ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Hate Speech vs Free Speech

Updated on October 28, 2018

The world is a terrifying place these days. Over the last two years, I have grown more and more concerned about the society my children are growing up in. When our world leaders are more concerned with tweeting and spewing hateful things about other individuals then the well being of our nation and our nation’s people, what are our children learning?

Our Children

We always teach our children to be accepting of others and to look at what’s on the inside of a person and not the outside. We try to teach our children not to be bullies but when they see the most powerful man in America bullying anyone who is different from him what are we teaching the younger generation? As parents, we can’t allow the behavior of an overgrown, immature, and racist individual to be the moral compass for our nation and our children. But what do we tell our children when they ask how this man was elected as president in the first place. I was recently faced with this question when my eldest son asked me it. I wasn’t quite sure what to say when he asked me. I hesitated and thought for a moment of how I could sugar coat it, but there really isn’t any good way to explain how a man like Donald Trump became President of the United States other than just telling it like it is. I answered him as truthfully as I could but left out specific details that he didn’t need to know as a child. I told my son that sadly there are a lot of people in America who have a lot of hate in their hearts and they are afraid of change and anything/anyone different from them. I explained that a lot of people cannot view the world farther than their own front door and there is a “me first” mentality in the nation right now. People have forgotten how to care about each other. I told him Americans are not the only humans in the world but unfortunately, some people are living in America who only believe that it is America and Americans who are important. These individuals think it is America first before any other nation or people. There are people in America who do not view the world as a whole but instead see it as us vs. them. I then explained that until everyone starts looking at every individual as a living breathing human being and not judging people by the color of their skin, their religion, their homeland, etc.… we will always have hate in the world. I finished it by saying Donald Trump is the epitome of all the badness and hatred in our society. He is the exact type of man you do not want to be like.

Hate Speech vs Free Speech

So is it our right as Americans to have freedom of speech even when that speech is hateful, violent, or mean-spirited? Do we still have the right to spew hateful rhetoric when we hold a powerful and influential presence and position in the nation? When people who are in power speak people are listening intently and believing the offensive words which are being said no matter how ridiculous they may be? If individuals in power are causing pain to other individuals or are directing others in a roundabout way to cause pain to others then are we still protected by our right of free speech?

In October 2018 America witnessed the extent to which hurtful words can have. Our President has defined his presidency by creating more hate and discord in our country. Trump has created a more significant division between America’s people than I have ever witnessed in my thirty-five years of life in this world. All of Trump’s hate rhetoric finally hit the fan in October 2018. When Trump continuously speaks about locking people up, body slamming individuals, degrading women, insulting minorities, attacking former and current government officials, calling the media the enemy, locking children in cages, mocking disabled individuals, and encouraging his followers to believe that the before mentioned individuals are evil and doing bad in the world then, of course, you are going to have people who take his words to heart. When bombs are sent out to individuals that the president has continuously spoken hateful, violent, and degrading words about then, I believe it is, apparent to see the effects hate speech can have on people.

Hate Speech Affects People Differently

Hate speech doesn’t just affect the people who are being spoken about, but it also affects individuals who hear the hateful words day after day and begin to believe the words. In October 2018 an individual who was a devout follower of Donald Trump took it upon himself to eliminate the president’s adversaries by sending bombs to them via mail. This disturbed individual listened to the president's words day after day and lived by those words. After listening to the president’s words for two years and reading the president’s hateful tweets, this individual felt encouraged enough to try to take the lives of other Americans. This dangerous man might not have acted on his hateful beliefs if the president had not been spewing the hate that he was stating daily on Twitter, at rallies, and during speeches. People who are prominent in the world must realize that their actions and words have consequences. People are watching them and emulating them. When you are encouraging a world of hate, discord, and racism, then that is going to affect the people who are watching you.

Still a Coward

Trump still hasn’t taken responsibility for his role in the audacious attempts of murder of various government officials and outspoken anti trump individuals who are prominent on TV. Even though it is evident that this man who tried to murder twelve individuals was acting on what he believed was what the president would want. All the individuals targeted were people who the president had singled out as problematic. The man who sent the bombs literally drove around in a van with Trump’s face plastered all over it and the faces of Trump’s adversaries were on the vehicle with the crosshairs of a gun on their faces. However, our president still does not see the effects of his actions, and he refuses to take responsibility for his terrible part in this heinous act. Trump’s job is to protect ALL Americans, but because of the president’s speech and Tweets, twelve individuals and many more Americans almost lost their lives. So in my opinion …. hate speech vs free speech is not the same. Hate speech is the speech of a coward.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      Susan Harris

      "The world is a terrifying place these days.

