Amazon.com Widgets
  • Who Defines Hate Speech?

    Sure it may be easy to say the skinhead on the street with a sign that says "Kill all niggers." Is partaking in hate speech. I would agree, he is expressing hate, specifically, towards African-Americans. Banning speech, no matter how repulsive, is a slippery slope and restricts freedom. A b

  • Free speech leads to social change

    At one point in history, the idea that an African American child could go to school with a white child was considered wrong, and to some people "hate speech." the only reason that we have grown from those ideas is because the constitution allows for any person to say what they believe without fear of the governments. Free Speech is what causes change in society, limiting it would be detrimental.

  • Vd grddf gdy

    Grg rf f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f ff f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f fff f

  • Vd grddf gdy

    Grg rf f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f ff f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f fff f

  • Yes it should be

    The free speech of today could become the hatespeech of tomorrow. When you make something taboo and forbidden you are merely making it enticing to some people. Bad ideas should be given a chance to prove themselves if you can't make an argument against them and have to resort to forbid them is that speech really hatespeech? The idea that people are committing crimes becauae if mean hatespeech is silly, people aren't animals they have agency and self control to say that someone inflicted violence on someone cause of hatespeech is the same as saying women with revealing clothing were asking for rape. It should also be noted that hatespeech is not an objectively defined term and it's interpretation cam be very easily used to prohibit other forms of speech by simply calling it hatespeech. There is no freedom in thought policing.

  • As an example....

    If it doesn't, you are going to have to shut down debate.Org.
    The notion of hate speech is just too vague and subjective. The only effective tool for social engineering is education. If we have learned anything it's that laws do not change people's hearts.
    The legal definition of hate speech only goes as far as to relating it to "protected classes".
    This just smacks of the tyranny of the minority over the majority.

  • Free Speech is unlimited.

    A system of intellectual incest is created when you restrict ideas, even obviously bad ideas, from being expressed. Free speech must remain as a corner stone of a free nation. If we restricted free speech, even hate speech, how would slavery have been protested? How would women have gained suffrage? IF we wish to maintain a free nation, we must protect and preserve freedom of speech.

  • Free Speech is unlimited.

    A system of intellectual incest is created when you restrict ideas, even obviously bad ideas, from being expressed. Free speech must remain as a corner stone of a free nation. If we restricted free speech, even hate speech, how would slavery have been protested? How would women have gained suffrage? IF we wish to maintain a free nation, we must protect and preserve freedom of speech.

  • Free Speech is unlimited.

    A system of intellectual incest is created when you restrict ideas, even obviously bad ideas, from being expressed. Free speech must remain as a corner stone of a free nation. If we restricted free speech, even hate speech, how would slavery have been protested? How would women have gained suffrage? IF we wish to maintain a free nation, we must protect and preserve freedom of speech.

  • Freedom of speech allows the exchange of ideas

    Hate speech is a term created and exploited by political groups that would stifle the free expression of ideas other than there own. Many of the opinion expressed against the freedom of speech use varieties of "hate speech" in there attempts to bully people into being afraid to disagree with them.

  • No, "Free Speech" is a concept of the Bourgeois

    The western concept of "Free Speech" is a concept created by the bourgeoisies to divided the people freely so there can be an everlasting struggle between the common man while they exploit us all. Free speech does nothing but promote hate, violence, and greed in society and its proven, look at the United States, its filled with racial tension and hate. Then look at the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia where there were some barring of speech and there was no racial tension up until western powers caused it to collapse.

  • It should not protect hate speech.

    If you poke your stick at an angry lion, it WILL bite your head off if it gets near you. People need to learn their lessons. What many are doing today is that they are abusing people from different faiths, humiliating them, and spreading lies about them, and then defend their case by the first Amendment.

    And then people ask questions why some religious extremists killed some folks over a dumb movie? Learn your lessons humanity, because you never do learn from the past. You are responsible for feeding the fire instead of extinguishing it. Act like a civilized human being for once.

    If you have no compassion for your fellow brother or sister, you are not a human, you are a homo-sapien as far as it gets.

  • Hate speech should not be protected in a civilised society

    It is easy to define what constitutes 'hate speech', as it is done in other states and within other bills of rights .
    Of course the interpretation should always be subject to debate on a case-by-case basis, which is the function of the judiciary just as in any civilised society. How anyone can defend the kind of digusting language/insults/discriminatory stereotypes levelled without recrimation in the name of 'free speech' is beyond me. This kind of speech serves no function whatsoever other than to create a divided and antagonistic society in which even ignorance and vituperative bile is 'protected'.

  • No, hate speech should not be protected under the Constitution.

    The main argument that is being used in favor of its protection is that it is a violation of the Constitution. This is an interesting argument because nobody seems to care all that much that plenty of other laws violate the Constitution as well. The Patriot Act, for example, violates SIX Amendments. Another example is the term 'Shouting Fire', which applies to shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater when there is no fire. This translates to badmouthing public figures "maliciously" and "dishonestly". Hate speech should not at all be protected-there is no good that it does and no reason that it should be defended.

  • Should not be protected

    There is nothing unlimited in the American constitution. Hate speech might lead to incitement. Hate speech includes your feelings and opinions, not others. You should keep them inside your soul and should not force others to follow your feelings. Hate speech should not be protected by the first amendment. .

  • Should not be protected

    The hate groups of America should not be protected by the 1st amendment. In the past, hate groups have killed thousands of people through lynching, homicide and even making people kill themselves. All of these are crimes and are all caused by hate speech. Therefore, hate groups should NOT be protected by the 1st amendment.

  • No, The 1st amendment should not protect hate speech.

    I do not think that the 1st amendment should not protect hate groups because hate groups are the ones that are destroying society. They hate on people's race, religion, and gender choices. That is that persons decision to choose. It should not be chosen by a group of people that think everything should be one way.

  • No, The 1st amendment should not protect hate speech.

    I do not think that the 1st amendment should not protect hate groups because hate groups are the ones that are destroying society. They hate on people's race, religion, and gender choices. That is that persons decision to choose. It should not be chosen by a group of people that think everything should be one way.

  • Simply it should not

    I believe the first amendment gives that permission and protection. We may agree with the words or not but we all have a right to saw it. Also as shown in our politically correct world, correctness is in the eye of the beholder...Ex. A black person can say ni... Without a problem but a white cannot...Go figure...

  • It doesn't give good reasons.

    Many people who are hateful of a certain subjects for no apparent reason to hate the subject thus adding nothing to the world but unhappy words. While when someone wants to add a reasonable opinion to the subject this is usually represented in a calm manner this helps the subject progress. So in my opinion hate speeches should not be protected by the first Amendment.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Skynet says2013-07-17T02:22:14.227
Would it protect people who make speeches about how they hate people who practice hate speech?