Hate Speech Should Be Regulated

[natrlron]

Hate speech is defined as “speech that attacks and is an incitement to hatred of a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.” Hate speech is not a rational discussion of the pros and cons of a group’s values or actions. It is targeted solely at the listener’s emotions.

Such speech has been deemed protected by the 1st Amendment’s right of free speech. While that right is not absolute, the only limitations on speech approved by the U.S. Supreme Court have been incitement that created a "clear and present danger" of violence or illegal action, libel and slander, obscenity, “gag” orders to insure justice, or protecting consumers from false advertising, for example.

In each of these cases, someone was being harmed in a way that could not be practically countered in the “marketplace of ideas,” which is the function of free speech in a democracy. While most European countries, and some others, banned hate speech after WWII because of the Nazi experience, the United States has not seen fit to do that. The reasoning being that unless there was a clear and present danger, the hateful speech could be countered in the marketplace of ideas by other speech.

This reasoning may have had some validity in the pre-internet, pre-cable TV era. But now it is a specious argument. We live in an era where many people lead very polarized, insular lives. Because of the advent of the internet and cable television, people now can and do listen only to news and pundits that agree with their point of view. If they hear an opposing viewpoint, they dismiss it out of hand as being biased or ill-informed.

We also live in an age where information goes viral, which is to say that like a virus the information spreads very quickly. Given these two factors, together with the fact that guns are readily available and there seems to be less inhibition to using them against people, hate speech has a heightened ability to preent a clear and present danger to the physical or mental well-being of an individual or group of individuals. And it therefore should be banned.

Interestingly, the loudest opponents of such a law would be liberals, for whom the right of free speech is sacrosanct. But as discussed, the right is not absolute, and such a law would not be a “slippery slope” leading to further restrictions on free speech.

Regarding those who create hate speech, they should not be able to disingenuously claim the protection of free speech. The court has made clear that people are to be protected from a clear and present danger of violence. In the case of much hate speech, it is clearly the intent of the speaker or writer to foment violence against individuals or groups based on an emotional hatred. That one has no way of knowing whether someone will act on that incitement should not protect such speech. By the time someone acts, it is too late.

And for those many instances in which hate speech deals with a legislative agenda, it should also be banned. While there is certainly time for opposing viewpoints to be aired, the marketplace of ideas is not functioning very well in our current polarized internet/cable TV environment.

But more fundamentally, hate speech has no place in a civilized society. Just as a society has the right to protect consumers from false advertising and children from obscenity, society has the right and I would say the duty to protect people from hate speech. Both the haters and those who are the object of hate suffer as a result of such speech.

For more on this and other issues, see my blog, http://PreservingAmericanGreatness.blogspot.com

[Warren Stupidity]

1. no really it shouldn't be regulated.

I don't want the government determining what can be said and what can't anymore than they already do.

[AngryAmish]

48. Hate speach is regulated in education and employment

Civil Rights Act of 1968 and various state and local anti-discrimination laws.

What do you think would happen to a college administrator who would say women are too dim to understand Conrad?

[nomorenomore08]

55. He should be fired and his academic career should be effectively over.

But that doesn't mean he should be arrested and charged with a crime. There's the distinction.

[AngryAmish]

59. Then define regulated

Being fired and career over is pretty damn regulated.

[nomorenomore08]

60. Hateful speech should have consequences for one's career and social life but not criminal penalties.

I fully agree with condemning and denouncing bigots, I just stop short of wanting to jail them.

[onenote]

85. If its not the government firing him, then there is no first amendment issue.

I thought the distinction between private and state action had been made pretty clear in the numerous threads on DU rightfully blazing Palin and company for claiming that A&E was infringing on Robertson's "free speech" rights by suspending him.

[nomorenomore08]

116. Yes, I agree with that completely. It was the other poster who seemed to be conflating

being fired with being jailed - I would never do that myself.

[X_Digger]

62. Umm..

Because an employer may or may not regulate what you say has no bearing on the right to free speech.

Just like A&E suspending duck dude had nothing to do with free speech.

I think you're not understanding the line between government action and private action.

[AngryAmish]

69. An employer uses racially abusive language to an employee

The government has passed laws that an employer cannot do that.

It is enforceable through a lawsuit either initiated by the government or by private lawsuit.

If the employer refuses to turn over money won by said lawsuit, the government will send law enforcement officers to either take your stuff or put you in jail until you turn over your money to satisfy said judgment.