      B:

      That terror has been the product of the left and its social engineering.

      ----------------------

      Over the last two years, I have grown more and more concerned about the society my children are growing up in.

      B:

      But you weren't concerned during the 8 years of Obama, or the 8 year of GW Bush or the 8 years of Bill Clinton?

      -----------------------------

      When our world leaders are more concerned with tweeting and spewing hateful things about other individuals then the well being of our nation and our nation’s people, what are our children learning?

      Our Children

      B:

      Talk about coward, you make a veiled comment about president Trump and you lump it in with world leaders.

      You need to define what you mean by hateful, and you have to provide the context because as I have said otherwise it is vague, and ambiguous.

      --------------------------

      We always teach our children to be accepting of others and to look at what’s on the inside of a person and not the outside.

      B:

      Who is this we? The left doesn't accept anyone that opposes them.

      ------------------------

      We try to teach our children not to be bullies but when they see the most powerful man in America bullying anyone who is different from him

      B:

      Again, who is teaching what? You don't see anyone on the left being hateful, calling for the death, dismemberment of the president of the US, and also attacking his family. Who taught these kids, that are now adults in power in congress, in Hollywood on hp?

      -----------------------

      what are we teaching the younger generation? As parents

      B:

      Teaching the children to resist, make false statements, name call the president, treat illegal aliens better than your own people, your own country. When a parent takes care of total strangers, while ignoring her own children is the lesson you and the left are teaching.

      -------------------------

      , we can’t allow the behavior of an overgrown,

      B:

      This is what you are teaching your children, to name call, instead of making references to context and examples of what president Trump does, and says.

      ----------------------

      immature, and racist individual

      B:

      This is also what you call good parenting to make these kinds of baseless statements that reflect more on you than on the president?

      -----------------------

      to be the moral compass for our nation and our children.

      B:

      What is the left and your moral compass showing children. Disrespect, don't be patriotic, treat strangers better than your own family, resist the country and for what it stands, because your queen lost the presidency. You are teaching the children to whine and whine until you get your way. An adult would wait until the next election to make their changes to government by voting. But your lesson is that you don't have to be an adult, you can just whine, and say bad things so that you get your way. How adult, what a parent, and what a teacher you are doing that.

      --------------------------

      But what do we tell our children when they ask how this man was elected as president in the first place.

      B:

      You say the truth, he won the election because he worked hard at spreading his message across America to the American people. He valued putting America and Americans and legal immigrants first. First, as a person that would be their family first.

      And that this message resonated with the people in America. And that HRC his opponent called half the voters despicable, and thought she was due the presidency. But she didn't deserve the presidency, and that is why Trump won the presidency.

      And you are telling your children, losing the presidency shouldn't mean that we lost our queen, we can badger, lie, cheat and steal the presidency back.

      ---------------------------

      I was recently faced with this question when my eldest son asked me it. I wasn’t quite sure what to say when he asked me. I hesitated and thought for a moment of how I could sugar coat it, but there really isn’t any good way to explain how a man like Donald Trump became President of the United States other than just telling it like it is. I answered him as truthfully as I could but left out specific details that he didn’t need to know as a child.

      B:

      I just told you the truth about how he became president, what lies, bias and stories did you tell your child. And what is he three, that you can't explain details?

      -----------------------

      I told my son that sadly there are a lot of people in America who have a lot of hate in their hearts and they are afraid of change and anything/anyone different from them.

      B:

      Did you tell him that these people are democrats, and anti Trump is a very hate filled group of people. These people would rather disrupt the prosperity of the country and the people than get behind the sitting president of the US. The left has done nothing for the country or the people while resisting in congress and providing no solutions to issues, and not doing their job for the country. They have put their democrat party ahead of that of the country.

      While at the same thing spending all their time, energy and power championing illegal aliens, including protecting CONVICTED illegal alien FELONS from being deported.

      -------------------------------

      I explained that a lot of people cannot view the world farther than their own front door and there is a “me first” mentality in the nation right now. People have forgotten how to care about each other.

