The Instigator
eb101010
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LocoZZZ
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Hate Speech Should Be Banned in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 772 times Debate No: 63243
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

eb101010

Con

First Round will be for acceptance. For this Debate, Hate Speech is defined as speech, not actions. When somebody's physical safety is in danger, that is not protected under Freedom of Speech. Thank you for accepting and good luck!
LocoZZZ

Pro

I accept, because hate speech in its purest form can potentially undermine the free speech capabilities of any particular group.
Debate Round No. 1
eb101010

Con

eb101010 forfeited this round.
LocoZZZ

Pro

LocoZZZ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
eb101010

Con

I believe Hate Speech should not be banned for the following reasons:
The First Amendment gives us Freedom of Speech
True Freedom is unconditional
It would be going against the main selling point of our nation
Who and How would the line be drawn
The Current Law Strikes the right balance
How woedom is unconditional
It would be going against the main selling point of our nation

Addressing Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution: Amendment 1 gives us the Freedom of Speech, along with other freedoms, such as the freedom of religion and the freedom of the press. Sure, there are exceptions to rules; especially the freedom of speech. However, when making laws, the positive solution is preferred for the outcome to be beneficial. However, this isn"t the case with the basic freedom of speech. Any freedom/right needs to be followed 100% otherwise how can we say we have true freedoms. If freedom is based on exceptions, then the Constitution is giving us false information about our rights.
Second, true freedom is unconditional. Many people think that any negative phrase/word that describes and group of people to be classified as hate-speech. Obviously, since we are a democratic and free country, it is necessary for our government to give us such right as the freedom of speech. However, true freedom must be unconditional. True freedoms are freedoms that we have that can extend to anything, under any circumstances, underneath the topic of each freedom. A true freedom cannot have exceptions within itself. For example, the freedom of religion/belief gives us the freedom to believe in whatever we want. If this freedom were to be conditional, it would be like saying you need permission to believe in things. And because there is no authorized position of who can tell us what is right and wrong in belief, we are entitled to our true freedom.
The third reason why hate speech shouldn"t be banned is that if it was, it would be going against our nation"s main selling point. Our nation is a free country. We are granted such privileges like freedoms and being able to shape the government without decisions. Sure, you might say, if we can shape the government, why can"t we ban hate speech? The answer is simple, if we aren"t a free nation, we don"t have the ability to shape our (free) government. To even have the chance to shape the government, we must look past some opinions to get the best end result.

For my next point: Who and How the laws would be decided. There is such a fine line in these situations for how, who, what, and where this law is decided. Would Congress draft the bill? Or a random citizen feeling the importance of this issue? Or the President? And everybody"s values on "hate speech" is different. Some think it includes online speech, some think it includes violent acts, or protests, publically making their views about a category of people known, or acts but not speech (Supreme Court enforces the punishability of acts, but not speech, which goes with our definition). But some think those things aren"t in the categories of hate speech. So who would reinforce the law? Would the reinforcer change the definition of hate speech every time they were replaced? If it was a political figure, would a Democrat enforce the laws differently than a Republican? There is no way to decide with a country of 320 million slightly differing views.
For my next point, the Current Law Strikes the Right balance. In a Wisconsin vs. Mitchell Case that reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled that the Wisconsin law that increases penalties for batter if the person is intentionally selected "because of their race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry." This is not an infringement on our freedom of speech laws, it is a ruling on actions. In another case, R.V.A. v. City of St. Paul (1993), a White 14-year-old burned a cross (the symbol of the KKK) in the yard of the only black family in the neighborhood, and verbally let them know they weren"t welcome. The Supreme Court ruled that his speech was protected under the 1st Amendment, but his actions of burning the cross wasn"t. You don"t see the Westboro Baptist Church burning houses down, you see them picketing funerals (as horrible as it is, but it is free speech). These rulings are correct because if we ban speech, it will chill the speech of our whole society. It is an infringement on our basic rights laid out in the Constitution. We don"t need new laws when the ones we have are already sufficient in balance with the Constitution.
Lastly, how would these laws be effectively monitored. It can"t be! Take the Internet for example. We have around 280 million Internet Users in the U.S. There is no way any government can monitor 280 million people"s social media, e-mails, etc. Canada had parts of its hate speech laws repealed from their Constitution because they were impossible to uphold. They are a prime example of what happens when free speech is limited by a major country with a large population. There would be selective monitoring and prosecutions, because if even 1% of Internet Users exercised their former rights by making hate-speech posts, there would be 2.8 millions court cases across the U.S. That just isn"t possible. For another example, Facebook has servers in the U.S. If somebody from Brazil made a hate-speech post, would Facebook be lawfully obligated to take it down? There are so many little things that could go wrong.
So, should hate-speech be discouraged? Absolutely. But should it be banned? For countless reasons, no.

.
LocoZZZ

Pro

LocoZZZ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by eb101010 2 years ago
eb101010
yelling fire or killing somebody are crimes and result in injuries and death which is thankfully illegal because those actions result in physical harm, which is in no way free speech, but an endangerment of well-being. As I said in the debate, I and the supreme court share that opinion.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
What if a person was to go in to a crowded theater and yells "FIRE" and the stampede that results kills people, would that person be right in saying I was exercising my right to free speech. What if an imam or ayatollah down at the near by mosque was to preach "kill the infidels" and some of his followers go out and kill, would that person be right in saying I was exercising my right to free speech.
Posted by eb101010 2 years ago
eb101010
Pro is for the ban of hate speech, con is for keeping hate speech legal.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
defending hate as a right is immoral
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The freedom of speech is to protect our right , not to rosy, comfortable speech, but our right to possibly offensive speech.And what may be hate speech to one would be just speaking truth to power. And that should always be protected.

Just because I do not want to be around gays, does not constitute hate. Just discriminating on lifestyle.
Posted by LocoZZZ 2 years ago
LocoZZZ
I will take the pro first amendment argument then
Posted by LocoZZZ 2 years ago
LocoZZZ
Wait, are you against allowing hate speech or pro hate speech?
No votes have been placed for this debate.