And tell me one more time how our government does not regulate speach.

Btw, we should regulate this sort of speech. We run the government and certain people we do not like should be bent to our will.

[X_Digger]

71. I don't think you understand Title VII.

A single bit of speech? Does not constitute a hostile work environment, actionable as such.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/523/75/case.html

And government enforcing a judgement is a hell of a lot different than the government levying charges. One is a civil matter, the other is criminal.

[AngryAmish]

73. if a electric plant decided to burn coal without scrubbers

The people running the plant would not be charged criminally. Civil charges by the epa.

But if the ceo refused to authorize the cfo to write the check for the penalty, who goes to jail?
?

[Major Nikon]

81. Title VII is a means of redress for those who have suffered civil rights violations

Refusal to pay would be handled like any other civil judgement.

[nomorenomore08]

52. +1

On an emotional level, it's tempting to want to protect the vulnerable, but I'm not sure "hate speech" laws even do that.

And how is the OP so absolutely sure that it wouldn't be a slippery slope? After all, once you outlaw some speech-acts, what's to stop further and further restriction?

[DonCoquixote]

2. the problem is

that it is too easy to silence all speech by saying it is hate speech. Yes, there are obvious examples of hate speech (like racial cartoons) but take for example, Israel/Palestine If you say somethign that offends one party, even if the offense is a fact that is documented (like whether or not someone got killed), they will cry "BIGOT!" at the top of their lungs.

[X_Digger]

3. No.

The answer to bad speech is good speech.

[Gothmog]

34. Agreed

The marketplace of ideas works on the theory that good speech will win out on bad/hate speech. I believe in this concept

[CFLDem]

72. +100

[Ranchemp.]

90. +1000. eom.

[el_bryanto]

4. I wasn't convinced until you said "such a law would not be a “slippery slope” leading to further

restrictions on free speech." Clearly you must have the gift of prognostication in order to be sure that such a law which certainly seems dangerous to me, would only be used in good and noble ways.

And if you have seen the future, I think it's best if we just do what you say.

Bryant

[Nye Bevan]

10. No way would George W Bush ever have misused this new power to restrict speech.

No way at all.

[KittyWampus]

13. Could you point to some concrete examples of it being a slippery slope in Europe or Canada?

don't need to be a prognosticator, just need to observe how other countries have faired.

More and more countries are adopting Hate Speech laws, btw.

[el_bryanto]

15. I don't have time to research it, but I'd be willing to believe it's worked out ok there

Is the American Character exactly the same as the Canadian or European? Or do we sometimes take things too far?

Bryant

[LanternWaste]

87. Is the human character exactly the same as the human character?

"Is the American Character exactly the same as the Canadian or European? "


Is the human character exactly the same as the human character?

[el_bryanto]

91. Different cultures produce different results

Do you dispute that?

Bryant

[KittyWampus]

112. According to many on DU, the USA has free speech AND is totalitarian...

while Europe does have hate speech laws and is not totalitarian.

[DonCoquixote]

53. ok

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/06/canadian-government-to-ban-free-speech-on-internet/
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/12/canada-legislation-limits-free-speech-journalists/
http://www.freedomtoread.ca/censorship-in-canada/#.UsYJfE2A0qQ

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Western Europe and Canada's governments are farther to the left than ours...

If David Cameron, Stephen Harper, Angela Merkel, or Nicholas Sarkozy were the people who came to power as a result of my party losing an election I'd be more comfortable with hate speech laws. But frankly, we live in a country where the result of my party winning an election is a person coming to power who is hardly (if at all) to the left of these people. The result of my party losing is someone who appoints whackjobs like Mary Beth Buchanan to US Attorney posts. I don't want a Republican administration enforcing hate speech laws, period end of story.

[markpkessinger]

47. The "slippery slope" is one of the classic logical fallacies . . .

. . . just sayin'.

Not that I am in favor of the idea presented in the OP. But the best argument against it is not an appeal to the slippery slope, but rather to point to the problem of defining what is or is not 'hate speech,' and that such definitions are inherently subjective and fluid over time.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. Slippery slope on its own is a logical fallacy, but...

