Amazon.com Widgets
  • Hate Speech supports dehumanization

    I'm all for free speech, and I understand that nobody forces you go to a certain website, but hate speech is essentially judging/dehumanizing people based on things they can't control - race, gender, etc. (ex. White superiority). And, technically, dehumanization of individuals is illegal, so I don't understand why the speech of it is. It's already been implemented in Europe, and they're not complaining of lack of free speech. It's a fine line, but one we need to draw.

  • Hate speeches world widely can best be aired out secretly between two parties not publicly...Hate speeches make people...Psychologically tortured

    Hate speeches world widely can best be aired out secretly between two parties not publicly...Hate speeches make people...Psychologically tortured why then do this on media houses like there is no soul to soul care...We are our brothers keepers and this is our duty to brush out the wrong from them...In a better way..Not embarrassing..

  • Let them talk

    It should not be censored because we are all entitled to free speech. The Internet is a form of media and a way that people can get their ideas out there in the world and will allow for people to keep in touch. By censoring it the government would take away peoples rights given to them by the amendments.

  • Censor illegal harassment, Not polite but unpopular ideas

    No, Hate speech should not be censored on the Internet. Too often, The judgment of what is "hate speech" is the entitlement of whatever group is popular or powerful. So long as speakers aren't breaking the law, They should be entitled to share their opinions. And others should be entitled to consider them, Accept them, Or challenge them. On the other hand, I agree that the WAY we express ideas should be censorable. I don't buy that cursing at someone you disagree with is protected "free speech. " Yes, I realize that many thinkers disagree with me. But websites should be entitled to enforce civility on both sides of an argument. But so long as people are civil, They should be free to share their worldviews. As the rest of us are free to ignore them.

    For many years, I came down on the "yes, We must censor hate speech" side. But over the past decade, Watching more and more civil, Intellectually rigorous perspectives censored out of existence (thankfully, Many of us download arguments before online communities can censor them) just because the sponsors of a website or the mob of popular public sentiment disagreed with them has changed my mind. Outright censorship fuels bitterness and drives embittered communities underground. Censorship doesn't get rid of unpopular ideas. But it does galvanize many of them.

    If people aren't mature enough to be online and draw conclusions for themselves, Then they shouldn't be online--at least not supervised. I'm hoping the Supreme Court takes up this issue soon because it's getting to the point you can't express your perspectives politely unless they concord with those of the dominant group. I don't relish living in such a pseudo-intellectual Orwellian bubble.

  • Hate speech is free speech, especially on the internet

    The only way to end hate is to have open conversation and debunk hate.

    More importantly and on topic, though, you have to visit a web site on the internet. You have to choose to go there. You have to choose to engage in conversation. People can't impose that on you. So any speech on the internet, hateful or otherwise, is consensual.

    Where does the censorship end?

    We aren't talking about inciting violence, we aren't talking about assault, we are talking someone wrote something you don't like on the internet.

  • No speech online should be censored

    Individual and private sites have a right to control whether or not hate speech is allowed on them and those site should be rewarded when they use common sense guidelines to ban some speech or allow others. However, because the line between hate speech, offensive speech, and discussion of such speech is difficult to draw, any attempt to outright ban speech will likely not result in a net increase in civility nor make ugly ideas disappear.

  • It seems legal

    By my own judgment, hate speech seems to be legal as long as it does not incite violence, riots, or other crimes against people. Hate speech on it's own may be bad, but the fact that it is insulated on the internet and usually only interested users would be seeking it, makes it even more tolerable.

  • No, I don't think hate speech should be censored on the Internet.

    I think freedom of speech even hate speech should be protected, nobody forces anyone to look at any particular webpage so if you don't like looking at hate speech don't visit the websites that frequently use that type of language, I think it sets a dangerous path if the Government starts censoring the Internet.

  • No, hate speech on the Internet should not be censored.

    I do not believe that hate speech on the Internet should be censored at all. I think that people should have the right to say anything they want on the Internet as long as it is not breaking an laws. Censoring hate speech on the Internet is like censoring free speech.


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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.