Countries have seen fit to ban hate speech have also seen fit to ban books touting alternative medicine (although a lot of that is nothing, remember all medicine originated as alternative medicine), ban people from "insulting the king/president". Hate speech statues have also been used against people erroneously and been upheld, such as people who merely protest the policies of Israel having their speech taken out of context and twisted into being labeled "antisemitic". There is no "hate" clause exception in the Constitution, so however you rule that it's OK to ban hate speech it will open the door to banning other speech as well. This is NOT a power we can trust the government with.
If we place restrictions upon hate speech we are essentially telling others they are wrong for believing what they believe and expressing it verbally. Yes, there are people who spout insensitive bigoted comments. But who are we to judge them for having an opinion? We may strongly disagree with it, but how would you feel if your opinions were made illegal? In essence this would happen if we ban one type of speech - other types would not be far behind.
It's still speech, regardless of whether it's hate or not. If I really wanted to, I could deem any old thing you say to me to be hate. If I say "Obama has been scientifically proven to be the devil incarnate" and you say "No", I can say "You're being mean to me! You're insulting my beliefs! WAHWAHWAH YOU JERK!". Banning any kind of speech sets dangerous precedent.
Banning hate speech gives to much power to government. It allows government or people the power to stop what your saying on the grounds of stopping hate speech, when most of the time it is just an opposing viewpoint that the want to silence. Look at the Feminists at UoT CAFE speech by Dr. Warren Farrell. That was clearly not hate speech but was interrupted by people claiming it was. Protecting free speech is important.
Free speech is free speech is free speech. Whether you like what someone is saying or not, it should be protected under the supreme law of the land. Freedom is an intrinsic good, and we should not look to the consequences to determine whether the speech is immoral or not. Of course I agree that hate speech is ignorant, and can be terrifying, but so long as no one is violent no one should be silenced.
Hate speech is a way to express an opinion that may be swayed by misconstrued facts/opinions.
Fighting words are words that are used to incite a reaction in someone.
The two should not be mistaken as they are somewhat different. Hate speech won't necessarily incite action while fighting words will.
Hate speech. No matter how ignorant, should be protected as free speech. It is up to you, the listener to ignore it and counter the ignorance.
The freedom of speech should always be protected. The reason why this should be protected is because people should have the right to say anything. They have their own ideas and speak their own mind. I think that people should say what they want and they shouldn't get judged for it.
The reason Hate speeches should be aloud is it is freedom of speech none the less. If you out law Hate speech that opens up any kind of free speech to be out lawed, and if this is the case then freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech by banding hate speech you are taking freedom of speech from someone witch would be a clear violation of there 1st amendment rights. So no matter how hateful or peaceful agree or disagree its someone's right to say what they feel.
Freedom of speech is important. Speech can't be banned because it's considered hate speech. It doesn't matter if the speaker is a total idiot; he can say what he wants because he lives in America. If our freedom of speech becomes restricted based on whether one thinks it's hate speech, what will be next? How restricted will our rights become?
Clearly, the first amendment states that free speech is part of the constitution, therefore it's obviously not only supposed to be allowed -it is allowed- it should be respected and recognized. The 1969 Brandenburg vs. Ohio was over-ruled by the Supreme Court and stamped as a landmark of court cases.
Because of those ignorant, homophobic, right-wing, gun-toting rednecks who routinely shout their "Kill all fags" and justify their disgusting behavior with "I have freedom of speech" -- "free speech" has made our nation more dangerous by forcibly making us put up with their insensitive, bigoted and intolerant hate-mongering. And because of this, our government needs to ensure that we attain and sustain a polite society.
Hate speech isn't free speech; it's anything but "free."
Hate speech should not be protected because it infringes on others' ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness (like the constitution states.) Hate speech harms by spreading negative, disgusting stereotypes like we've seen since the attacks on 9/11 and recently with the Boston bombings. The people they are insulting are human, too.
I'm sorry Constitution thumpers, the Supreme Court *does* interpret the Constitution. There are several landmark Supreme Court decisions that you should be familiar with...
1) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
Concerning verbal insults in public places.
In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."
2) Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
3) Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)
In June 1993, the United States Supreme Court made the landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments for hate crime legislation. In effect, the Court ruled that a state may consider whether a crime was committed or initially considered due to an intended victim's status in a protected class.