When there's actually evidence of one, not so much

Take the famous Martin Niemoller poem, for example...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Sure it's a logical fallacy to automatically assume that allowing the government to round up socialists is a slippery slope to rounding up Jews and every other group they don't like. But given the unprecedented authoritarian nature of the Nazi regime, I think it would've been perfectly reasonable to assume that they would eventually come for anyone they wanted if their power was left unchecked.

[el_bryanto]

74. I've heard this argument before - and I think that Slippery slope can be misused

Because it is an argument about the future; it's claiming that one thing will definitely lead to another. The OP though makes the exact same mistake by claiming that one thing will definitely not lead to another.

Either way it's a prediction about the future, and you can't really know.

Bryant

[NaturalHigh]

5. No. Absolutely not.

First of all, it's unconstitutional. Second, when governments start banning free speech, they don't stop.

[AngryAmish]

49. It is oerfectly constitional in most circumstances

Nt

[Common Sense Party]

6. I hate this idea.

No thanks.

[oldhippie]

7. No, thank you.

nt

[TheKentuckian]

8. No thanks, virtual unrec

[Nye Bevan]

9. So people could be arrested for saying "Republicans are disgusting subhuman assholes",

for example. No thanks. I like the First Amendment.

[natrlron]

119. No. not even close.

Hate speech deals exclusively with race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. So the example that you and a number of others have given would not fall within the definition of hate crime. Also, I didn't indicate whether the regulation would create a crime as opposed to a civil right of action.

[billh58]

11. Yet another blog

flogger. They seem to be everywhere...

[KittyWampus]

12. European countries debunk the idiotic "slippery slope" nonsense. EU & Canada have Hate Speech laws

and an arguably a more involved electorate which is much more likely to protest governmental abuses etc.

The 1st Amendment is not absolute.

I am not necessarily in favor of Hate Speech laws here in the US, but feel it is necessary to acknowledge that they aren't the slippery slope many DU'ers claim.

[Igel]

35. Rather too early to tell.

There have been some slips. Additional groups have gotten under the protection umbrella.

The range of what's prohibited has gotten a bit wider.

And it's become clear that if you're accused of hate speech, it's you and your lawyer against the government, with the burden of proof that it's not hate speech falling on the defendant.

These are typically countries in which there has been no constitutional freedom of speech.

The main "there's no slippery slope" defense is simple. Slippery slopes take time. There hasn't been sufficient time.

First you need to have the claimants make their case that they needed protecting, then have the set of laws put in place. All those scurrying for protection need to get involved and you have to see how far the laws in place go, how far they can be spread, how severe the penalties that the populace that is being told to change socially turn out to be, what's acceptable. That process takes a generation or more, and the hate-speech laws aren't that old. Moreover, they're not without controversy. Or abuse. (The abuse is simple: A group gets the government to press charges. Years later, even if the charges are dismissed or the defendant found not guilty the defendant's out a lot of money and time and is likely crippled financially. The group pushing for prosecution isn't out so much as a sous.)

The next cycle would be having the groups who needed protections to achieve equality protest, after a generation or two, that the laws they wanted were ineffective and a new round is needed. The laws would need to be sgnificantly expanded to cover whole new groups, new spheres of public life, more rigorous penalities. People would be told they need to change even more to achieve the right outcome. Since that's where greater slippage would occur, perhaps we should wait for a while and see if it happens.

[laundry_queen]

94. Yeah, I can't see it working in the US

Totally different culture than Canada. Very rules based/black & white thinking vs Europe and Canada. Plus, the judicial systems are very different and there is more potential for abuse of the law. Wouldn't work, imo.

[bonzaga]

95. THANK YOU

The whole "how do you define hate speech?" question is a cop out. There are legitimate ways to define what is and what is not hate speech. It has been done in other countries successfully and it doesn't take away anybody's freedom of speech, nor is it a slippery slope. It's intellectual laziness to just claim that it's impossible to define hate speech.

[Vashta Nerada]

14. No.

[madinmaryland]

16. Of, FFS. Who is going to define what "hate speech" is?

I sure as hell do not want Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin defining what "hate speech".

Try again.

[KittyWampus]

17. Europe and Canada have managed to define it legally.

[madinmaryland]

18. I think you would have a very difficult time defining it legally in the US..

Think of the political environment here and the extreme polarization, I think would stifle any chance of it. Additionally, neither side would want the other define what is "hate speech". Think about that for a while.

European nations and Canada are much more socialist than we are and actually think about the entire society rather than their own district.

