jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (19 posts)

Which of the following statements is "hate speech"?

  1. LoliHey profile image56
    LoliHeyposted 20 months ago

    Which of the following statements is "hate speech"?

    Choice 1:  With regards to the alligator and the 2 year old boy's death, tweeting "That gator is a hero because that privileged boy would have grown up into a white entitled male anyway,"  or Choice 2:  "Christians are to blame for the Orlando attacks", or Choice 3:  "The Orlando Shooter was a Radical Muslim."  NOTE:  The first two choices were an actual tweet and an actual headline.  Why is hate speech only allowed when it is about white people or Christians?

  2. Becky Katz profile image85
    Becky Katzposted 20 months ago

    The first two are not hate speech, they are troll comments. The first one was obviously made to make people mad. It seems to have worked.
    Making nasty comments about Christians does not seem to bother anyone but Christians. Christianity seems to be the only religion you can make nasty comments about and not be called a hater. I think they should respect my religion as much as they expect me to respect theirs. They will get respect from me when they give it.
    The Orlando shooter WAS a radical Muslim, so that was just a statement of fact.

    1. lovemychris profile image57
      lovemychrisposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      It's also a fact that the current Israeli gvt are radical zionists, but to say that you are labeled an anti semite. Donald Trump has made radical Islamic terror a headline. But what about radical Christians such as operation rescue? NO ONE mentions.

    2. Misfit Chick profile image71
      Misfit Chickposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      #1 May be in response to the little 3yo African-American boy who fell into the endangered gorilla pit a few weeks back. Some jerk said in a comment that the boy would be in jail in a few years, anyway - so the gorilla should have been allowed to live

    3. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image61
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      So Leslie, you think Operation Rescue is radical?

      Do you think Planned Parenthood is radical.

      And do you think abortion is radical?

    4. tamarawilhite profile image92
      tamarawilhiteposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      The first statement may have also been the same hatred of whites that BLM uses to justify physically attacking those who don't virtue signal by agreeing. They beat several white men who didn't reply, but they just wanted to eat dinner.

    5. lovemychris profile image57
      lovemychrisposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Operation Rescue is vile. They target people and set the brainwashed minions on them. Have you never seen the hatred aimed at women? You should. I've felt it. Like a steel claw around the neck. VILE

    6. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image61
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Lslie,why didn't u answer my q?I'll tell what is vile,PP(& abortion).PPfounded by a racist eugenicist whose goal was to exterminate blacks.Since 1973black women have had about15 million abortions =2 40% of today's black population.R U black?

    7. LoliHey profile image56
      LoliHeyposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Misfit - That is equally inappropriate.  It is really sad that people are making these things about race!

  3. profile image59
    kordell70posted 20 months ago

    Actually, none of the three comments fit the legal definition of hate speech.  Hate speech is just a way to heighten a penalty under the fighting words doctrine of law which is very specific. Fighting words are those words that are deemed without social value, directed to a specific "individual" (or group if your direct it to an actual group and not just a group for whom you do not have a direct involvement in general), that would provoke a "reasonable" member of the group about whom the words are spoken. So there are several qualifications which need to be met.  It is not enough that the person be offended by your words, but it must meet the "reasonable" measure which is under case law doctrine.  The adjective used in the 1st example is "entitled" which is a word which would never be deemed reasonable when talking about a group or individual in this case "white" individual. Additionally, since the child is dead, you cannot direct a fighting word to a dead person. 

    Example two "Christians" are to blame for the Orlando attacks also fails on both measures.  Your singling out of Christians is not "directly" stated to a group but is directed "in general";  It also fails on the basis that blaming one for an attack is not "reasonable" under established case law. 

    Your last comment also fails on the most measures.  First the man is dead; second you need to identify a person or group specifically.  Yes, we all know it is about Omar, but if we bringing up case law we must be specific as this case would be throw out in a summary judgment prior to the case even being allowed to go forward.  Next, "Radical Muslim" is not as of now under the "reasonable" list of fighting words per case law

    Lastly, your comment about hate speech only being allowed against white people or Christians is also completely false, for which a quick google search can yield many cases (since I am up against a character limit, I don't want to used up characters posting links.

    It is important not to spread false information, as this is what leads to people blindly following true hate ideas and separating us as a people instead of bringing unity.  Whether Omar was a radical Muslim of not will be told soon enough.  However, what we do in the meantime is just as important as whether a person calls him a radical Muslim or not.  So far, I fear we as a group are failing.

    1. jeffduff profile image78
      jeffduffposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Islam is given this nickname, by both this administration and the liberal media: "the Religion of Peace". But, the ACTUAL "Religions of Peace" are Christianity and Judaism.  Why? Because anti-Judeo-Christians do NOT attack or murder their critics!

