Amazon.com Widgets

What is hate speech and who gets to decide if it is acceptable or not?

  • Hate speech is defamation against a person, Position, Policy or institution without legitimate evidence to support a claim.

    Each individual makes their own mind up as to what is hateful in speech or not, But when a listener returns hate because they disagree with the position of that person giving the speech we can now call it hate speech.

    If it was never meant to be a hate speech, But the listener or listeners took it as such and argued with emotions based on political affiliation, Bias, Dislike for the speech giver or for whatever reason the circumstance it lends to more hate and discord.

    The right to speak for whatever tone, As long as it is lawful in the intent, Motive, And content, Has a right to speak. We all have a right to leave or not to listen. The listener who stays to hear the side that is wrong, Hateful or different than theirs should respond by challenging points of hate with arguments based on evidence and not emotion. Emotions have ruined the very nature of debate in this country. Noone will listen, Disagree and find some common ground to communicate. Name calling, "shutting down" the speech or group does little to gain the respect of many who won't say anything until it is time to vote again. What is political correctness as it relates to speech? It is a media term for don't say anything to those who have a differing view or political position. Congress truly is the example of hate speech day in and day out. The media feeds the monster and we all take sides.

  • Hate Speech has lost all it's Meaning

    People nowadays are very sensitive. The majority of sensitive are Liberals. I myself lean left wing, But I am a Libertarian, When Libertarians and Liberals are different things. Liberals on social media are very sensitive, And are very quick to calling things "hate speech". Hate speech is where you actually say something that is infatuated with bigotry, (Bigotry is where you insult someone for being gay, Black, Etc. ) Bigotry is a terrible thing. However, Sometimes, People have different opinions on something, Or use actually factual information in something like, A debate. If they use a fact that is against their cause that they abuse, And hold onto very tightly, Then it's considered "Hate speech". My response to that is that people need to grow up, And stop being crybabies! Facts and hate speech are two different things, And since people are so sensitive nowadays, Literately ANYTHING can be hate speech. People should get thicker skin! Stop calling everything bullying and sucking your thumbs!

  • Hate is super bad!

    I believe hate speech should not be allowed because it is not very nice! Nobody likes hate speech! Hate speech is evil! Hate speech is bad! Especially when your arguing and someone says something racist or shameful and then you have to kill them thats why hate speech is bad because it leads to crime.

    Posted by: jwim
  • Hate speech does not exist

    Hate Speech doesn't exist in America. There is no legal definition for the term "hate speech" in the United States. Some may argue that by limiting a persons freedom of speech or freedom to hate speech that it increases a countries human rights. In actuality, No country has better human rights than the United States by limiting the general persons freedom to speech. Canada and the United Kingdom have laws on hate speech differing in severity based off of the level of oppression. To Clarify my point the United States legal definition of hate speech is any kind of speech that is differentiated or should be differentiated legally based on the level of offense or oppression. The only legal regulations on freedom of speech in the united states is for a few things like yelling fire in a crowded building or shooter in a school but these are calls to action. These specific things are regulated because of the safety for other citizens. In summary, Hate Speech exists in the United States although it is taboo, But legislatively or legally it does not exist and shouldn't. If they started regulating citizens speech then who decides what can and can't be said? No one especially the government should have the position of deciding if hate speech is acceptable.

  • Only Elements of Hate Speech are unacceptable

    I do agree that most hate speech is derogatory. There should indeed be a ban of sorts on racism, Sexism, And other forms of prejudice. However, We are living in a time where people are very sensitive and can take offense to almost anything. If we are not careful, A ban on hate speech could become a ban on any opinion that someone disagrees with.

  • Hate is a bad thing

    Do not say anything mean to anyone because it will make them feel as if you are negative and hurtful. Then you will live your life like Wimmer, Feeling as if the whole world hates you and that your shoulders are heavy like Wimmer. Helen loves him a whole lot

  • Depending on the degree of how offensive a statement is should determine whether one should or shouldn't receive punishment for speaking it.

    There is nothing that America can do to become fully ridden of prejudice, Despite the boundless efforts to censor anything that would be deemed derogatory towards any individual or group of people. Part of the reason is due to the First Amendment's freedom of speech that it grants Americans. However, Not everything that is spoken in such a manner is done so in all seriousness, And not meant to be an expression of hate. Sadly, It can sometimes be difficult to differentiate forms of banter between acquaintances from emotion-powered prejudice. People could get in trouble for something they said or did in which they did not even intend to harm anyone for it, And ironically that can also cause them to be rained down upon by considerably harmful words. The point is, If somebody is put on trial for a hate crime, And the defendant makes an honest claim that they did not mean any harm, They should almost always receive the benefit of the doubt.

  • Hate speech isn't real

    People are becoming to sensitive about speech and people saying factual information in a debate. People who don't have the same side as you in a debate will eventually call you a ism word or say that it is hate speech. We are the only country that give their people more rights then any other country out there. To give anyway some of their speech rights does limit our voice as a nation. Hate speech isn't a real thing and is something that someone made out because he/she come upset because someone was on the opposite view point of a debate or something and was actually giving factual information.

  • Hate Speech. _.

    "Hate speech" has no legal definition, But most people think of it as speech that is offensive and malicious. With that in mind, "hate speech" should not be banned. Not being able to say what you want because it offends somebody is a violation of the first amendment. Not only that, But people would abuse the term "hate speech, " just like they abuse the word "racist. " People would categorize anything that they don't agree with as "hate speech. "

  • There is no such thing as hate speech

    Anything we say can be hate speech to each person. To ban "hate speech" would be taking away part of the 1st amendment. Most other countries don't even give you as many rights as we do. People are getting sensitive and saying that anything that offends them is "hate speech to them". Yes there is a point of speech where it becomes hate speech and maybe someday we find a way to stop hate in general and create a more unified country. For the most point people getting emotional over a debate or something and saying that what that person is saying is hate speech is stupid and that isn't hate speech. It is there emotions getting in the way because someone saying something factual and to call that hate speech is just stupid and there isn't really a thing such as "hate speech"

  • Hate speech should stay unlawful

    There is no lawful definition for the expression "detest discourse" in the United States. Some may contend that by restricting a people the right to speak freely or opportunity to abhor discourse that it expands a nation human rights. In fact, No nation has preferable human rights over the United States by constraining the general people opportunity to discourse

  • Hate speech is unacceptable.

    Hate speech is a form of demoralizing a certain group or type of individual based on looks or beliefs. When hate speech is used to make someone feel less than human, This should be considered a crime if it is in a public place where someone shouldn't be afraid of getting attacked because of race or religion.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Kjones1 says2019-04-09T16:25:39.890
Hate Speech doesn't exist in America. There is no legal definition for the term "hate speech" in the United States. Some may argue that by limiting a persons freedom of speech or freedom to hate speech that it increases a countries human rights. In actuality, No country has better human rights than the United States by limiting the general persons freedom to speech. Canada and the United Kingdom have laws on hate speech differing in severity based off of the level of oppression. To Clarify my point the United States legal definition of hate speech is any kind of speech that is differentiated or should be differentiated legally based on the level of offense or oppression. The only legal regulations on freedom of speech in the united states is for a few things like yelling fire in a crowded building or shooter in a school but these are calls to action. These specific things are regulated because of the safety for other citizens. In summary, Hate Speech exists in the United States although it is taboo, But legislatively or legally it does not exist and shouldn't. If they started regulating citizens speech then who decides what can and can't be said? No one especially the government should have the position of deciding if hate speech is acceptable.