[onenote]

26. A lot of posts on DU would be actionable if "hate speech" was criminalized

Including a lot of posts about religion.

[Nye Bevan]

27. The Government of the UK is free to restrict speech in any way it pleases.

Would you be comfortable with a future Republican administration having this power?

[dipsydoodle]

39. As is any other government.

Its their affair : not outsiders.

[Nye Bevan]

42. Not the US government (nt)

[Dr. Strange]

78. Yes, and currently Bob Dylan stands charged for "public insult and inciting hate".

I'd prefer not to have our government involved in that kind of nonsense.

[hobbit709]

93. Exactly!

[fishwax]

117. wow -- hadn't heard that story before

looked it up after seeing your post

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. No. Hell no.

In fact, hell no to the point of helping by any means necessary to prevent or reverse such a statute.

[Kurska]

20. No n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

21. Yes! Hate speech should be regulated like it is in other democracies.

Hate speech tears down positive and civilized debate among people for the greater good, and becomes nothing but loud shouting that only serves to make people deafer, actually as well as figuratively.

and rec'd!

[DonCoquixote]

56. so

are you prepared to deal with the right when they say YOU are guilty of hate speech?

[BlueCaliDem]

82. Yep. Any day. Any time. eom

[Warren DeMontague]

22. No, it shouldn't.

[onenote]

24. No.

And the idea that speech should be subject to more government regulation and censorship because there are more outlets for speech is absurd beyond measure.

[AngryAmish]

50. have you ever heard of hostile environment?

[onenote]

86. Yes I have, and its a very narrow exception to the First Amendment

Applicable under very specific circumstances. It is not remotely a blanket ban on "hate speech."

[Squinch]

25. I hate that idea.

[geek tragedy]

28. For the USA, no. But, Germany's prohibition on white supremacist parties

makes a great deal of sense and is easy to justify given their history.

[Igel]

36. Even those are nearing the end of their shelf life.

At some point history stops being the master, unless we want to say that that kind of hate is persistent in a culture or in the genetic make-up of the population.

[geek tragedy]

37. Maybe, that's their call. nt

[Shandris]

29. Given sufficient effort, I can make a 'hate speech' argument out of any...

...political position outlined in 4 paragraphs or more. So the only real question is: which 'hate' is legitimate, and which 'hate' is regulated?

Yeah, no.

"Many people live polarized, insular lives". Sounds like you're describing uneducated poor people to me. You hating on poor people? Why do you hate people just because they're often less educated and have fewer privileges than you? (Sarcasm obviously, I don't really think you hate anyone )

[aristocles]

30. NO!

Unless you can provide a very prcise definition of hate speech that will stand up to tests of it against The First Amendment.

[spanone]

31. who chooses?.....the old slippery slope.

[aristocles]

33. QED

[Codeine]

46. Damn I wish we could rec individual posts.

[Savannahmann]

38. No it should not.

Need I explain why?

[WillowTree]

40. And who gets to decide what crosses the line? You? Glenn Beck? Mike Malloy?

And then which is the next right protected by the Constitution are you going to want to limit? How about limiting the protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Or limiting the right to a speedy trial?

No slippery slope my Fat Aunt Fanny!

No, thankyouverymuch. I'll hang on to my constitutionally protected rights.

[arely staircase]

41. no it should not nt

[tritsofme]

43. Not just no, but HELL NO. This authoritarian impluse to ban speech is cowardly.

When we meet them in the "marketplace of ideas" they lose. The more people that are exposed to their wretched ideas, the more they recoil in disgust.

"Banning" speech would only take the movements underground, and since you have already made criminals of them, you have likely exacerbated the problem.

This country will never make someone a criminal for engaging in a "talkcrime," people like you make me ever more thankful for the First Amendment.

[MicaelS]

44. No, just NO, but FUCK NO! n/t

[Codeine]

45. Anybody who believes that should fuck right off. nt

[pipi_k]

51. Sure, why not...

then we can convince little kids to report their parents if/when Mom or Dad says something "illegal" in the privacy of their own home, right?

Do I really need to add this?

[aristocles]

57. Didn't that happen in Germany, 1933-1945?

Oh, oh. Better invoke Godwin's law on me.

[H2O Man]

54. Perhaps it should

be rationed? Like, every idiot gets two tickets per month, allowing him/her to say something offensive?

