Is "Hate speech" free speech?

[Deleted member 377734]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/berkeley-braces-protests-milo-yiannopoulos-talk-222135603.html

So I found this article and I thought it was interesting, Basically, this guy named Milo Yiannopoulos has been going around American universities to speak. He is a very controversial figure and says controversial things. His comments have been criticized as racist and misogynistic. He's pretty much met with protests at whichever university or college he decides to speak at. And at times, his events are cancelled or disrupted by the "protesters" or because of the protesters.

The protesters hold up signs and shout things like "Hate speech is not free speech!" I guess alluding to "hate" speech not being protected by the first amendment, or that no one has the right to say such things. So my question is, is "hate speech" free speech or not free speech? Why or why not?

 

[the_randomizer]

Sorry I'm about to say this, but want free speech? Those "protesters" who destroy building just because they don't agree with what someone says are all a bunch of fucking losers.
There, I said it, and I'm not sorry about saying about those rabid rioters.

 

[Deleted member 377734]

damn, this was supposed to go in general off-topic chat, can one of the mods move it there ?
@Cyan , @Chary thanks

 

[Subtle Demise]

This rant sums up my feelings on free speech. The gist of it is "You don't have a right not to be offended!"

 

[Deleted User]

Well, it first has to be classified what hate speech is. Hate speech can objectively be anything. Especially depending on who is the one classifying the hate speech.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Yes, it is free speech. The fact I don't like it doesn't stop it from being free speech.
The protesters in the other hand look like anarchists going against free speech.

 

[k3rizz3k]

The ones doing damage and causing chaos. Those are not protestors, they are thugs. In my opinion only peaceful protests are actually protests, otherwise they are just riots.

 

[x65943]

I believe that almost all speech is free speech.

I think that lying under oath and bringing false charges should not be protected though.

I also think that one should be able to threaten the president's life.

(of course I think only voice/noise is speech - burning, looting, knocking on a stranger's door are manipulations of the 1st amendment, and should not be protected by it)

 

[Deleted member 377734]

I'm not politically astute as several of you folks here seem to be, One side says that all opinionated speech should be protected by law as freedom of speech and expression. Other side says speech that is hateful or dangerous should be censored, with the right of free speech suspended in such cases.

So what constitutes as "hate speech"? Because some speech that quantifiably meets the standard of "hate speech" is widely accepted and considered enlightened. For instance, someone thought to be homophobic or racist or bigoted will frequently receive verbal hostilities, and such comments would be widely praised, even by public figures. However, inverse the situation; someone speaking comments we identify as being racist or sexist (or otherwise "backward") will be demonized. However, by all measurable standards, both sides are effectively doing the same thing. It's just that by way of current social norms, one is publicly considered cultured, educated or modern, and the other closed-minded, ignorant and old-fashioned. Now, from the way I was raised, I'll personally draw issues with someone that is bigoted, like sexist or racist, but I don't enforce my opinions upon them. I won't go out of my way to be their friend or acquaintance - I might even avoid them - but I respect their right to choose their own way of thinking.

So who decides which speech is "right" or "good"? Who decides which is "wrong" or "bad"? Should one perspective or point of view take priority over another? And if so, does that not subversively violate one's freedom to express themselves? Cultural views change all the time, sometimes multiple times within a generation. Things that are publicly acceptable now may be the exact opposite in a few short years. Does the vocal preside over the quiet, or the majority over the minority? Who makes the choice, the distinction? Or on the opposite side of the coin, should there even be one? If we begin defining hate speech, the door opens to - either at that point or somewhere down the line - allow any speech someone doesn't like (which can change constantly) to be excised from the protection of freedom of speech.

Not to get off track, my main question is this; who should get to determine what qualifies as hate speech, and why should they have the right to silence the voice of others, no matter which side it is?

 

[x65943]

I'm not politically astute as several of you folks here seem to be, One side says that all opinionated speech should be protected by law as freedom of speech and expression. Other side says speech that is hateful or dangerous should be censored, with the right of free speech suspended in such cases.

So what constitutes as "hate speech"? Because some speech that quantifiably meets the standard of "hate speech" is widely accepted and considered enlightened. For instance, someone thought to be homophobic or racist or bigoted will frequently receive verbal hostilities, and such comments would be widely praised, even by public figures. However, inverse the situation; someone speaking comments we identify as being racist or sexist (or otherwise "backward") will be demonized. However, by all measurable standards, both sides are effectively doing the same thing. It's just that by way of current social norms, one is publicly considered cultured, educated or modern, and the other closed-minded, ignorant and old-fashioned. Now, from the way I was raised, I'll personally draw issues with someone that is bigoted, like sexist or racist, but I don't enforce my opinions upon them. I won't go out of my way to be their friend or acquaintance - I might even avoid them - but I respect their right to choose their own way of thinking.

