Is "Hate speech" free speech?

[Pacheko17]

I'm not even mildly offended. I don't think anything he has said even remotely refers to me actually. He's just a clear retard. It's very obvious he's mentally disturbed, or like I said, just smart enough to know that controversy and infamy sells like hotcakes. He could be a businessman, and if he is I have to give him props for being successful.
About the only good thing he does is make it obvious who other retards are when they defend him like you. It's nice really. Very convenient.

<3

 

[Deleted User]

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.

I can't stand Milo, let me be clear about that. But let me also ask a question. Would you think it would be right for Milo to get beat up, or would you just not care?

I don't think Milo is certainly "asking to get beat up", he is just being a gigantic retard as you put it. I've never seen him doing this kind of stuff like asking for violence or advocating for it.

 

[DarkCoffe64]

My guess is that Hate speech is just stuff that offends/annoys you, so, it can be anything, I think.
Does it mean someone shouldn't be allowed to talk? Nah. Does it mean you should go rioting or something if you don't like what someone says? Hell no, are you stupid?
There's a thing that you can do if you don't like something someone says or what: Ignore it. People seems to have forget that.




The only exception is when you're going against a bad troll (the type that trolls to be an asshole, not to make some laughs). In that case, feel free to deck him in the face.

 

[Hells Malice]

I can't stand Milo, let me be clear about that. But let me also ask a question. Would you think it would be right for Milo to get beat up, or would you just not care?

I don't think Milo is certainly "asking to get beat up", he is just being a gigantic retard as you put it. I've never seen him doing this kind of stuff like asking for violence or advocating for it.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily right. But i'm not very good with black and white statements.

If I was to walk up to some random guy and started insulting him, i'd probably deserve a punch to the face. It might not necessarily be the correct response to verbal abuse, but you probably couldn't say i didn't have it coming for what I did.
He actively gets into the spotlight and spouts off counterintuitive, inflammatory bullshit (and quite often incorrect 'facts') which alienates a significant amount of people. Sure harming him physically isn't the right solution for his verbal diarrhea, but when you have someone spreading hate and infecting weak minded idiots who parrot his views, it's hard to feel bad if something was to happen to him. Like I said, I wouldn't be the one to do it, nor would I necessarily advocate it. But i'd be honestly be fine with it happening because it's just his actions having consequences.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

My guess is that Hate speech is just stuff that offends/annoys you, so, it can be anything, I think.
Does it mean someone shouldn't be allowed to talk? Nah. Does it mean you should go rioting or something if you don't like what someone says? Hell no, are you stupid?
There's a thing that you can do if you don't like something someone says or what: Ignore it. People seems to have forget that.




The only exception is when you're going against a bad troll (the type that trolls to be an asshole, not to make some laughs). In that case, feel free to deck him in the face.

Hate speech tends to refer to stuff like "black is an inferior race" and "all gays are going to hell," except usually with some sort of death threat attached, literally or implied

 

[endoverend]

I don't like that people get lumped with rioters for thinking Milo is a douchebag (which he most certainly is). I think the actual amount of people defending rioters is really small compared to the amount of people who disagree with what Milo has to say. As always with recent politics, it becomes a war of attrition where everyone is herded to one extreme regardless of one's actual beliefs.

In regards to the "free speech" ideal, I think that's not really relevant in this case since private institutions have the right to deny whomever they want from speaking there. This isn't even a question of whether or not free speech applies. But ideally, there should be a distinct division between expressing beliefs and inciting violence (the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" case). Obviously hate speech has a different definition depending on whom you talk to so it's honestly a stupid question to begin with.

 

[Hanafuda]

.....

In regards to the "free speech" ideal, I think that's not really relevant in this case since private institutions have the right to deny whomever they want from speaking there. This isn't even a question of whether or not free speech applies. But ideally, there should be a distinct division between expressing beliefs and inciting violence (the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" case). Obviously hate speech has a different definition depending on whom you talk to so it's honestly a stupid question to begin with.

Berkeley's not a private institution.

 

[the_randomizer]

I can't stand Milo, let me be clear about that. But let me also ask a question. Would you think it would be right for Milo to get beat up, or would you just not care?

I don't think Milo is certainly "asking to get beat up", he is just being a gigantic retard as you put it. I've never seen him doing this kind of stuff like asking for violence or advocating for it.

At least he isn't anywhere nearly as bad at that George Soros douchebag. He just trolls people by hiring riots and other bullshit like that. Either way, the rioters are all idiots for inciting violence and other criminal activities, I hope they get fined big time.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

I think free speech is fine, you should be able to feel safe to say what you want even if people do not agree with it. Verbal threats are not free speech... spreading hate is wrong, and on that note the flip side of free speech is the freedom to ignore what these hate mongers are saying.

If you disagree with what is being said the worst thing you can possibly do is to discuss it with others. Attention is what these people desire and doing things like protests draw even more attention to the people your protesting against.

This is one of those problems, where ignoring it will make it go away.. lol

 

[RevPokemon]

In regards to the "free speech" ideal, I think that's not really relevant in this case since private institutions have the right to deny whomever they want from speaking there. This isn't even a question of whether or not free speech applies. But ideally, there should be a distinct division between expressing beliefs and inciting violence (the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" case). Obviously hate speech has a different definition depending on whom you talk to so it's honestly a stupid question to begin with.

Personally I would just say it is a bigger question is IF UCB (a publicly funded university) had broken the whatever agreements for student organizations in the case of the CR group which if they did than it would be a case of the university blocking the group's rights bestowed upon them. Plus as the ACLU has said, these intentions may be well meaned but ultimately they are problematic so to speak https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus

 

[endoverend]

Berkeley's not a private institution.

My bad, you're correct. However I still maintain that blocking someone whose comments are extremely likely to incite violence and inflict damage upon a public campus (just as it actually happened) from speaking in a public place is reasonable.

 

[Logan Pockrus]

I'm not comfortable with any form of censorship, and that includes so-called "hate speech". If you want to speak out against a group, by all means, do so. If you want to personally threaten somebody with their life? You're insane, but do so...if that's what pleases you (of course, if you carry out this threat, prepare for a prison sentence/possible execution; also, if you're threatened and you don't take any measures to defend yourself in any way, you hold part of the blame if you're killed). I believe you should be able to say whatever the hell you want to say. Nobody has a right to determine what is or isn't acceptable to say.

 

[RevPokemon]

My bad, you're correct. However I still maintain that blocking someone whose comments are extremely likely to incite violence and inflict damage upon a public campus (just as it actually happened) from speaking in a public place is reasonable.

Well the issue is that the speaking party in this case is not the party that is inciting violence so to speak as much as a vocal minority decided to freak out and as such it is reasonable to question the ruling although it is a hard spot.

 

[Hanafuda]

My bad, you're correct. However I still maintain that blocking someone whose comments are extremely likely to incite violence and inflict damage upon a public campus (just as it actually happened) from speaking in a public place is reasonable.

You've got issues with your cause/effect thought process there. A speaker who makes unpopular statements to an audience at a scheduled place and time, where said audience is well on-notice of the likely content of the speech, and where the speech is by any objective measure merely unpopular and 'politically incorrect' for the community in which the event takes place IS NOT the cause of any violence, or even protests, that may take place in opposition to the speaker's statements. Nobody has to show up to the thing. There is no necessity that violence and vandalism accompanies Milo Y. wherever he is invited to speak.