      B:

      This me first, is the family, which is the country. And you and the left put illegal aliens ahead of the family, while doing nothing to help over a half million homeless people in America. Many of these homeless people are US military veterans who have protected the country, while the illegal aliens also include criminals and people that won't and don't have any allegiance to the US.

      ----------------------------------

      I told him Americans are not the only humans in the world but unfortunately, some people are living in America who only believe that it is America and Americans who are important. These individuals think it is America first before any other nation or people.

      B:

      And you should tell him they he is not as important to you, as these illegal aliens that you want to take care of. You are saying to him that you won't be your first priority, and neither will those homeless Americans, because you choose to ignore him and the homeless and put foreigner's first.

      ------------------------------

      There are people in America who do not view the world as a whole but instead see it as us vs. them. I then explained that until everyone starts looking at every individual as a living breathing human being and not judging people by the color of their skin, their religion, their homeland, etc.… we will always have hate in the world.

      B:

      Again, the hate is coming from the left. What your value system and that of the left which was exemplified by 8 years of the Barack presidency is we don't hate, it is the people that don't think like us, that hate. And remember son, we are always right, and anyone that opposes us are always wrong, and they hate and hate. Why simply because we say it.

      ---------------

      I finished it by saying Donald Trump is the epitome of all the badness and hatred in our society. He is the exact type of man you do not want to be like.

      "

      B:

      A good parent wouldn't use their influence on their children by making their bias the rule. A good parent would encourage their children to learn how to make their own decisions, and not simply be a clone of their parents bias.

      Just because a child is born into a family that has a religion, and a bias for politics doesn't mean that the child can't choose new ones for themselves. But that is not possible under your parenting skills.

      You are the mirror in action of what you say about president Trump, but using the rule of the left, it doesn't apply to you.

      You sound like a terrible parent, and terrible example for your child.

      B:

      And how do you justify supporting the Honduran mob that intends to crash the US border. They carry the Honduran flag, and not the US flag. Why should these people be more impor

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      backoftheclassthoughts

      You think your comment clarified anything?

      Do you realize that you need to define

      Hate Speech

      and

      Free Speech

      Your entire article is devoid of knowing what are these two kinds of speech.

      Once you define it, it needs to have context, otherwise it become vague and ambiguous.

      ---

      Hate speech is the speech of a coward.

      B:

      Once you have defined Hate, and speech then what context do they make someone a coward?

      bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters

      7 hours ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      "If anyone in a position of power uses rhetoric that incites hate, the solution is not to silence these powerful people because suppressing hate speech does not make hate go away. It only makes it harder to see. That being said, anyone in a position of power still has a responsibility to IMMEDIATELY condemn all hate when they see it in order to prevent the legitimization of hate."

      B:

      Then what has Trump done, and how can you call it hate speech.

      And what should he do?

      Wow, your entire statement just contradicts itself. And If I have to do it for you, than you want learn.

      bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters

      7 hours ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Backoftheclassthoughts

      My point hasn't been addressed because you don't answer it, you just deflect.

      one more time

      ""I accused Drumpf of not doing enough to combat hate. I did not intend to attack him for committing hate speech himself. All I said was that IF he were committing hate speech, it should not be silenced."

      B:

      What is the difference when you say

      ""I actually agree with you that Trump might not be

      inciting as much violence as we liberals like to think.

      I simply think Trump is

      not doing enough to put a stop to violence that would have occurred anyway,

      but I do not think Trump is causing it in the way the author seems to suggest."

      B:

      All these statements cannot be true at the same time!

    • Bored Student profile image

      BackOfTheClassThoughts 

      12 months ago from Massachusettes

      Brad Masters

      I will clarify each of these statements for you.

      "I accused Drumpf of not doing enough to combat hate. I did not intend to attack him for committing hate speech himself. All I said was that IF he were committing hate speech, it should not be silenced." Here, I mean that, in a hypothetical world where Drumpf is hateful (the same world in which the author lives), the hatefulness should not be silenced.

      "I actually agree with you that Drumpf might not be inciting as much violence as we liberals like to think. I simply think Drumpf is not doing enough to put a stop to violence that would have occurred anyway, but I do not think Drumpf is causing it in the way the author seems to suggest." Here, I clarified that Drumpf is not hateful. I clarified that I do not live in the same hypothetical world as the author. However, I added that I wish Drumpf would take a stronger stance against other people's hate.

