I was asked to provide a definition of “hate speech” when I objected to Shodan’s petty, self-serving definition of the term, and I did. If you prefer his “it is only hate speech if it offends me but not if it offends you”, so be it.
YOU are the one that asked me for “one example”:
And as for “certainly not accepted by the so called ‘left’ except for a few extremists”, Sarah Jeong got a plum position on the NYT Editorial Board even after this came to light. How is that “not accepted”? Is the NYT Editorial Board just “a few extremists”?
The fact that it’s clearly sarcastic and satirical ? Do you also want to get on Swift’s case for his hate speech against the poor and their children ?
Czarcasm are you in favor of passing some type of hate speech legislation or are you just playing devil’s advocate here, what is your position?
This would include:
- A black comedian telling a joke that makes fun of white people
- A Jehovah’s Witness saying Catholicism is not the true faith and Catholics are going to hell
- A person saying men who identify as women should not be allowed to play women’s sports
- Seth MacFarlane, who once made an episode of “Family Guy” that made a lot of mean jokes at the expense of Italian-Americans
- A woman saying men present a danger to women because sexual assault is more prevalent than people want to believe
- Dave Chappelle, like a thousand times over
I’m just going by your Wikipedia definition. You can’t base a law on this.
No, but you could use it as a base to begin talks about the subject, unlike the version I objected to in the first place.
I won’t defend them. They are not the representatives of the left though. Hate speech of this nature is not defensible by anyone, none of it justifies it’s use elsewhere. If you’re not going to condemn all of it then you are supporting it. If you are condemning all of it there’s no reason to categorize the targets of it.
Sounds like the modern left’s dream come true. That said, it’s a terrible, terrible idea and the author should feel bad.
I think it’s a bad idea. Hate speech is wrong but we shouldn’t make it illegal. It’ll still exist but we’ll drive it underground where it will fester. We’re better off as a society is we let these people talk, identify who they are, and then marginalize them.
And banning speech is a dangerous precedent. If we ban hate speech today, we’ll end up banning legitimate speech that somebody in power just wants to suppress. We’ll have Republicans making it illegal to disrespect President Trump and corporations getting laws passed against “defaming” their products by reporting consumer problems.
The modern left weren’t the ones trying to make it illegal to burn a flag or calling for the NFL to discipline payers who kneeled down during the National Anthem.
That’s fair. I doubt it’ll be believed or accepted here, but I don’t think the extremists on the right that engage in hate speech are generally representative of “the right” either.
If I understand your position on this, it’s that hate speech shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone, by anyone, or about anyone, but you don’t want the government to censor it. Is that right?
The NFL is like these forums. I.e. not the government. There is no 1st amendment right to embarrass your employer while on the job.
Whatabout the flag burning? At least it’s very very narrow in scope but banning is still a stupid idea.
I think this serves to illustrate the point, though - this is exactly the can of worms that speech-suppression laws could open. Trump and/or the right could abuse such laws just as much as the left could.
That would be a great argument if it was backed by reality. I’m not sure hate speech laws have much positive effect but you are asserting a negative effect. Do you really think nazis are festering in Canada, with its hate speech laws, but has been happily marginalized in the US?
As early as 2 years ago, The Atlantic had already written that arguing for free speech to be curtailed - in an era where Trump and the GOP are in power - is not going to work out the way progressives want.
What should happen if someone violates one or all of those ten principles of free speech?
But Donald Trump, who is a powerful government figure, has on numerous occasions publicly called on the NFL to punish the players who protest. And has said there might be negative consequences for the NFL if they didn’t follow his “suggestions”.
I’m pretty sure this is the best argument you can make to support the concepts of limited government and strong support for individual liberty.
I think the Trump administration demonstrates why this is a bad idea. We are seeing a resurgence of racism because we have a presidential administration that supports racism.
So what would happen if we placed limits on the First Amendment? Would the Trump administration then be compelled to combat racism? No, they would simply ignore any hate speech violations they agree with and leave the laws unenforced. They would instead use that same power to silence their political opponents, including those who are speaking out against racism.
We have to remember that a government that has the power to ban hate speech also has the power to ban any other kind of speech and will choose how to use that power. If we enact a law that allows the government to shut down Nazi rallies, they can use that law to shut down Black Lives Matter protests. So overall we’re better off with a government that doesn’t have that power.
I agree. Anyone who believes in the concepts of limited government and strong support for individual liberty should be openly speaking out against Donald Trump for his opposition to them.