Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Should hateful speech be illegal?

268 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dejarma
7 minutes ago, Michelle said:

If I had read any of your posts before I responded to you, I never would have.

My mistake. It won't happen again. ;)

you've still failed to answer the question!! i'll repeat:

what has this got to do with this topic?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

To make hateful speech illegal would be nice, but since finding a proper definition is impossible, the question is moot.

However, most forward thinking countries do have laws on the books saying that it's illegal to say "X citizens are all dirty thieves and deserve to be raped and killed!", because that is an incitement to violence, while it's somehow fine (sadly enough) to just say that "X citizens are all dirty thieves".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
1 minute ago, Likely Guy said:

To make hateful speech illegal would be nice, but since finding a proper definition is impossible, the question is moot.

However, most forward thinking countries do have laws on the books saying that it's illegal to say "X citizens are all dirty thieves and deserve to be raped and killed!", because that is an incitement to violence, while it's somehow fine (sadly enough) to just say that "X citizens are all dirty thieves".

I have nothing to add other than thank you for the proper use of that word!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
4 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

To make hateful speech illegal would be nice, but since finding a proper definition is impossible, the question is moot.

However, most forward thinking countries do have laws on the books saying that it's illegal to say "X citizens are all dirty thieves and deserve to be raped and killed!", because that is an incitement to violence, while it's somehow fine (sadly enough) to just say that "X citizens are all dirty thieves".

I wish the question was,  "should hate speech be punished ". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
17 hours ago, Dejarma said:

that's the problem right there!= the fact that people cause damage via words.

having said that; how would you or anyone else react to someone (no physical contact) screaming in your face for 5/10 minutes?

the rational response would be to knock em out 'before' it gets violent= the screaming imo would imply a possible violent resolve from the screamer

You just perfectly described the crime of ASSAULT.  He was charged with assault.  He did it in public, he was charged with disorderly conduct.  The issue is that they also decided to charge him with a FELONY that would put him in prison for 3-5 years because of what he SAID TO HER.  What part of that don't you guys get?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
17 hours ago, Dejarma said:

in the real world i live in:

if i feel (via words) that i'm threatened in any way then i will react physically= why wouldn't i?

That is your right, absolutely.  If you feel your safety is truly threatened you defend yourself.  OTOH, if you use excessive force that isn't commensurate to the threat you can be charged and imprisoned after trial.  It seems to me that you are advocating that government should have the power to punish people for their opinions if those opinions might anger someone.  Surely that isn't your point?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
24 minutes ago, and then said:

That is your right, absolutely.  If you feel your safety is truly threatened you defend yourself.  OTOH, if you use excessive force that isn't commensurate to the threat you can be charged and imprisoned after trial.  It seems to me that you are advocating that government should have the power to punish people for their opinions if those opinions might anger someone.  Surely that isn't your point?

Isn't it funny? Someone would respond with actual violence to a verbal assault and they think they have the high ground. They may think that until they get in front of the judge. :lol:

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
24 minutes ago, and then said:

That is your right, absolutely.  If you feel your safety is truly threatened you defend yourself.  OTOH, if you use excessive force that isn't commensurate to the threat you can be charged and imprisoned after trial.  It seems to me that you are advocating that government should have the power to punish people for their opinions if those opinions might anger someone.  Surely that isn't your point?

I do not want to be in the situation where I'm saying to myself: 'if only I knocked him out 'before' he stabbed me or broke my jaw etc'

you can only do what you feel is best at the time. I may get arrested for excessive force but I will not be in a hospital bed-- or dead! This is the point you seem to be ignoring or just don't get.. All due respect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
21 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Considering what we now know about the permanent physical effect that psychological trauma has on the brain the two are one in the same. 

Let's try this experiment to put your theory to the test. The first scenario involves a beatdown that puts you into a coma. The second scenario involves a cruel and cutting remark that hurts you to the core of your being. Which one would you choose, and how are they the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
21 hours ago, Dejarma said:

in the real world i live in:

if i feel (via words) that i'm threatened in any way then i will react physically= why wouldn't i?

