay in your lane.

Protestors aren't "thugs", they're meant to be loud because if they were screaming into an empty cave that'll be damn effective won't it? Minor inconveniences as a result of protests and strikes are OK as long as they are, at the end of the day, harmless. Let people voice their concerns.

 

[Luckkill4u]

I would say each country is different on how hate-speech is gauged. There is hate-speech laws in Canada and you can be charged or even incarcerated if you cross that line. If you state things that may be considered true, a valid argument, religious belief, and probably a few other reasons you can claim freedom of speech. If you do something like openly advocate genocide then your crossing onto the illegal hate-speech side. Well in Canada at least...

 

[RevPokemon]

I would say each country is different on how hate-speech is gauged. There is hate-speech laws in Canada and you can be charged or even incarcerated if you cross that line. If you state things that may be considered true, a valid argument, religious belief, and probably a few other reasons you can claim freedom of speech. If you do something like openly advocate genocide then your crossing onto the illegal hate-speech side. Well in Canada at least...

I believe you are correct as many countries do have laws against certain types of speech (racial hatred, religious views, certain political views, and holocaust denial are the big ones). But one issue is that often the laws are vague to the point of being hard to properly determine.

 

[tbb043]

"Is "Hate speech" free speech?"

If it's not, there's no point to even having free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protecting. It's only things that some subset of society is going to take issue with that needs to be legally protected. "Hate speech" falls into that category.

 

[Luckkill4u]

I believe you are correct as many countries do have laws against certain types of speech (racial hatred, religious views, certain political views, and holocaust denial are the big ones). But one issue is that often the laws are vague to the point of being hard to properly determine.

I agree there is a grey area where certain hate-speech individuals can get away with it through circumventing the law. Although there are specific hate-speech topics where you will indefinitely be charged for an illegal offence. If a hate-speech advocate/s chant multiple times or creates propaganda that could hurt a particular group the hate-speech advocate/s could (<~ very important word) be legally charged. I don't particularly think stating a racist opinion could raise a big enough fuss here though. I'm not sure about USA laws though but I'm assuming they are similar.

 

[x65943]

I agree there is a grey area where certain hate-speech individuals can get away with it through circumventing the law. Although there are specific hate-speech topics where you will indefinitely be charged for an illegal offence. If a hate-speech advocate/s chant multiple times or creates propaganda that could hurt a particular group the hate-speech advocate/s could (<~ very important word) be legally charged. I don't particularly think stating a racist opinion could raise a big enough fuss here though. I'm not sure about USA laws though but I'm assuming they are similar.

There are very few restrictions on the right to free speech in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement

The only time that "hate speech" will get you in trouble is if you are committing a crime while using "hate speech"

For instance, using a racial slur while battering a black man.

Exception: You can get in trouble for just speaking (must be pretty threatening) if you're trying to deter protected groups of people from participating in certain defined activities like attending school or voting.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] or because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I have two sentiments that kind of relate to each other on the topic...
a) From a humanitarian standpoint, no, you do not have the right to preach in a way that instigates hatred or violence towards any one group of people. Serious speech, for example, that goes along the lines of "I don't like these people so they can go die, who's with me?" should not be allowed because it's empowering and centralizing the people who would not have otherwise felt they had any support, but,
b) From a legal standpoint, EVERYONE has free speech. That INCLUDES protestors who protest against hate speech. Just as those at the butt end of the hate speech don't "have the right to not be offended," the people speaking don't get that same luxury, either

 

[Hanafuda]

Next question, if there is such a thing as "hate speech," does anything Milo have to say qualify?

I don't think so.

Milo's "speech" is basically just repetition of a simple message, that Muslim culture oppresses women, gays, and other religions everywhere a Muslim majority exists, and resorts to violence to effectuate that religious oppression and conformity more than any other religion. This is demonstrably correct, or at least a defensible and not crazy opinion. Just because some west coast radicals and Muslims want to stifle anyone saying it doesn't make it "hate speech."

 

[xile6]

Ill say it like this.
Your free to say what you want to say, but people will react differently to the things that are being said.
In other words your damn if you do and damn if you dont.
There will always be somone hurt by something someone says.

 

[RevPokemon]

From a legal standpoint, EVERYONE has free speech. That INCLUDES protestors who protest against hate speech. Just as those at the butt end of the hate speech don't "have the right to not be offended," the people speaking don't get that same luxury, either

The big issue is simply IF it ever becomes physical conduct which unlike speech is against the law and to that point so called "hate speech" will put an a target on your back when it comes to such potential conduct.