      "If anyone in a position of power uses rhetoric that incites hate, the solution is not to silence these powerful people because suppressing hate speech does not make hate go away. It only makes it harder to see. That being said, anyone in a position of power still has a responsibility to IMMEDIATELY condemn all hate when they see it in order to prevent the legitimization of hate." Here, I did not even mention Drumpf, so I do not know why you think it applies to him. In the hypothetical world in which the author lives, this statement could apply to Drumpf. However, as I said, I do not live in the same hypothetical world, so I could not give you an example of hate speech because there is no clear indication that Drumpf himself is hateful.

      What do I wish Drumpf did differently? I wish he had not said that there were good people on both sides of the Charlottesville Riot. He eventually condemned the hate, but not "immediately". I wish he did not retweet white nationalists. I wish he had immediately and publicly disavowed David Duke. He should not have been so reluctant to disavow someone from the KKK who had endorsed his candidacy. I wish he had not endorsed Roy Moore, who spoke positively about slavery and said certain people could not be in public office because of their religion. I wish he had not pardoned people who were convicted for racial injustices. Joe Arpaio, for example, was a sheriff sanctioned for mistreating immigrants and Americans of Latin descent, but Drumpf pardoned him.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      Do you realize that you need to define

      Hate Speech

      and

      Free Speech

      Your entire article is devoid of knowing what are these two kinds of speech.

      Once you define it, it needs to have context, otherwise it become vague and ambiguous.

      ---

      Hate speech is the speech of a coward.

      B:

      Once you have defined Hate, and speech then what context do they make someone a coward?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      "If anyone in a position of power uses rhetoric that incites hate, the solution is not to silence these powerful people because suppressing hate speech does not make hate go away. It only makes it harder to see. That being said, anyone in a position of power still has a responsibility to IMMEDIATELY condemn all hate when they see it in order to prevent the legitimization of hate."

      B:

      Then what has Trump done, and how can you call it hate speech.

      And what should he do?

      Wow, your entire statement just contradicts itself. And If I have to do it for you, than you want learn.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      Backoftheclassthoughts

      My point hasn't been addressed because you don't answer it, you just deflect.

      one more time

      ""I accused Drumpf of not doing enough to combat hate. I did not intend to attack him for committing hate speech himself. All I said was that IF he were committing hate speech, it should not be silenced."

      B:

      What is the difference when you say

      ""I actually agree with you that Trump might not be

      inciting as much violence as we liberals like to think.

      I simply think Trump is

      not doing enough to put a stop to violence that would have occurred anyway,

      but I do not think Trump is causing it in the way the author seems to suggest."

      B:

      All these statements cannot be true at the same time!

    • Bored Student profile image

      BackOfTheClassThoughts 

      12 months ago from Massachusettes

      I don't understand the point of your whataboutism because I already explicitly said that my logic also applies to democratic politicians. I singled out Trump only because the original article singled out Trump, not because I think he alone can combat hate. Everyone with power has to do what they can to address hate and violence, including Trump. Maxine Waters also has a certain degree of responsibility to address hate, but she also has the right to talk in a hateful manner without being silenced. However, since the article was not about her, I did not see it as relevant. Seeing as you have decided to make it relevant, I will rephrase my point so that it does not specifically call out Donald Trump:

      If anyone in a position of power uses rhetoric that incites hate, the solution is not to silence these powerful people because suppressing hate speech does not make hate go away. It only makes it harder to see. That being said, anyone in a position of power still has a responsibility to IMMEDIATELY condemn all hate when they see it in order to prevent the legitimization of hate.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      Backoftheclassthoughts

      "I accused Drumpf of not doing enough to combat hate. I did not intend to attack him for committing hate speech himself. All I said was that IF he were committing hate speech, it should not be silenced."

      B:

      What is the difference when you say

      ""I actually agree with you that Trump might not be inciting as much violence as we liberals like to think. I simply think Trump is not doing enough to put a stop to violence that would have occurred anyway, but I do not think Trump is causing it in the way the author seems to suggest."