So who decides which speech is "right" or "good"? Who decides which is "wrong" or "bad"? Should one perspective or point of view take priority over another? And if so, does that not subversively violate one's freedom to express themselves? Cultural views change all the time, sometimes multiple times within a generation. Things that are publicly acceptable now may be the exact opposite in a few short years. Does the vocal preside over the quiet, or the majority over the minority? Who makes the choice, the distinction? Or on the opposite side of the coin, should there even be one? If we begin defining hate speech, the door opens to - either at that point or somewhere down the line - allow any speech someone doesn't like (which can change constantly) to be excised from the protection of freedom of speech.

Not to get off track, my main question is this; who should get to determine what qualifies as hate speech, and why should they have the right to silence the voice of others, no matter which side it is?

There should be no definition of hate speech. People should be free to say what they want.

I think it's disgusting that holocaust deniers are jailed in Germany - yes they are wrong, but they should be free to espouse their own views.

 

[Deleted User]

There should be no definition of hate speech. People should be free to say what they want.

I think it's disgusting that holocaust deniers are jailed in Germany - yes they are wrong, but they should be free to espouse their own views.

/thread

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

According to most judgements, it's free speech unless it harms someone. That Milo guy is just some loser, he can do whatever he wants. If a protester tears something apart, it's closer to a violation of free speech than whatever that guy says.

 

[Pacheko17]

Milo is the one who defends free speech and equality. Just watch any of his videos.

Those protesters HATE free speech, because free speech means people can disagree with them, so they throw trantums and call everyone a nazi, they're fucking idiotic. Milo is a hero.

 

[Deleted member 377734]

Milo is the one who defends free speech and equality. Just watch any of his videos.

Those protesters HATE free speech, because free speech means people can disagree with them, so they throw trantums and call everyone a nazi, they're fucking idiotic. Milo is a hero.

I wouldn't call him a "hero" but you have a point.

 

[Kioku]

I think it stops being free speech when its actually causing problems and hurting people. No, not the special, safe space idiots that are literally crying over nothing. I'm talking about these idiots out destroying public and private property because they didn't get their way. These assholes literally lighting people on fire... Beating innocent people because of a different political view. Being a bigoted ass hat doesn't fall under free speech. Huge fucking difference.

 

[Chary]

Free speech stops being such when you either start rioting like the whackjobs at Berkley--those protestors had the freedom to protest Milo until they lit fire to their own school-- or you threaten other's lives. (Antifia, Twitter dolts and celebs saying we should punch/kill/riot).

"I believe in the right to punch 'nazis neo con fascists'" is stupid, but it's free speech.

"I'm going to punch this 'nazi' in the face!" However, is not.

Legally, things that are not protected by that amendment include: slander, obscenity and pornography, NDAs, perjury, and incitement.

 

[Hells Malice]

Milo is the one who defends free speech and equality. Just watch any of his videos.

Those protesters HATE free speech, because free speech means people can disagree with them, so they throw trantums and call everyone a nazi, they're fucking idiotic. Milo is a hero.

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).

 

[osaka35]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/berkeley-braces-protests-milo-yiannopoulos-talk-222135603.html

So I found this article and I thought it was interesting, Basically, this guy named Milo Yiannopoulos has been going around American universities to speak. He is a very controversial figure and says controversial things. His comments have been criticized as racist and misogynistic. He's pretty much met with protests at whichever university or college he decides to speak at. And at times, his events are cancelled or disrupted by the "protesters" or because of the protesters.

The protesters hold up signs and shout things like "Hate speech is not free speech!" I guess alluding to "hate" speech not being protected by the first amendment, or that no one has the right to say such things. So my question is, is "hate speech" free speech or not free speech? Why or why not?

Free speech includes ensuring those who say things you absolutely hate are allowed to say it. A call to action to harm, however, is usually the exception (there's a bomb!" "I'm going to kill you", etc).

In the united states, "hate speech" is not considered an exception to free speech, and laws based around "hate speech" have been argued are unconstitutional. It varies from country to country.

Morons like this must be allowed to speak because it's important to bring a light to the way people think and feel. rotten, atrocious ideas like this must be acknowledged and addressed, rather than suppressed and allowed to corrupt out of sight. You can only cure a disease if you're aware of it, to put simply.

 

[Pacheko17]

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).

He doesn't say spew hate speech. He spew facts and you just get offended.

 

[Hells Malice]

He doesn't say spew hate speech. He spew facts and you just get offended.

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.