Amazon.com Widgets

Should hateful public speaking be prohibited by the United States government?

Asked by: greatstuff479
  • Its not a right , its a crime !

    People have often said "When you censor one thing , it leads to complete censorship " . That is completely illogical , hate speech is just the same as hate crimes in the way that someone went out of their way to publicly denounce a group of people . Lets say a skinhead group holds a rally outside of your towns town hall , a week later a young black man is found beaten to death in your local park , that is the effect of hate speech . When you hate someone/something you put all your heart into disliking that thing / person , if you think that someone would go as far as to do this thing publicly , don't you think that someone would do something drastic ? Its ok not to like that person , but when you take it to the public , you're displaying blatant hate . In the end we have the typical " your freedoms interfere with my freedoms " problem .

  • Yes it should.

    Hate speech is a form of abuse against the target. N this, N that, kill the Jews, the Holocaust started with hate speech. I am tired of hateful abusers getting away with everything that they do. Maybe victims should fight back. Random word filler for no reason. WORD UP, YO!

  • Why constitutes as hate?

    The picture here is the KKK, a group most people here can agree is a hate group. But who decides what is a hate group? Many people think being opposed to abortion or being in favor of allowing private business discrimination as hate. You don't choose which books to burn and which can stay, because the majority can suppress the minority. In many Muslim states, saying there is no god is a hate crime, and many people on the left would accuse me of hate for saying that about Muslim societies. Hate is what you want it to be, and what is hate to you may not be hate to others, so you have to allow all speech.

  • Freedom of Speech?

    After all, you may hate what they say and think that their opinions are totally ignorant and bigoted, or you may agree wholeheartedly with their views. But at the end of the day, doesn't freedom of speech mean anything to you? If you are for these public speakings to be banned, you are just as bad as they are, but in a different way.

  • Thats a way we exercise our democratic rights

    We the people hate the capitalist regime and want democrasy because you cant trust a government to do what the people want its more sensible for democrasy because we know what we want
    right now when we protest and say what we want we get peppersprayed and beaten by police

  • It all comes down to personal rights and freedoms.

    Even though people who preach hateful words are lowlifes, the government has no right to take away the personal freedoms of the constitution from these people. Doing so would cause more hate, this time directed at the government, and if they ignore them, it could escalate into a second USA civil war, and god knows that any sensible person in the country does not want another one. It would cause unrivaled bloodshed, and all because people don't like what some others are saying. The least we can do is have security forces protect ethnic groups from physical harm that the speakers are aiming for, as far as I know.

  • Where would it end?

    In countries with laws against hate speech you often also find such laws as laws against insulting the king or laws against publishing materials that promote viewpoints like support for alternative medicine or basically any laws against anything the state deems inappropriate. You can not just have hate speech laws, draw the line there and keep it. It will lead to more laws against speech.

    And it does no good. People believe what they want. Silencing them just makes them feel more justified, makes them feel persecuted, and leads to more secret group formation just for the sake of being able to speak one's mind which could mean more opportunities for radical potentially dangerous groups to form when otherwise the people who started them would've felt satisfied just venting their opinions without having to form a secret group.

  • It's a Matter of Freedom

    As much as I detest those who use their freedom to preach hatred, I would never wish for the government to silence them. In order for the freedom of speech to exist in any meaningful form, ALL speech must be protected. The very instant we prohibit ANY kind of speech, all speech is in danger. Their words may hurt, but not listening is always an option. Such hatred is indeed all talk, no action. Long story short, don't feed the trolls.

  • Not now or ever.

    This should not even be a debate. The First Amendment is not about agreeing with people. If we only allowed speech that we agreed with then freedom of speech is gone.

    Simply put, specific words cannot be banned.

    That still doesn't mean that all speech is legal. Threats, causing a riot, calling in bomb threats, etc., can be and are in many cases against the law. It is not the words themselves are not illegal but the manner in which they are used.

    So no banning of words or speech. Even issues of riots, disorderly conduct, threats and "fighting words" (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire) are the business of state and local governments and are no business of the federal government.

  • Well let's begin...

    I'm not going to cry First Amendment! Like a cry baby... No. I'm going to show you the First Amendment.

    First Amendment:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Now even hateful public speaking is peaceful by definition. Non-peaceful would be rioting.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.