      B:

      By saying president Trump is not doing enough implies that he has control over it. He doesn't because it is coming from the left. Trump is not resisting, that is the mantra of the left. The left is to blame, and you are not asking them to do more. Actually, they just keep increasing their resistance, and there inflammatory speech.

      Don't you think, it is childish on your part to refer to the president of the US as drumpf.

      All the hate is coming from the left by that list of democrats I mentioned in previous comments.

      And using IF still is not a correct thing to do because there is no foundation, or correlation to what Trump says, and hate. But when democrats like Maxine Waters talk, you can feel the hate and when people want to cut off his head. or say f...k Trump. And using drumpf is also hate.

      You fail once again to make any argument for your point, much less a compelling argument.

      Susan Harris

      "Trump still hasn’t taken responsibility for his role in the audacious attempts of murder of various government officials and outspoken anti trump individuals who are prominent on TV."

      B:

      What responsibility? Was Bernie Sanders responsible for the shooting of republican congressmen while they playing baseball. No, and neither him or Trump are responsible. The Sanders shooter was concerned because Sanders said that the republicans were killing people with their healthcare plans.

      ------------------------------------------

      " Even though it is evident that this man who tried to murder twelve individuals was acting on what he believed was what the president would want."

      B:

      That is your biased opinion, nothing more. That man had a criminal record and tried bombing in 2002.

      ------------------------------

      All the individuals targeted were people who the president had singled out as problematic.

      B:

      So what? If the democrat are not held to that standard, which is wrong, then why should you impose it on president Trump?

      ------------------------

      The man who sent the bombs literally drove around in a van with Trump’s face plastered all over it and the faces of Trump’s adversaries were on the vehicle with the crosshairs of a gun on their faces.

      B:

      Again, so what?

      -----------------------

      However, our president still does not see the effects of his actions,

      B:

      Why don't you use that same standard on the democrats, Maxine Waters et al.?

      ------------------------

      and he refuses to take responsibility for his terrible part in this heinous act.

      B:

      What responsibility? He has sixty million supporters, and you want him to be responsible for what they do? Again, look at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and how they spew out hate and divisiveness. But that is OK because you have a different standard of responsibility for them.

      --------------------------

      Trump’s job is to protect ALL Americans, but because of the president’s speech and Tweets, twelve individuals and many more Americans almost lost their lives.

      B:

      Rubbish, TDS rant.

      ----------------------

      So in my opinion …. hate speech vs free speech is not the same. Hate speech is the speech of a coward. "

      B:

      Your opinion is that of an anti Trumper, and mad because he trounced her in the 2016 election.

      Why don't you give this speech to the haters, and emotional basket cases on the left. From the democrat politicians, to the Hollywood elite that have said and done hateful things about the president. Like cutting off his head, and Depp saying when was the last time an actor killed a president. And the view and their spawning of hate and divisiveness.

      If you can't apply your opinion to them as well, then your opinion is part of the hate, and you are a coward.

      ----------------------------

    • Bored Student profile image

      BackOfTheClassThoughts 

      12 months ago from Massachusettes

      I accused Drumpf of not doing enough to combat hate. I did not intend to attack him for committing hate speech himself. All I said was that IF he were committing hate speech, it should not be silenced.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      backoftheclassthoughts

      That is not what you said in the quote I pasted in my last comment.

      You put the blame on president Trump.

      Are you sure I didn't get that point from your own words?

    • Bored Student profile image

      BackOfTheClassThoughts 

      12 months ago from Massachusettes

      My point was not to attack Trump. My point was to attack anyone who thinks Trump must be silenced. Clearly you missed that point. My apologies.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      Backofthe class thoughts

      here is one of the key problems

      "I actually agree with you that Trump might not be inciting as much violence as we liberals like to think. I simply think Trump is not doing enough to put a stop to violence that would have occurred anyway, but I do not think Trump is causing it in the way the author seems to suggest."

      B:

      You don't seem to get the issue here. I listed a number of democrat politicians that are very vocal about resistance, and confronting anyone that is not a democrat. These people come right out and say that Trump people, and supporters should be stalked and confronted. Maxine Waters is not the only one. And then we have Hollywood with all of their award shows being used to speak hate against Trump. Another example is the view, and the left didn't stop at just hating Trump, they went after most of the members of his immediate family. The left hinged media also goes after Trump everyday.

      But you, the media, the silent author of this article and all the democrats ignore what the left is doing and focus on creating something against president Trump.

