41% of Americans want to abolish free speech

[Tsing Tao]

I never quite understood this law. While we have freedom of speech, if I get in front of the White House and start yelling I am going to kill the president, I can get arrested? So how is that any different than minority hate speech? The President is the ultimate minority, of one.

Clearly, we can't say anything we want _even_ under the current law.

If you stand in front of my house and threaten to kill me, the cops will be notified as well. It's just that the President has better cops. Freedom of Speech does not cover the right to promise harm delivered upon another.

 

[Tsing Tao]

You believe that any hindrance to totally free speech is a trip down a slippery slope that may quash other freedoms. It's all or nothing for you. However, unfettered free speech that allows for hate speech is an invitation to demagoguery. Look how well that worked out historically. (Shall I name names?) And consider how completely unfettered free speech then became fully hobbled. As usual, the answer lies somewhere between the extremes. Just because it requires more thought doesn't make it unworkable. Hate speech belongs in the dustbin of history.

The dots are there. You need merely to connect them. Learn from the mistakes of the past or live to repeat them.

P.S. I think Piezoe has doubts about climate change. I do not.

Obviously no one likes it when hate speech is targeted to them, me included. The problem is that while not perfect, allowing people to speak freely their hates is the better alternative to allowing someone or some entity the role of deciding what is and what is not acceptable. No one can do that fairly to everyone.

You say there it simply requires more thought. Please provide your solution.

 

[Tsing Tao]

That's a power we, as human beings, have to wield. It's not easy, but it needs to be done, and we do it every day.

We do? We arrest people for speaking their mind every day?

You folks are supposed to be liberals, for crying out loud. You are supposed to support tolerance and the person's right to speak their mind. It's republicans that I would expect would be behind telling people they don't have a right to say this or that.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Obviously no one likes it when hate speech is targeted to them, me included. The problem is that while not perfect, allowing people to speak freely their hates is the better alternative to allowing someone or some entity the role of deciding what is and what is not acceptable. No one can do that fairly to everyone.

You say there it simply requires more thought. Please provide your solution.

I don't have to be a cook to tell you the food is not quite right. I won't pretend to know where the line should be drawn; I only know there should be one. Remember Justice Potter Stewart who said he would distinguish art from porn when he saw it? I think most of us have a pretty good idea when a line is being crossed. With that in mind, the important thing is to get an open dialogue going and to reach some meaningful agreement. Checks and balances.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

...Freedom of Speech does not cover the right to promise harm delivered upon another.

True. But hate speech often alludes to it and, on occasion, incites it. Think of it as a gateway mechanism. The only ones who win are the haters. And that's never good.

 

[WeToddDid2]

You believe that any hindrance to totally free speech is a trip down a slippery slope that may quash other freedoms. It's all or nothing for you. However, unfettered free speech that allows for hate speech is an invitation to demagoguery. Look how well that worked out historically. (Shall I name names?) And consider how completely unfettered free speech then became fully hobbled. As usual, the answer lies somewhere between the extremes. Just because it requires more thought doesn't make it unworkable. Hate speech belongs in the dustbin of history.

The dots are there. You need merely to connect them. Learn from the mistakes of the past or live to repeat them.

P.S. I think Piezoe has doubts about climate change. I do not.

Well then, please define "hate speech".

Are pretty much all of Dphoenix's comments regarding Christianity hate speech?

Are many comments wrt to so called climate deniers hate speech?

 

[Max E.]

Exactly, the reason we dont want hate speech banned is because to a liberal hate speech is any speech that is critical of liberals or their protected classes. If liberals had their way, drawing muhammad would be considered a crime but throwing a crucifix in a jar full of piss would be considered art.

No, they just think it should not be criminalized. I don't see anything in the poll saying they think it's a great idea. That's just you making up shit as usual.

The problem with making any speech illegal and criminal is that someone has to be the one to determine what is hate speech and what is not. It starts with specific and obvious hate speech and then slides down to "I think that dress is ugly".

No one can be trusted to wield that power. Conservatives realize that, and liberals - who are supposed to be FOR free speech, don't get that.

 

[WeToddDid2]

I don't have to be a cook to tell you the food is not quite right. I won't pretend to know where the line should be drawn; I only know there should be one. Remember Justice Potter Stewart who said he would distinguish art from porn when he saw it? I think most of us have a pretty good idea when a line is being crossed. With that in mind, the important thing is to get an open dialogue going and to reach some meaningful agreement. Checks and balances.

Another example, is all of the hate speech regarding cops hate speech?

 

[Tsing Tao]

True. But hate speech often alludes to it and, on occasion, incites it. Think of it as a gateway mechanism. The only ones who win are the haters. And that's never good.

That's stupid. That's like saying anyone talking about drugs is the gateway to using drugs, or saying you wish you had your neighbor's car is akin to saying you will steal it. Saying you are against something or someone doesn't mean you are willing to cause harm to that something. Don't make up stuff to fit your narrative.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Well then, please define "hate speech".

Are pretty much all of Dphoenix's comments regarding Christianity hate speech?

Are many comments wrt to so called climate deniers hate speech?

Read the very post of mine that you quoted. Start with the "cook" part.

For the most part, I think dbphoenix points his finger at unending hypocrisy. You need to understand that tolerance does not mean accepting intolerance. Quite the opposite.

As for hate speech, I think there is plenty here in P&R. Perhaps you will choose to deny it when you see it because it will likely come from your friends. (I guess we all have our biases.) There was a time when P&R's hate speech was moderated away to an extent, but now not so much.