You might get arrested. You might get imprisoned

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
25 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

You might get arrested. You might get imprisoned

i might be dead if i don't react= is it worth taking the risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
4 hours ago, and then said:

That is your right, absolutely.  If you feel your safety is truly threatened you defend yourself.  OTOH, if you use excessive force that isn't commensurate to the threat you can be charged and imprisoned after trial.  It seems to me that you are advocating that government should have the power to punish people for their opinions if those opinions might anger someone.  Surely that isn't your point?

Maybe trolling is the point. It's just a hunch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
12 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Let's try this experiment to put your theory to the test. The first scenario involves a beatdown that puts you into a coma. The second scenario involves a cruel and cutting remark that hurts you to the core of your being. Which one would you choose, and how are they the same?

Actually at the end of it all depending on the individuals involved the permanent changes in the brain could be identical after either incident (well I guess I do concede the kind of incident we're discussing goes beyond a single cutting comment) 

Personally I was surprised when I found that out and my position has evolved thusly

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
On 7/13/2018 at 4:46 PM, Big Jim said:

We can't possibly build enough jails to make hate speech illegal.  Besides, who get's to decide what is hateful, the party in power?  How hateful is criminal, rather than just annoying or offensive?  Speech takes on different meaning in different contexts and between different people.  Would it matter if the offending words were spoken in public or private?  Rank also matters.  The boss can say things that would get an employee fired.  Should it now get them jailed?  Better to have free speech and thicker skins.

Good post.   I think it is a slippery slope.   Would it be illegal to call someone the "N" word?  Whether it is a white person saying it to a black person, a white person saying it to a white person or a black person saying it to a black person?    What other words would be illegal to say?   Nazi, redneck, wetback, spic, whore and polack are all used as derogatory terms for people.   I don't think anyone should use those terms, but I wouldn't arrest them if they did.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 hour ago, Myles said:

Good post.   I think it is a slippery slope.   Would it be illegal to call someone the "N" word?  Whether it is a white person saying it to a black person, a white person saying it to a white person or a black person saying it to a black person?    What other words would be illegal to say?   Nazi, redneck, wetback, spic, whore and polack are all used as derogatory terms for people.   I don't think anyone should use those terms, but I wouldn't arrest them if they did.  

There's a reason Nazi is a derogatory term. 

If people march with swastikas on their arms, shouting Jews will not replace us, they might have to "suffer" being labeled that way. 

It's a choice to be a racist *******. It's not something a person can't control, like their heritage, where they were born, or their skin tone. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
5 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

There's a reason Nazi is a derogatory term. 

If people march with swastikas on their arms, shouting Jews will not replace us, they might have to "suffer" being labeled that way. 

It's a choice to be a racist *******. It's not something a person can't control, like their heritage, where they were born, or their skin tone. 

I agree.   But "Nazi" is used to put down others who do not do what you said.   I'm Polish and have been called polack as an insulting term many times through life.   I would not want the people who said it arrested for saying it though.  

Edited by Myles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree.   But "Nazi" is used to put down others who do not do what you said.   I'm Polish and have been called polack as an insulting term many times through life.   I would not want the people who said it arrested for saying it though.  

I feel like people just want to reframe racism into some protected group that can't be called out, or called what they are. 

If someone isn't wearing a swastika, but they're still marching arm in arm with people who are, and they're still shouting Jews will not replace us, they might also have to "suffer" being labeled that way.

Of course, everyone should be protected against violence. Even the people who literally burn crosses and swastikas in their own yards. But we should still be able to say that they are Nazis. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I feel like people just want to reframe racism into some protected group that can't be called out, or called what they are. 

If someone isn't wearing a swastika, but they're still marching arm in arm with people who are, and they're still shouting Jews will not replace us, they might also have to "suffer" being labeled that way.

Of course, everyone should be protected against violence. Even the people who literally burn crosses and swastikas in their own yards. But we should still be able to say that they are Nazis. 

I've never marched with any nazi's.   However, since I voted republican, I have been called a nazi many times over.   You don't put that into the "hate speech" category?   

That is my point, it is a slippery slope and cannot be well defined.   Calling someone a "wetback" is hate speech, but calling someone a "whore" isn't.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

It's kind of like the word deplorable. 

It has become taboo to call deplorable people deplorable.

If they are wearing swastikas (or not) and marching arm in arm shouting Jews will not replace us, then they are deplorable.

If they are racist ********, then they are deplorable.

Obviously, this is not every single Republican, so when someone mentions the deplorable, it doesn't necessarily mean them. 