    2. tamarawilhite profile image92
      tamarawilhiteposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Liberals are calling speech they don't like hate speech (like assuming criticism of illegal immigration is racism), thus using the "hate speech ban" as a way to silence dissenting views while demonizing the speaker as irrational/evil.

    3. profile image59
      kordell70posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      I wasn't commenting on which religion is the religion of peace, I was merely discussing the "actual" rule for hate speech.  I can stand up and call any speech I don't like hate speech, but that doesn't make it true.

    4. lovemychris profile image57
      lovemychrisposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Ooh my. Liberals are silencing people? Lol! How come every anti muslim person here is not banned? How come media everywhere is using "Islamic terror"? The truth is just the opposite, and they silence those who speak it. It's called Orwellian.

    5. LoliHey profile image56
      LoliHeyposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      No, the media is NOT calling anything Islamic terror.  And yes, Liberals ARE silencing people.  You may want to try some other news sources.

  4. Tusitala Tom profile image61
    Tusitala Tomposted 20 months ago

    It seems no matter what the religion, the more zealous the 'religionist' the more intolerant they are of any beliefs other than their own.  Radicalism is simply the extreme example.   And it is not limited to any particular religion.

    It seems it has always been that way. And I put it down to people not being willing to be open to their own selves and ask themselves questions as to what is their particular truth at this time, and how did I come to think this way.   The admonishment:  "Know thyself," is completely foreign to them.   Such would involve a lot of work they'e not prepared to undertake.   It is far easier to adopt a handed-down belief.

    The indoctrination is generally one that take place without the realization of that person that they've become that way.

    And 'hate speech?' That's simply ego-generated vindictiveness.

  5. tamarawilhite profile image92
    tamarawilhiteposted 20 months ago

    Blaming the Christians for a Muslim attacker is not only disingenuous, it is evil.
    Not blaming the shooter, not even blaming his weapon, but blaming the neighbors you don't like because you don't want to admit the evil attacker who just killed your friends. Not only is that failing to identify the enemy, it is blaming the innocent for the sins of the guilty.
    It also immorally equivocates "I don't want to make a wedding cake I find blasphemous" to "my religions says homosexuals must die, bang".

  6. Kiss andTales profile image80
    Kiss andTalesposted 20 months ago

    Pr 12:18 18There exists the one speaking thoughtlessly as with the stabs of a sword, but the tongue of the wise ones is a healing.

    Eph 4:29 29 Let a rotten saying not proceed out of YOURmouth, but whatever saying is good for building up as the need may be, that it may impart what is favorable to the hearers.
    The counsel hear is what is favorable to the hearer . It did not say to the speaker. People fool themselfs into believing God accepts anything you say not true.
    Mt 11:29 29Take my yoke upon YOU and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and YOU will find refreshment forYOUR souls. 
    Jesus was a good speaker he drew crowds of people ,He was not rude in speech and was able even to talk to children .
    Hate speech comes in many forms it is a haulty attitude that you are better then other people and you have a right to say what ever you want to people. Not true many will be held accountable in the higher court of the heavens.
    Tit 3:2 2to speak injuriously of no one, not to be belligerent, to be reasonable, exhibiting all mildness toward all men.
    True Christians live by these words.
    Hate speech is not a loving attribute of Jesus.

  7. wingedcentaur profile image84
    wingedcentaurposted 20 months ago

    Hi Lolita Monroe! How are you? Greetings and Salutations!

    Now then, the last line of your question is: "Why is hate speech only allowed when it is about white people or Christians?"

    I have to tell you, Ms. Monroe, that is news to me. I did not know that white people or Christians were the only "allowed" victims of hate speech in the United States of America.

    Because I thought that our President, Barack Obama, a man of African descent, for example, has been on the receiving end of a fair bit of hate speech during his term in office.

    The most glaring example that comes to mind is a comic strip in which we see two white police officers gun down a chimpanzee. One of the officers is made to say the words: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/ … rtoon-race

    As to your question let's start backwards:

    3. Until we know that "Islamic terrorism" had something to do with the Orlando attacks, leading with the man's religion strikes me as irresponsibly inflammatory.

    2. Choice 2 is an irrelevancy, a kind of red herring. Nobody whose serious about Middle Eastern affairs blames Christianity for problems of politics and socioeconomics.

    1. Choice 1 is horrendously egregious, no question. It is vulgar and deranged, and whatever other adjective you want to use.

    The thing is, "hate speech" is kind of like "racism," which has a very specific meaning other than simple "bigotry."

    Anyway, anti-Christian speech cannot be translated, for the most part, in Christian misery globally. That is not the world we live in. But anti-Muslim speech (and sentiment underlying it) is translatable to Arab and Muslim misery---in several of the countries of the European Union these days, for example.

    "Hatred" of Muslims, as expressed through speech have material consequences for Arabs and Muslims, in a way that "hatred" of Christians, as expressed through speech, does not have for Christians, whoever they may be ethnically.