      So your statement is ridiculous putting the blame on president Trump and not a bringing all of the democrats emotional, intentional rants on Trump.

      My point is that if the democrats and their supporters would throttle back and resume their rage against president Trump and the republicans at the voting booth, and the media reported the news instead of becoming the news then Trump wouldn't have to make any statements. But that hasn't been the case since he announced his candidacy for the presidency.

      How many of the vile, rude and emotional acts have the republicans done in the same manner as the left. None. Even Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama think they are still in the government going around the world disrespecting Trump and apologizing for America. Obama did that for eight years as president, now he is doing it as Barack.

      BTW, I have no idea what is your point here?

    • Bored Student profile image

      BackOfTheClassThoughts 

      12 months ago from Massachusettes

      Again, I know I was working under a big assumption. My point was that if this assumption were true (and I'm not saying that it is), then it should not necessarily be suppressed. I have no intention of arguing whether or not Trump is hateful. I do not know what goes on in his mind and I do not know what his intentions are. I do not know if the correlation between the 2016 election and the rise in anti-semitism/white nationalism is a good enough reason to say that Trump's rhetoric incites hate. It is tempting to say this correlation does equal causation, but there could be all sorts of outside variables at play, especially since anti-semitism and white nationalism have also been increasing outside of the United States, which suggests that it might have nothing to do with Trump at all. I actually agree with you that Trump might not be inciting as much violence as we liberals like to think. I simply think Trump is not doing enough to put a stop to violence that would have occurred anyway, but I do not think Trump is causing it in the way the author seems to suggest. However, the point that I have been trying to make is that if a politician's rhetoric were inciting violence, then a solution would not be to silence that type of rhetoric. Instead, the root cause of the violence should be addressed directly. My logic applies to both left wing and right wing politicians. Since the article is about Trump, I specifically mentioned him, but I also think that any democrat who incites violence should not be silenced; rather, we should focus on the source of the violent ideology. Usually, the source has to do with lack of education or certain types of brainwashing. Yes, some of that brainwashing comes from the media. I am not going to deny that certain types of news coverage might induce violence in viewers.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      Backof the classthoughts

      "Brad Masters,

      "In my previous comment, I chose my words working under the assumption that the premise of this article is true. If you don't agree with the premise of the article, then that is your prerogative. In other words, the point of my comment was to say that assuming today's political rhetoric is hateful or incites hate,"

      B:

      And my point is that you comment was repeating, and supporting the premise. That is not helpful to anyone to give that credibility.

      Why assume that political rhetoric is hateful or incites hate especially when you don't reference any specific rhetoric. At least give some reasons for your assumption.

      --------------------------------------

      I would argue that, in some senses, this type of language is actually necessary, even if us liberals may not like it so much. I fully recognize that this assumption is a big assumption to make and you are more than welcome to disagree with it.

      B:

      You claim you don't like it, yet you make an assumption that is baseless.

      -------------------------------

      The definition of hate speech that I am using is "speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability." I got it straight from dictionary.com/wikipedia.

      B:

      Then you have to apply the definition to actual speech, and its context.

      --------------------------------------

      You also didn't answer my question. The entire first part of my comment was not even directed at you. It was directed at the author of the article. I was not arguing with you, but I guess you decided you wanted to strike a conversation anyway, which is totally fine.

      B:

      Apparently that wasn't fine with you or you wouldn't have made it an issue. And, when you post a comment that doesn't address the author, then you can't complain. My comments don't agree with either you or the author. The assumption and the conclusions made are just wrong, and they contribute more to disseminating that there is a connection between speech and incitement. That depends on the context of the speech and the goal of the speaker. Without that it is the listener or viewer that is making their own conclusion subjectively.

      --------------------------------------------

      The final part of my comment was, in fact, directed at you. I was hoping you could give me a source for when prominent democrats have called for Trump's death."

      B:

      I gave you the people that made all sorts of threats and while you didn't give a source for your connection between rhetoric or incitement, it is your story not mine. I suggested that you compare the people I named and their rhetoric with your generalized and subjectively phrased comment on political rhetoric.

