Should "hate speech" be criminalized?

The WBC were banned from entering the UK and we are all better off for it.

 

Let's present a hypothetical.

You go to an establishment where the owner berates you at the counter for whatever reason. He hates gays, etc... Does this every time you go there. You can record that tirade. Now posting it, and saying gays shouldn't go here because of it. I'm all for that. Even putting a link on the guys Yelp review or whatever.

That's the free market and society dealing with an ignoramus in a civil manner.

Now, posting death threats and nasty comments on that places social media, that crosses the line to harassment. It should be sufficient to post the evidence and let the people make their own minds up. If a little pizza shop in bum fuck Indiana says, oh now I don't think we'd cater a gay wedding, why is there national attention and berating by people who never will go to bum fuck Indiana, have nothing to do with the local community. What's the point of that? Anyway, once you let the government decide what can and can't be said, you are falling down into the pit of authoritarianism,

Read 1984, and Brave New World to see futures where thoughts are criminalized.

 

I don't know...

Having attended one of their protests, as I live about 30 minutes from a military base, one of the best experiences in life was throwing a rock at their dumb asses.

Think of the fun you're missing out on! LOL.

 

Define nasty. As long as it isn't libel, by the libertarian perspective that should be protected just as much as someone saying gays should be put to death would be. Death and rape threats could also be okay for many libertarians, and I have actually seen many libertarians say that it's free speech also. Wouldn't a death threat be a form of hate speech? And if it is and if it should not be allowed, this isn't just a black and white issue like many people think it is.

 

That does sound fun but I dunno if I want America's unique brand of crazy infiltrating the UK. There are a lot of people I can throw rocks at here anyway.

Plus if I wanna throw rocks at people then I will. Don't need an excuse to do that. If people don't want rocks thrown at them they should get out of my way.

 

I'd say no, there shouldn't be a legal penalty for hate speech. Free speech is necessary for America to remain a free and open country. However, those who exploit the right of Free Speech should have an understanding that saying what you think isn't always consequence free- and it isn't. Groups such as the Westboro Baptists receive much more backlash than what they put out, and I'm honestly surprised there haven't been any assaults on any of them (also thankful.)

 

Interesting to note that almost everyone opposed to hate speech laws are American and those in favour of such laws (although there are only a few) are from outside the United States.

Recent action by the government here in Canada against those advocating boycotts against Israel (the BDS movement if I'm not mistaken) gives me pause about hate speech laws as they could be used, apparently by Harperites, to censor dissent. But I'm generally supportive of them mainly because of the degree to which judicial oversight plays a role in the application of the laws. Although I concede it's a very tight rope to walk sometimes.

 

I'm not saying there should be a law saying people shouldn't be nasty to other people.

If we want a civil society, we should all try to refrain from being nasty to one another. This is also informed by being a Christian. I try to treat people as I want to be treated.

Many times I return kindness when people are nasty. And most of the time they just get nastier and make fools of themselves with idiotic comments.

Threats of violence against another can be used as proof of animus if anything happens, but no, no laws against it. Somebody makes enough comments like that, a person can get a restraining order or something if they fear for their lives. (as well as the gun, pepper spray or stun gun they should always carry.)

 

Incitement to hatred is an offence in the UK and people have been prosecuted for using menacing and inflammatory words. Freedom of speech is fine, but freedom to spread hate is an altogether different matter. Am I any less free because such a law exists? No, I don't think so. Actually, I feel a greater freedom to be myself, knowing that the law protects me from crazy people.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church were denied entry into the UK because such a law exists. Twas a great day. We don't need that kind of bile.

 

Who gets to define "Hate Speech"?

It screams at me to be one of those things that's "made with good intentions" but is quickly hijacked by some nutjob(s) and turned into a tool to oppress society as a whole.


I'd be super worried ( personally ) that the Social Justice movement ( which I'm personally opposed to ) would try and define hate speech in such a way that it'd be flat out illegal for anyone who is white, straight, and male to even speak at all.

 

No, because there is a difference between "hate speech" and speaking about it/teaching what it is.

And like Kaiser said, "hate speech" is different to everybody......and exactly WHO would be in charge of who makes the laws of what is "hate speech" and what is not?

It would be biased and self-righteous for anyone to say "You can't say that cause it's hateful".

Some things need to be said, regardless of who thinks they are hateful or not.