Hate Speech, Bigotry, Fighting Words, etc that are meat to incite imminent lawless action are simply not protected by the First Amendment.
Hate speech, cyberbullying, cybercrime, libel, slander, harassment through media. If these are not legal by physical means and you agree with those laws then how can you contradict the same thing virtually? Social networking was designed to connect not to promote legal harassment and an attack of these rights. Freedom of speech is twisted to mean something it was not intended for. Those in favor of hate speech are called cyber libertarians. Yes everyone is entitled to think what they want but that does not mean they should be allowed to verbally bestow their idiocy on the rest of us. Let me wake some of you 75 percentile's up real quick, would you like to be publicly humiliated and bullied to the point that it was inescapable true or not simply because someone disliked or was jealous of you. Do you think that it is okay to ruin another persons life by what you call freedom of hate speech? Would you like to have a son or daughter bullied literally to death by vicious hate speech on the Internet? Would you like your son or daughter to be an indirect victim of a mass violent act because of severe hate speech that was protected and drove someone over the edge. The damage from cyber hate speech is far more extensive than one on one or face to face. Once it is put into the cloud its permanent. It's easy to talk when you it hasn't been you or someone you love. Words use to mean something, honor, dignity, reputation. What about protecting that? It is not illegal to have an opinion but it should be to use it verbally or libellee with intent to harm. If we can see it so can dangerous hate groups and it only fuels the fire. So if hate speech is ok then lets make bullying legal, defamation, slander, harassment, hell why not stalking it practically is anyway. We have enough trouble with enforcing these laws that are needed and now you cyber libertarians want to give us another one that grows faster and reaches farther? Freedom of Speech well if you really for that strongly that your idiocy should be allowed then lets do this "Say it when your giving a speech to be quite literal about it!" Then it should be legitimate to the definition. The common since of right and wrong speaks for itself no matter the majority stance, that does not mean your right. I'm all for freedom of speech but hate speech is not speech at all its just trash and a weapon. If you want to speak do so but with tact and class, if you cannot then perhaps you should not be afforded that right at all...
For instance, you cannot shout bomb in an airport. Also in times of war the government has limited speech and the Supreme Court has upheld those decisions. Hate speech dehumanizes people. It degrades them into thinking they are less than others. Hate speech has led to genocide, it has led to murders, it has caused young teens to commit suicide. Every other nation has law limiting hate speech, its time America steps up and does the right thing. Speech that dehumanizes others should not be protected.
For example. In the Canadian Charter we have something called mobility rights. Giving citizens the right to move anywhere in Canada as you please. Yet say your a prisoner. Under reasonable limitations your staying in prison for the duration of your sentence.
So now take this into example. In Canada our version of free speech is known as freedom of expression and freedom to peaceful assembly, Hate speech is not peaceful.
This website is an exception as the purpose of this website is to say your opinion even if hateful.
Yet causing a protest on the streets of your city demanding that all minorities are to be deported is not free speech. Its freaking hate crime!
People are allowed to say what they want. The government gave us, the American people, the right to say what they want. Hate speech or otherwise. If it does not directly and physically harm someone and yes bullying is bad and can hurt people but taking away peoples rights is wrong. No one can say "but our forefathers couldn't have predicted the amount of hate speech we have..." YES THEY COULD!!! Hate speech is written all throughout history. Our forefathers probably hated on the English because they GAVE THEMSELVES THAT RIGHT. This is why I do believe hate speech should be protected as free speech.
Hateful speech should be banned because it is contributing to negative online activity which could cause harm in the long run. I believe when you make a point to direct hate towards a group of people, the "attacked" group should take alarm. You are intentionally trying to hurt someone. The first amendment is not guaranteed in every situation. You are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. So you shouldn't be allowed to say I think Black people should die! There needs to be some clear distinctions between freedom of speech and criminalizing remarks. The government needs to start figuring out what the distinction is.
Many children in schools are experiencing or have experienced hate speech, a form of "free speech", there needs to be a line drawn in terms of which form of speech is tolerable and which is not. Suicides are occurring because of the supposed free speech, and although the Founding Fathers of the constitution meant for America to be a democratic, free country, the definition of free speech has obviously been distorted.
Hurting people with words hurts more than physically hurting someone. So why should be be able to spread mean words about people and as a end result have someone's life taken away since you said some mean words and you didn't 'mean them'. Also, we need to protect kids, not make them vulnerable to this...