[kelly1mm]

106. Well that would cut down the post count here on DU DRASTICLY! lol! (re the

sex wars here on DU).

[nomorenomore08]

58. So how would you like right-wingers claiming that every third book and movie is "anti-Christian hate

speech"? One thing about the countries which have adopted hate speech laws, they generally don't have the kind of widespread Christian extremism we do. But over here I can easily see such laws being used to silence left-leaning artists and activists.

[spin]

61. I think it would be wiser to limit political correctness.

For example:

Seattle bans words 'citizen' and 'brown bag'

Government employees in Seattle will have to watch their words more carefully from now on, after a new policy was implemented banning "citizen" and "brown bag" because they are "potentially offensive”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10219389/Seattle-bans-words-citizen-and-brown-bag.html

It was suggested that instead of using the word "citizen" that "resident" be used. There's an enormous difference between the meaning of the two words. I am proud and very lucky to be a citizen of the United States and not just a resident. I'm sure that immigrants to our country who put in the time and effort to become a citizen are also proud of their status.

While I realize that the term "brown bag" can have racial implications, you should be able to use it for someone who packs their own lunch. I was never ashamed of the fact that my mother packed my school lunch in a brown bag. Usually it was far superior to the crap offered at the line in the dining hall.

brown-bag (brounbg)
tr.v. brown-bagged, brown-bag·ging, brown-bags
1. To take (lunch) to work, typically in a brown paper bag.
2. To take (liquor) into a public establishment, such as a restaurant, that does not serve alcohol.
brown-bagger n.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brown-bag

I recently read the novel 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'. We seem to be headed for such a society in more than one way.

Newspeak

Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, peace, etc. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as "thoughtcrime."

Newspeak is explained in chapters 4 and 5 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and in an appendix to the book. The language follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a much more limiting, and constantly shifting vocabulary. Any synonyms or antonyms, along with undesirable concepts are eradicated. The goal is for everyone to be speaking this language by the year 2050 (the story is set in the year 1984—hence the title). In the mean time, Oldspeak (current English) is still spoken among the Proles — the working-class citizens of Oceania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

[aristocles]

64. ++1

[Psephos]

84. great post, thanks n/t

[fishwax]

101. that story about Seattle is manufactured BS

There was no ban on words, for citizens, residents, or even city employees. (The article you linked to in the conservative Telegraph makes the even stupider claim that the dictum somehow addressed state workers.)

It's just another controversy manufactured by the conservative outrage machine.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/02/19840655-theres-more-to-seattle-brown-bag-racial-controversy-than-meets-the-eye?lite

[spin]

111. Thanks for the update. ...

It good to know that the policy was never implemented but the fact still remains that it was consdiered.

Obviously there are certain words to should be avioded such as the "N word" but it's all too easy to go overboard.

For example most people might feel that calling someone like my son in law a "Florida Cracker" would be an insult but he takes pride in the fact that he fits that term.

1. Florida Cracker
A white NATIVE BORN Floridian, usually with pre-civil war Floridian ancestry. Sometimes used in a derogatory manner by colored people. However, the true Cracker is not offended- he takes pride in who he is and where he came from.

Some characteristics of the Florida Cracker:
1. Knows how to fish by instinct- was in to bass fishing before Bass Pro Shop existed.
2. Prefers to swim in a lake or creek, not a pool.
3. Knows what swamp cabbage is and how to cook it.
4. Takes his hat off whenever DIXIE or any Lynyrd Skynyrd song is played.
5. Liked NASCAR better when it wasn't on TV. (MRN)
6. Knows that cane syrup is what you eat on biscuits. Gravy is what you eat with squirrel and rice.
7. Doesn't mistake a gopher for a turtle.
8. Knows that Fla. women are the best there is.
9. Says the blessing before eating.
10. Knows how to get to Hog Valley, Yankeetown, Scrambletown, and Yeehaw Junction.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Florida%20Cracker

While humorous this description of a Florida Cracker really doesn't quite fit my son in law.

He's agnostic at the best and is probably an atheist in reality. He has described the idea that if you believe in Jesus Christ and live a moral life you will go to heaven as, "The Santa Clause story for adults." I have never heard him say the blessing before eating and I doubt I ever will.

He has absolutely no interest in NASCAR or for that matter any sporting events.

I don't believe he even owns a fishing rod. I have no idea if he knows how to cook swamp cabbage but he is an extremely good cook.

