41% of Americans want to abolish free speech

[achilles28]

The argument is this: we can, and we do, draw lines. Curtailing some forms of speech does not mean we have "abolished" free speech. Nor will it ever mean abolishing, so long as reasonable people discuss it. But, "I want to say whatever I damn well want" is not going to fly, never has, never will.

Which part of that do you not understand?

I understand all of it. But the point you haven't answered is: WHERE IS THE LINE.

Where is it? And who defines it?

That's what YOU don't understand. The concept of "hate speech" is purposefully vague, murky, and subject to massive political interpretation. A death threat is a death threat. Slander and libel, fairly easy to discern. Hate speech? What is hate speech, exactly? Maybe you can define that for us.

 

[achilles28]

What good is a debate about hate speech without examples and questions, so here goes. An old white guy says...
he thinks all niggers are worthless and we'd be better off if they were all dead. Is that hate speech? I would guess most if not all would say yes but yet is he free to say it?.
Black guy says he thinks all you white trash cocksuckers are worthless and we'd be better off if they were all dead. Is that hate speech? Many leftists would argue no based on their conclusion that it's impossible for a minority to be guilty of hate speech.
Old white guy says to a gay man, eat shit and die you homo fuck. Is that hate speech?
Gay man says to old white guy, I hate your fucking guts you homophobe shithead and wish you were dead. Is that hate speech?
Sorry to be so blunt about this, but it is hate were talking about and all of the above statements are hate filled. Some have argued lines need to be drawn. Okay, who draws the line? Who decides what is offensive? Some have used the old argument of the Supreme court justice who said he knows porn when he sees it. How long ago was that? Decades. Bet that line is different today than it was then and that's the whole problem with line drawing. What and who gets offended is constantly shifting.
Bottom line for me. Words/speech/deeds, however hate filled, should be protected unless there is a direct threat against an individual or specific group. A direct threat. Saying I wish you were dead is not a direct threat. Saying I'm going to kill you is. Seems clear enough to me, and it's only when people try to blur the obvious is when we get into trouble.

And that's it. For every white guy calling blacks niggers, there's probably 2 blacks calling whites crackers. The white guy gets arrested, and the blacks forgiven because theyre poor, down-trodden victims of the white mans oppression.

Fine, we can have hate speech laws. Just start rounding up blacks equally and throwing them in jail every time they utter cracker.

In fact, any time I hear the phrase 'white privilege' used, I consider that prejudicial (which it is) and therefore, hate-filled. So start rounding up and arresting these sacks of shit too.

You okay with that Ricter!??!

 

[CaptainObvious]

The left doesn't really want to stop free speech, just the speech they find offensive and/or objectionable. What is offensive/objectionable? Well, it's kind of subjective to their daily whims. They'll let us know.
All anyone needs to know where the left stands on this issue can be found in how they shout down and even prohibit people from speaking on college campuses around the country. Judge them by their actions, not the gibberish they post on a message board about where the lines might be drawn. We all know where the line will be drawn. Wherever they want it.

 

[achilles28]

The left doesn't really want to stop free speech, just the speech they find offensive and/or objectionable. What is offensive/objectionable? Well, it's kind of subjective to their daily whims. They'll let us know.
All anyone needs to know where the left stands on this issue can be found in how they shout down and even prohibit people from speaking on college campuses around the country. Judge them by their actions, not the gibberish they post on a message board about where the lines might be drawn. We all know where the line will be drawn. Wherever they want it.

Best post on the thread.

 

[TGregg]

Thing is, we’re not talking about hate speech. If we were, saying “I hate broccoli” would be outlawed. What we are really talking about is banning offensive speech, things other people find offensive. The (obvious) problem with that is that people choose what they are offended by. If I decide I am offended by some words, who has the right to tell me otherwise? Nobody. Who are you to decide if I am offended? If I say I am, I must be. There are no objective standards to being offended, indeed there are people that build successful careers out of being perpetually offended.

If somebody kills somebody else, there are objective standards to say “Well shit, he’s dead. I mean, there’s no heartbeat, no brain activity, he’s not breathing and he smells bad.” Admittedly that would define a few posters to this forum, but I digress (and jest of course). However, when I say that I am offended by these drawings or that username, you cannot reasonably say no. And if several (Hundred? Thousand? Million?) other people say so, then now is it a right to never be offended?

 

[TGregg]

BTW, if you required any evidence at all that the left runs this country, this is it. Liberals used to be about liberty, nonconformity and freedom from "the man". Now they can't wait to lay down the law, and make everyone do their version of the goose step. They expect they will be the ones who get to decide what speech is allowed and what speech is not.

 

[wildchild]

(But really I'm 'ready for not-republican'.)

No, you are 'Ready for Hillary', you have always been 'Ready for Hillary', and likely will always be 'Ready for Hillary. I am not going to let you slither your way out of it.

 

[Max E.]

Hard to believe that some of these people are actually middle-aged . . .

Especially when one considers how old you and judy garland must be.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Thing is, we’re not talking about hate speech. If we were, saying “I hate broccoli” would be outlawed...

Right. Because a thinking person can't be expected to distinguish between (open, public) bigotry and a personal aversion to certain vegetables in the cruciferous family. There's only so much that you can be expected to do, and you have drawn your line in the sand.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Especially when one considers how old you and judy garland must be.

You're really hold tightly onto that one, aren't you? It must have special meaning for you. I'm sure you're keeping it in a safe place under the bridge where you live.