      To clarify, most of the death threats implied or direct happen more frequently from the Hollywood actors and actresses. While the more veiled threats come from the politicians, and they are more to discredit the president so they can impeach him. That in its shear number of these kinds of statements made by the people on the list I mentioned is more dangerous than a direct death threat. The reason is that the listener or viewer than can conjure up numerous levels of inferred danger. As was the case, when Bernie Sanders said that the republican health plan would kill people, so he went out to kill republicans playing on the ball field.

      This wasn't and shouldn't be imputed to Bernie Sanders, and none of Trump's statements should be imputed to him when a wacko goes into action. But the press and the media, like you are making the assumption that anything that Trump says should make him responsible for any actions by individuals. And when you compare the violence, rage, and vile statements made by those on the left with Trump there is no comparison. The left is more irresponsible in their speech and messages that are more direct than the oblique statements made by Trump.

      The media never assumed that Bernie Sanders was responsible for the shooting of republicans, but the second that bombs were mailed to democrats, they immediately blamed Trump.

      It is this unilateral diode effect of the democrats that my comments were directed to both you and the author. Why do you two want to fan the fire that has already been made red hot by the media, and the democrat politicians and Hollywood?

    • Bored Student profile image

      BackOfTheClassThoughts 

      12 months ago from Massachusettes

      Brad Masters,

      In my previous comment, I chose my words working under the assumption that the premise of this article is true. If you don't agree with the premise of the article, then that is your prerogative. In other words, the point of my comment was to say that assuming today's political rhetoric is hateful or incites hate, I would argue that, in some senses, this type of language is actually necessary, even if us liberals may not like it so much. I fully recognize that this assumption is a big assumption to make and you are more than welcome to disagree with it. The definition of hate speech that I am using is "speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability." I got it straight from dictionary.com/wikipedia.

      You also didn't answer my question. The entire first part of my comment was not even directed at you. It was directed at the author of the article. I was not arguing with you, but I guess you decided you wanted to strike a conversation anyway, which is totally fine. The final part of my comment was, in fact, directed at you. I was hoping you could give me a source for when prominent democrats have called for Trump's death.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      BackOfThe Class Thoughts

      It is the democrats and their dependent democrat linked media that makes this unsubstantiated label of hate, and who knows better about hate than the democrat party.

      lets stop at your first sentence, "hatelfully" Putting aside the syntax of your sentence, there is no substance and it is an emotional merit less rant to use "cowardly" and "wrong" and "hatefully" as it not truthful, and it is vague, ambiguous, and without substance or reference.

      The rest of your comment is just more of the same.

    • Bored Student profile image

      BackOfTheClassThoughts 

      12 months ago from Massachusettes

      It may be wrong and cowardly, but he does have the right do speak hatefully. Anyone has the right to any form of speech as long as it is not intended to immediately incite violence. Maybe Trump's rhetoric has lead to violence. I personally think it has. However, if no direct correlation can be proven, then he has the absolute right to speak in a hateful manner.

      You may think that this type of hate has lead to some sort moral degradation of our society, where people are suddenly discovering that they are allowed to act in an abhorrent manner. However, in truth, people always had abhorrent thoughts, even if they refrained from acting on those thoughts likely due to the absence of a leader like Trump. People were already hateful, xenophobic, sexist, and more, but before Trump was elected, they never spoke out and minorities would insist that they were facing oppression, while everyone else was unable to see it because it was all under the surface. It was what studies had dubbed "subconscious bias" and "sexist socialization". It was all but impossible for an outsides to see, which made it difficult to combat. Now, however, hate has been exposed. Now, we can combat the hate and treat it the way it needs to be treated. Hate speech had been suppressed for years because it was not considered the norm, but hatefulness had not been suppressed and the failure to suppress this hatred has left us where we are today. If we suppress hate speech without putting a stop to the hate, then we just let the hate fester and get worse over time until it explodes in the form of cowardly nationalistic demagogues who spew prejudice rhetoric to no end. Of course, there were other factors that lead up to the 2016 election. However, I do not think you can deny the fact that people felt Trump's rhetoric refreshing simply because he said what they were all too afraid to say.

      Also, @Brad Masters, when have prominent democrats called for Trump's death? I'm not denying it; I'm just asking for a source.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      12 months ago

      Contrast that with what Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, Booker, Harris, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other members of the democrats that advocate, instigate and utter inflammatory words even calling for the death of a sitting president.

      Give both sides or don't give any!

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)