Let's examine a more in depth description of a Florida cracker.

Florida cracker

Florida cracker refers to colonial-era English and American pioneer settlers and their descendants in what is now the U.S. state of Florida. The first of these arrived in 1763 after Spain traded Florida to Great Britain following the latter's victory over France in the Seven Years' War.


***snip***

Cracker Cowmen

In Florida, those who own or work cattle traditionally have been called cowmen. In the late 1800s, they were often called cow hunters, a reference to hunting for cattle scattered over the wooded rangelands during roundups. At times the terms cowman and Cracker have been used interchangeably because of similarities in their folk culture. Today the western term "cowboy" is often used for those who work cattle.[1]

The Florida "cowhunter" or "cracker cowboy" of the 19th and early 20th centuries was distinct from the Spanish vaquero and the Western cowboy. Florida cowboys did not use lassos to herd or capture cattle. Their primary tools were cow whips and dogs. Florida cattle and horses were smaller than the western breeds. The "cracker cow", also known as the "native" or "scrub" cow, averaged about 600 pounds (270 kg) and had large horns and large feet.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_cracker

My son in law fits the description of a Florida Cracker as he was born in south Florida and comes from a long line of Floridians. He also in his youth herded cattle in dense Florida scrub while on a horse and using a bull whip. He definitely can crack a whip. One time he demonstrated his skill in our back yard and the police responded as they had received reports of a firearm being fired.

It is possible that sometime in the future the words "Florida cracker" and many other such terms will be banned from usage due to political correctness. In my opinion this would be a shame.

We definitely do not need to start crossing words out of our dictionary because they are sometimes misused. If we do so we will just be creating the tNewspeak dictionary that George Orwell described in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Limits will be unnecessarily placed on our free speech, much of our heritage will be lost and our conversations and literature will be bland and boring.

[fishwax]

113. I'm not sure a policy was ever proposed or considered

I haven't seen the memo, but my understanding is that a guy sent a memo to the Public Information Officers--those whose job it is to represent the city in the press. That memo discussed, from the perspective of the Office of Civil Rights--words which may not put the city's best foot forward when it comes to cultivating diversity. I don't see how that's a big deal. PR people think all the time about word choice and its implications. It's part of the gig.

I doubt the phrase Florida Cracker will ever be banned from usage. The state's PR folks, though, might not find the term useful in the course of their work.

[pipi_k]

105. IMO, it seems to be

getting pretty out of hand, what with ever lengthening lists of words being judged "offensive" by someone or another.

maybe I'll start my own campaign to have some words removed from usage because I find them offensive.

Words like...."boobs", "tits", "panties"

As a woman, I think those words are disgusting and infantilizing.

No doubt lots of other people have words they think are offensive as well.

What a party that would be...all sitting around cutting/crossing out words in the dictionary that we hate.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Absolutely not, I don't trust the people who would be doing the regulating in this country

European hate speech laws seem great because their governments are substantially to the left of ours and the laws are used mostly against right wing nutjobs. Our governments often consist of right wing nutjobs who already deem the feminist movement and the gay rights movement to be anti-Christian hate groups and would ban them as such the moment they had the opportunity.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. it does not take a lot of imagination to conceive of how such laws could go terribly wrong

[Common Sense Party]

67. Based on the responses to this thread, are you re-thinking this idea at all? nt

[NM_Birder]

70. wow...........

the NSA programs have gotten lots of attention no doubt, but lets be honest......if Bush were in office and this level of spying were to be made public, the outcry would have been significantly more intense. A certain level of hush is kept because President Obama is "one of us".

And now the question of "should free speech be regulated" in one thread and a poll in another ?

That bending willow thing works two ways, it can bend till it breaks,.....but it can also just bend until it lays down and allows itself to be trampled on in the name of "equality".

No, speech should not be infringed upon anymore than it is right now.

[Logical]

75. Wow, you scare me. n-t

[Demo_Chris]

76. No. nt

[cthulu2016]

77. Should calls to curtail expression be regulated?

I would say no, but then I'm not an authoritarian stooge.

Bonus ROFL points for the totally new, never before heard, "modern technology makes it different" argument.

[hootinholler]

79. If by regulated you mean

Mocked, derided, countered, put down, etc. then ok.

Otherwise, not so much.

[Skip Intro]

80. No. I'm glad to see a lack of blind sheep here on this subject.

Hands off free speech.

