Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant
Hate speech is criminal speech, and as such cannot be considered free. And SHOULD not be considered free.
|
Not in America it isn't. It shouldn't be either for two reasons:
1. Allowing the government to limit speech opens the door for further limitation and the American government at this point can not and should not be trusted with that power. It wasn't that long ago that one of California's senators tried to say the government should be allowed to define who is and isn't a journalist so they could limit who could and couldn't act as one and report news. I think we can both agree something like that would be INCREDIBLY dangerous.
2. Prohibition has never stopped something from happening. People will still do something if it's illegal if they want to do it. Besides, look at Canada. They have hate speech legislation and they still treat their first nations people like absolute dog shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant
There is no difference between a civil case in which a single party brings charges to another, and that in which a governmental body does so.
|
I'm not sure I have the time or the energy to explain the difference between a civil and criminal cases but if you take the time to look it up I can assure you they are two completely different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant
Positions of power bring with them an inherent "stroke"(obligatory wrestling terminology.) And as such have the capacity to influence a large group of people with their words and actions. By many, hate speech can be seen as advocacy of hateful acts. If the president of a country were to condemn an entire sect of the populous a large percentage of people in the country would likely follow suit.
|
It's already happening and I'm not seeing most of the people following in the Commander in Cheeto's footsteps on this one. Most of the people agreeing with that shit seem like they would have agreed with it already and are just using him as confirmation of they already present bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant
The bill of rights is not a pass to make defamatory remarks. Hate speech is obscene, and slanderous. As such, it can be considered as constituting the same legal restrictions as any other forms of these examples of behavior.
|
That might be your interpretation but thus far, no court or legislation has taken that position that I'm aware of. At this point the general interpretation seems to be that any speech that doesn't cause someone real harm is protected.
Look, I agree that being called a racial slur harms someone emotionally. I've had it happen to me on more than one occasion. Being called a kike right to my face is not an experience that I enjoy or want to have happen again. However, I understand that my feelings being hurt doesn't justify placing someone in a cage or forcing them to pay a fine to the government (In which case the victim would never see a penny of it unless they took up a separate civil suit.) when something as valuable as being able to criticize the government and its actors is at stake. When you open that door you give them the power to potentially punish for saying things like "pardon Snowden" or "Senator Feinstein is a stupid cunt for wanting to allow the government to say who is and isn't a journalist." and that's not a world I, or anyone else should want to live in. Without the ability to criticize government we have no redress for things the government does and no way to do anything about it.