Hate speech should be illegal

January 11, 2019, 4:24 pm

Agree36 Disagree115

24%
76%

The debate "Hate speech should be illegal" was started by daryntookthekids on January 11, 2019, 4:24 pm. 36 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 115 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

Gorgon posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, dazzasanta420 posted 1 argument, millennialmale posted 1 argument, District9 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

daryntookthekids, shahriaralzubayer1, mondelay, Gorgon, Debate_Wonder, AryaLp1, tmjcb99 and 29 visitors agree.
dhillman1280, Debatedaddy, JDAWG9693, FuckTheSnowflakes, TJefferson, XpertHemant, gengster, Soph25161818, dazzasanta420, Ural, Brynn, Debate_Master1011, SMNR, DrMrDaniel, Kronicle, Dmoderate32, lucky, millennialmale, nativeRepublican, seefus, marco, TD, chrissurvivor, finthechat, District9, district10, OUTSMARTED, Napoleon_of_Politics and 87 visitors disagree.

Just because it is an offensive opinion does not mean it shouldn't be heard, everyone has the right to make their opinion known

1 month, 3 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

what if the hate speech is objectively false?

2 months, 2 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

no one has argued hate speech should be banned. so far everyone has agreed that the only speech that should be banned are those that inspire violence or chaos. do you disagree?

2 months, 2 weeks ago

defame and libel only applies if what's being said in objectively false. you can not objectively define hatespeech. also freedom of speech is the most important value of a free society. also, allowing hateful people to speak and argue their point allows for others to see just how wrong they are and it gives other people the opportunity to reason with and perhaps make them realise their mistaken views.

2 months, 2 weeks ago

If we can ban libel and defamation against an individual, then why wouldn't we apply the same standard to a group? If you defame and entire group then what is wrong with preventing that?

2 months, 3 weeks ago

Threats of felony violence are already illegal if targetted towards individuals. It's not a big step to take them seriously when targeted at groups.

2 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes, I agree that censorship, or lack thereof, ends at the government level and private citizens do have the right to censor, within the limits of law. The First Amendment, for example, protects citizens from legal consequences of speech, not natural ones. And, I agree with that.

2 months, 4 weeks ago

They are "just words" until they lead to action. Calls for reform are just words. The french revolution, the terror and the napolionic era of widespread warfare that resulted from these words are much more serious.

If someone goes on a radio show and says that a specific group are evil and a threat to the nation, then one of their listeners decides to go kill people of that group is that not a serious problem?

2 months, 4 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

lmao. you must be young if you underestimate the power of words. you also clearly didnt bother reading any of the other posts.

3 months ago

it's just words stop being a pussy

3 months ago

as far as government action goes, we all agree. speech should not be limited in almost all cases.

however, how about private citizens?
should employers be allowed to prohibit profanity.
should churches be allowed to stop promoters of atheism or other Faith's from speaking at their podium?
should using ones own speech to respond to speech you disagree with be allowed?

I think yes to all of these because freedom of speech is a limit set on government censorship, not private citizens.

3 months ago

I believe that unless it directly calls for any of the things I have mentioned, either implicitly or explicitly, the speech should be legal.

3 months ago

Speech is very strong gun, which can damage people mentally, morally and even physically or give them motivation for better day, for better life... It depends on how we use it

3 months ago

But there are less direct messages that are obviously leading in that direction. Things like saying we need a "final solution" is an obvious metaphor for mass murder, but isn't directly calling for it. If you make the line for what is criminal that extreme, it is very easy to stay on the legal side and still spread hate and a violent message.

3 months ago

I agree that only speech that incites violence, incites a panic, or is a call to action for either of those, or threatens, should be legally regulated. But, all other forms of speech should always remain free.

3 months ago

It depends on what you mean by hate speech. There are lots of terrible things that people shouldn't say which i don't think should be criminal to say. If someone says that white people are superior, that is shitty but shouldn't be illegal. If they say they should kill people of other races because they are inferior, that should be criminal.

I'm also not opposed to some of the stuff Germany has done on the subject. Banning people from doing stuff that supports the Nazis. For example it is a crime in Germany to deny the holocaust happened. The only people who do that are either very stupid or really racist. So I have no issue with that being a crime.

As a reference here are the rules in Germany:

1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:

incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.

(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

(4) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying, or justifying National Socialist rule of arbitrary force shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

3 months ago

speech that incites violence against people or chaos should be regulated. everything has sensible limits.

3 months ago

Free speech is the only way that thoughts can grow.

3 months ago
Discuss "Hate speech should be illegal" politics society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.