Page 1 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

MusicalCat
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 31

11 Sep 2012, 6:14 pm

I've been thinking about cyberbullying and troll-culture lately. Now, I'm American by the way, but I notice that all the western nations besides have hate speech laws to some varying degree. Since bullying and discrimination play into minorities (I personally don't think of AS as a minority status for me, but it does have some traits associated), and the same can be said for AS or any disorder, I now believe that we need hate speech laws in America to give neutral footing to any specific group. I try not to let my own personal bias and prejudices slip into how I view politics, nor be a collectivist on things. My views may change and I know this one is very unpopular for America, but what do you think hate speech laws should be established or stuff?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2012, 6:46 pm

MusicalCat wrote:
I've been thinking about cyberbullying and troll-culture lately. Now, I'm American by the way, but I notice that all the western nations besides have hate speech laws to some varying degree. Since bullying and discrimination play into minorities (I personally don't think of AS as a minority status for me, but it does have some traits associated), and the same can be said for AS or any disorder, I now believe that we need hate speech laws in America to give neutral footing to any specific group. I try not to let my own personal bias and prejudices slip into how I view politics, nor be a collectivist on things. My views may change and I know this one is very unpopular for America, but what do you think hate speech laws should be established or stuff?


Read the First Amendment very carefully. Hate speech is legal speech as long as it is not used to whip up a lynch mode or an insurrection or foment a panic. Pleasant popular speech needs no legal protection. Unpopular and unpleasant speech does. And that is what the First Amendment does for us

ruveyn



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

11 Sep 2012, 7:05 pm

MusicalCat wrote:

Quote:
I've been thinking about cyberbullying and troll-culture lately.

First off; how exactly does become cyber-bullied? I don’t understand that since it’s something the so called "victim" can turn off at will.
As far as trolls go I can only say this: DON’T FEED THEM. Let them know they’ve gotten to you then they win. It’s just that simple.

No, I don’t believe in hate speech laws. It’s too hard to pin a legal definition on it and harder still to prove intent.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


roronoa79
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,174
Location: Indiana

11 Sep 2012, 10:14 pm

It would be an unnecessary restriction on free speech and would further alienate minorities protected by such laws from the general populace.


_________________
Diagnoses: AS, Depression, General & Social Anxiety
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
- Brian Wilson

Δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.
Those with power do what their power permits, and the weak can only acquiesce.

- Thucydides


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

11 Sep 2012, 10:21 pm

If we passed a law restricting free speech, even just for hate speech, the government would use this as an excuse that laws infringing on the first amendment are constitutional and continue to erode our 1st amendment rights until they became nonexistent. It's either free speech for everyone, regardless of what they are saying, or no free speech at all.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2012, 10:53 pm

Tensu wrote:
If we passed a law restricting free speech, even just for hate speech, the government would use this as an excuse that laws infringing on the first amendment are constitutional and continue to erode our 1st amendment rights until they became nonexistent. It's either free speech for everyone, regardless of what they are saying, or no free speech at all.


The courts have held that the First Amendment does not protect fomenting a lynch mob, a riot or an insurrection. That is out. Also the law does not protect threats to life and limb, Such verbal threats are felonies under the assault laws. If you threaten to kill someone in such a way that a reasonable person would believe your threat, then you have committed assault which is not protected speech.

ruveyn



thewhitrbbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,124

11 Sep 2012, 11:00 pm

Unfortunately, hate speech laws, no matter how well intended, create a slope towards banning speech that is simply not desirable. The writers of the Constitution placed the 1st Amendment above all overs because they understood that laws that regulate speech can be used to punish those who disagree. Perhaps no other part of our law is treated with such strict scrutiny as the 1st Amendment.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2012, 11:07 pm

thewhitrbbit wrote:
Unfortunately, hate speech laws, no matter how well intended, create a slope towards banning speech that is simply not desirable. The writers of the Constitution placed the 1st Amendment above all overs because they understood that laws that regulate speech can be used to punish those who disagree. Perhaps no other part of our law is treated with such strict scrutiny as the 1st Amendment.


I agree. Any speech that is not a direct threat to do harm to a person, or does not foment a riot or insurrection should be permitted, no matter how nasty or hateful it is. In particular insults and racial slurs should not be prohibited by law. Personally I disapprove of such speech, but I agree that forbidding it by law will ultimately lead to most speech being forbidden or restricted. In particular any form of speech denigrating the government or any government official should be permitted in public. And no person holding office or appointed to a government position should be able to sue for libel or slander. Any person who holds office deserves to be cursed and reviled.

ruveyn



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

12 Sep 2012, 12:31 am

Hate speech is still free speech, no matter how stupid or evil it might me.



Danimal
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 268
Location: West Central Indiana

12 Sep 2012, 12:39 am

The Supreme Court recently upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to continue speaking their horrible, hateful opinions. As long as they don't incite riots they can say what they want. I, like most Americans, believe this "church" to be disgusting and full of Orcs, not people.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

12 Sep 2012, 12:54 am

Danimal wrote:
The Supreme Court recently upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to continue speaking their horrible, hateful opinions. As long as they don't incite riots they can say what they want. I, like most Americans, believe this "church" to be disgusting and full of Orcs, not people.


I think Orcs would be more tolerable than the people of that 'church'.


_________________
We won't go back.


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

12 Sep 2012, 8:39 am

As unpleasant as it is, it's protected here in the U.S.

Some of the anti-hate speech laws in Europe (most notably Sweden) consider reciting certain verses from the Bible or Quran in a sermon to be hate speech.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Sep 2012, 8:41 am

Danimal wrote:
The Supreme Court recently upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to continue speaking their horrible, hateful opinions. As long as they don't incite riots they can say what they want. I, like most Americans, believe this "church" to be disgusting and full of Orcs, not people.


You have insulted the Orcs.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

12 Sep 2012, 10:41 am

Danimal wrote:
The Supreme Court recently upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to continue speaking their horrible, hateful opinions. As long as they don't incite riots they can say what they want. I, like most Americans, believe this "church" to be disgusting and full of Orcs, not people.


It's one of those "I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it".



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Sep 2012, 10:59 am

I am strongly opposed to laws that target hate speech alone.

The criminal law has plenty of tools to deal with speech that creates or has a real potential of creating a breach of the peace: incitement to riot, making those who counsel an offence a party to that offence and similar measures can all serve to give the state the means to punish those who would inflict harm (or have harm inflicted) on others.

But to criminalize their speech is to turn them into martyrs and to give them a credibility that they do not deserve. I say, "give them as much microphone cable as they want, and let them hang themselves with it."


_________________
--James


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

12 Sep 2012, 11:18 am

pfft why not let people make asses of themselves for the whole world to see?

Though I think in some contexts hate speech should be barred.....for instance on a site to help people with mental health issues, it would make sense for them to bar hate speech as allowing it would only be detrimental. So for some specific senerios I'd say it should be barred, but making actual laws to ban it is probably taking it too far.


_________________
We won't go back.