sort by best latest
in the United States, The First Amendment of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, requires that speech and the press cannot be limited by government. There is no "hate speech" only speech.
Craig, are we to believe by your words that you are against the First Amendment?
Horsepuckies. That is only true in general. So I can come to your house and badmouth you all day huh? I don't think so...Either do you.....
"Are we to believe by your words that you are against the First Amendment?" That is not an honest question, since it presumes the answer should be "yes" or "no". Grownups understand that INTERPRETATIONS of the First Amendment always change.
Who gets to define "hate speech?" The government? Well, if you know history and current events you know how that ends up. (Nazi Germany book burnings, Chinese censure of media, etc...)
"Who gets to define hate speech?" I don't know, but I would hope it would not be decided in the top echelons. I would hope there would be some public discussion about it. We have a right to discuss it. And I think a responsibility, too.
KU, there is no hate speech. There are hateful actions. Speech is just speech. If someone comes to my home and shouts obscenities at me all day from the sidewalk in front of my home, it becomes harassment - an action. The words do not matter.
retief2000, In Germany there are laws (I hasten to add that I am not antisemitic and also I disagree with the laws) that make it punishable to deny the holocaust. It does not matter how brash your rhetoric, or whether it incites to violence.
How sad, thank goodness I live where speech is not formally restricted by law.
retief2000, I share your opinions about lawyers. But wake up. I beg you to wake up. I assure you that you live in a VERY REAL world where YOUR speech is informally restricted terms and conditions of use and ever-changing GLOBAL social norms.
The Muslim terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo demonstrates that the French still understand free speech. The freedom requires courage. A GLOBAL tyranny is impossible, even if it disguises itself as "tolerance."
Any honest discussion of Charlie Hebdo defies the tiny character limit allowed here on this "Q&A". See forums "Paris attack 1/7/15", and "Je Suis Charlie - Is HubPages In Danger?"
This may not have happened to you yet. I once spent (wasted) time composing my thoughts to make a contribution to HubPages that I thought was worthwhile. In no way could it be considered hate speech or spammy, but HP hid it because it was unpopular.
We are not guaranteed an audience for our free speech, we are merely free to speak.
I would suggest that if someone has curtailed my audience's right to hear me, then they have curtailed my right to speak.
No, it is that no one is compelled to be your audience. You are correct that if one is forced not to listen it is as much an affront to freedom as gagging a speaker.
It's colonial America. You hear talk of a "free press". Thomas Paine prints 1000 pamphlets and drops them on the sidewalk. When you say "we are not guaranteed an audience" what are you talking about? And how does that work with "The Interview"?
Can you imagine the trouble that many idle lawyers would cause?