Hate Speech #2

[Deus Naturae]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.

If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

There is such thing as concern for public safety and the higher courts of the U.S. agree with me on this interpretation. It's like saying that the 2nd amendment allows us to own tanks and rocket propelled grenades.

To borrow from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.

Again, if you think that there ought to be limits on what people can say, then by definition you oppose free speech. That doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, just that the idea of "non-absolute free speech" is nonsensical.

The reason you can't yell fire is because the theater will kick you out. The government won't do anything to you.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes (D), Hate Speech should not be counted as Free Speech. Being allowed to be discriminatory is not in our constitution.

Being allowed to be a Democrat isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution either. Therefore, it would be perfectly Constitutional to jail all Democrats.

[Deus Naturae]

No, I'm not going to say that I support limited speech. Free speech is a cherished ideal and something that should be held up. I don't see speech inciting public harm (what yelling fire in a theatre symbolizes...) as included in the right of free speech because it abridges the basic rights of fellow citizens. This is why this is such a complex issue and is not as clear cut as you'd like.

Do you or do you not want to limit speech inciting violence? You can't just define speech you want to ban as non-speech. The fact that you don't "see it" as speech doesn't change the fact that that's what it is. That would be like me saying I oppose government programs but support Social Security because I don't see it as a government program.

Your position amounts to doublethink. "I don't believe that speech should be limited, but this type of speech does need to be limited."

[Deus Naturae]

Yes (D), Hate Speech should not be counted as Free Speech. Being allowed to be discriminatory is not in our constitution.

Being allowed to be a Democrat isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution either. Therefore, it would be perfectly Constitutional to jail all Democrats.

No, being a Democrat is not mentioned in the constitution, but that does not give the government the right to put me in jail, unless I have committed a legitimate crime and to my knowledge, I have not.

And if the government were to pass a law against being a Democrat?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hate speech is speech. If you support restricting speech, then by definition you don't believe that speech should be free.

[Deus Naturae]

@Deus, do you think advertisers should be able to lie about their products? Do you think people should be able to commit perjury?

No, just because I oppose censorship doesn't mean I support anything as long as it involves speech. My position is that the only situations in which somebody should be arrested as a result of their speech are those where the speech is evidence of actual wrongdoing. For example, like Sanchez I wouldn't have a problem with arrested someone who literally wrote something like "attack this guy at this time" or "bomb this church on this date" since that's evidence that they're planning/facilitating a crime. They should be arrested not because of the speech, but simply because the speech provides evidence of actual criminal activity, just like someone who was seen leaving a murder scene with a bloody knife should be arrested not because it's illegal to carry a bloody knife, but because that knife constitutes evidence of murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's already common practice.