Leave the long fought-for rights of the people be.

[fujiyama]

83. Let's shut down the Onion then

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

BTW, the image is VERY NSFW, but for anyone with a (somewhat twisted) sense of humor, it's pretty funny. But of course, it could be potentially offensive - and to the thin skinned, even hateful.

But in a free society, no one has the right NOT to be offended.

[Seeking Serenity]

88. I've noticed that the OP has done a cowardly hit-and-run

Hasn't bothered to post any arguments supporting his/her position or to try to rebut the many posts arguing against a ban on "hate speech."

Is this defined as trollish behavior?

[Ranchemp.]

89. Oh FFS,

not another one that wants to regulate speech.

[Rockholm]

92. Absolutely not.

Hate speech, however vile, can actually have the opposite effect. The Westboro haters have spewed their hate for so long, they are now a joke. When hate speech is exposed, I think there are powerful teaching moments available.

[Captain Stern]

96. I'm all for it, with one condition.....

I get to be the one that decides what is, and isn't, hate speech. Just me. Nobody else.

[cali]

97. ack. wrong. so very, very wrong

who decides if a given piece of speech is "hate" speech?

I find the willingness to jettison the first amendment by some, indefensible.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. I hate this OP

Yeah, I said. Now what?

BTW -- the OP can't even be honest. It's not about "regulating," it's about punishing. Go ahead and rewrite the title as "Hate Speech Should Be Punished" and see denunciations grow even louder.

[Eleanors38]

99. Not by the government. You, however, are welcome to try.

[Iggo]

100. Nope.

[get the red out]

102. Societal pressure

There should definitely be intense societal pressure to not engage in hate speech. The regulation of it would be unconstitutional and hard to enact. Sometimes by trying to make something illegal it backfires and creates support for it where it didn't exist before.

[Kablooie]

103. The government should not punish hateful opinions.

That is society's job.

They can be ostracized.
They can be ridiculed.
They can be fired.
But not jailed.

[sibelian]

104. ..."But more fundamentally, hate speech has no place in a civilized society"... WRONG.

Free speech is the basis of civilised society. Falsehoods cannot be flushed out and detoxified if the are hidden away in secret.

Your post makes no sense at all - you decry the insularity endemic in political discussion and promote a position that will inevitably make it WORSE.

"they should not be able to disingenuously claim the protection of free speech"

UTTER BULLSHIT, what they should not be able to GET AWAY WITH is hiding BEHIND the false screen of free speech by exchanging the subject of their hate for the subject of free speech, the right of their free speech remains the same whether they abuse it or not!

[Sheldon Cooper]

107. Regulated by the government? As in criminal charges/imprisonment?

Absolutely not. Out of the question.

[Nye Bevan]

108. kick

[Glassunion]

109. Perhaps... And this is just a suggestion. You should read up on some history.

And when you are done, read up on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Basically, the lowest common denominator of what you seek to regulate would, in essence, be a set of criminal laws, where it would be illegal to hurt someone's feelings. Sorry, but you have every right to hurt my feelings. I have NO right to not have my feelings hurt. You could call me the N-Word and hurt my feelings, but I will lay down my life to protect that right for you. The right to speak freely, for both good or ill, is one of the pillars that support a free society.

[Blue_Tires]

110. Hate speech is fine as long as there isn't a call to violence (which isn't protected)

unfortunately, an increasing amount of 'hate speech' has threats or calls to violence in them which evidently no one wants to crack down on...

[yuiyoshida]

115. Iie, kekkou desu.

No thank you.

[DirkGently]

118. Nope. The "specious argument"

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2014, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

is trying to win a contest of ideas by "banning" that with which you disagree. Ideas don't win or lose across a culture based on who gets thrown in jail for speaking theirs.

We've done a lot of work in this country trying to preserve the freedom of ideas and expression. We are better for it.

No one is qualified to decide which ideas are so terrible they can't be mentioned, and trying to do so would not eliminate the ideas. If anything, banning speech would intensify and deepen those ideas.

Others mention that hate speech laws exist in other countries. Which of those have eliminated hate?

[davidpdx]

120. While I dislike the crazy shit people say

There is one fundamental problem with outlawing hate speech, the 1st amendment. Doing anything would require changing it and I can tell you it will never happen. As wrong as hate speech is, outlawing it goes against the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What is the solution? I don't know. There is no easy answer.