It means the deplorable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

As far as the other stuff goes, I think people have been becoming more aware of "****-shaming" and "fat-shaming" and other meanness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
8 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

It's kind of like the word deplorable. 

It has become taboo to call deplorable people deplorable.

If they are wearing swastikas (or not) and marching arm in arm shouting Jews will not replace us, then they are deplorable.

If they are racist ********, then they are deplorable.

Obviously, this is not every single Republican, so when someone mentions the deplorable, it doesn't necessarily mean them. 

It means the deplorable. 

So "deplorable" should be hate speech when not used to describe people wearing swastikas?    When it is used to rile up a person or group of people.   

That is the problem with making it illegal.   Different words work different groups into a frenzy.  

The "N" word is a horrible word to use and most black people hate it.

The "F'got" word is really dispised by the gay community and others.

Polish people hate the term polack in most cases.  

Many people hate it when they are referred to as "rednecks" in a derogatory way. 

Nearly everyone hates being called a nazi.

Most people hate being called a "thug".  

Using any of these terms to certain groups can end in a violent interaction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almighty Evan
On 7/6/2018 at 3:52 PM, ChaosRose said:

What I find interesting is that people were "outraged" about folks not liking Melania's Christmas decorations and having the nerve to say so

and they're all up in arms over the giant baby Trump balloon...we should all have respect or something like that.

But it's ever so important to uphold the free expression of the kid who used the N word to describe someone he just ran over and killed. 

When the shoe is on the other foot, the other side sure can get snowflakey in a big hurry. 

But they can't understand for the life of them why people might be upset by this...and maybe even think a kid who has such little regard for the life of this man...might not have tried too hard to avoid him. 

How could you prove that, really? You might not be able to. 

You can only prosecute what you can prove, and that's the way it should be.

I just actually do understand their outrage that involves a person who has been run over by a truck.

I don't understand the Christmas decoration and baby balloon outrage so much. 

Such confusion, Kimberley Johnson, LOL!

Perhaps this might make it easier to understand:

osUXVkn.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
6 minutes ago, Almighty Evan said:

Such confusion, Kimberley Johnson, LOL!

Perhaps this might make it easier to understand:

osUXVkn.jpg

 I think this is a good point to demonstrate why "hate speech" shouldn't be illegal.  

Do I find flying a Trump baby balloon is offensive and in bad taste?  Yes.   Could it incite violence?  Yes.  Should it be illegal?  No.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

A UK university has made headlines after sensationally forbidding staff from using a common phrase on campus.

Bath University, in Somerset, England, recently held an equality and diversity network meeting, where it was decided that the words “as you know” should be barred from classes.

The idea behind the controversial ban is that it can make certain students feel “inadequate” and stupid if they actually don’t know what the professor is talking about.

cont...

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/bath-university-under-fire-for-barring-these-three-words-from-lectures-and-tutorials/news-story/e7bce54dd8d7256ae693706a145b950c

Apparently it isn't just hate speech that is being targeted. It seems to be anything that can be perceived as making someone uncomfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
1 hour ago, Michelle said:

A UK university has made headlines after sensationally forbidding staff from using a common phrase on campus.

Bath University, in Somerset, England, recently held an equality and diversity network meeting, where it was decided that the words “as you know” should be barred from classes.

The idea behind the controversial ban is that it can make certain students feel “inadequate” and stupid if they actually don’t know what the professor is talking about.

cont...

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/bath-university-under-fire-for-barring-these-three-words-from-lectures-and-tutorials/news-story/e7bce54dd8d7256ae693706a145b950c

Apparently it isn't just hate speech that is being targeted. It seems to be anything that can be perceived as making someone uncomfortable.

That's an incredibly large can of worms to open.  It might even eliminate wedding vows.  Laws should only regulate actions, not thoughts.  Many times when someone is heard mumbling to themselves they excuse it as "thinking out loud".  Thoughts and words are equivalent in ways that thoughts and actions are not.  As for the phrase and reaction you mention, I believe most learning begins with feeling stupid and inadequate.  When the professor says "as you know", if I'm the one who doesn't know I can guarantee you I will know by tomorrow.   If you already feel smart and competent, what is there to learn?  

 

edited for typos

Edited by Big Jim
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.