Should 'hate/free' speech be allowed?

It depends. Yes hate speech hurts but you can't just ban certain people from their right to freedom of speech because others are offended by it. You picked up on a good one there with theism vs. atheism. As an atheist, not that I ever shove it down peoples throats, I'd be pretty pissed if it became 'banned' to mention it. Seems pretty stupid to me.

Yes with other things like sexuality, gender identity, race (all of which I'm a minority) it gets more complicated but I believe that if no one is getting physically hurt then people do have the right to their own opinion. You've then got the chance of people grouping together and acting upon their hate though so yeah it's very difficult. Society today is a lot more censored than it ever has been, everything seems to offended people.

If we're in this for equality then 'banning hate speech' (not that I see how you can do that and where do you draw the line?) isn't going to change people's views. It's only going to make them frustrated that they're having to live in a society where their opinion doesn't matter and I assume they'd be more likely to take things into their own hands.

 

It really depends, yeah it is hurtful but freedom of speech....

 

I agree with the current standard; Speech must be directly harmful to one or many persons before it is illegal.
If we start making personal judgement on whether or not statements are legal, we allow whoever's in a position of authority to decide where the line is. I say that people can say what they want, and I reserve the right to not listen, think they're stupid, or say what I want in response.

 

Yes, it should be allowed; you don't have to agree with someone's viewpoint to know that they still have a right to speak about it. I vehemently disagree with religion and Trump supporters; that doesn't mean I would agree with someone trying to silence those religious/Trump people. That's how free speech works. It's not "free speech until someone says something that offends me."

Now if that "free" speech is trying to incite people to violence/criminal actions, then a case can be made for prosecuting the individual(s) responsible.

 

I definitely think that a lot of criticism is due our culture where hate speech is seen as nothing worse than everyday chatter. That said, banning hate speech, which is already banned by law, by the way - but would be applicable here as cracking down harder on hate speech by making the laws more stern, giving more resources to this area of society, etc. - might work to some extent, but I'm not necessarily for the idea. Those kind of bandaid-to-a-spurting-wound solutions are not favored by yours truly. I like getting to the root of problems rather than just worrying about the superficial symptoms.

What makes people spew out hate speech without feeling particularly bad about it? There are many factors to consider here, I'd say, including, but not limited to, discrimination, privilege, ignorance, but most of all, alienation. People are alienated from feeling a true connection to what they do and how they live their lives, so we thus need outlets, somewhere to vent our frustration. Thus we take it out on somewhere else, often online or in whatever framework where we can most likely avoid consequence.

As of now, I think some sites that I've heard that are notorious, such as 4chan, can definitely afford to be stricter. And I certainly think that Nazis should not have the right to demonstrate or go around calling people the n-word, or damn Muslim, or greedy Jew or anything like that. It's just not okay. No one wants to be in such an environment.

 

No it's 2016

 

We should not ban it at all. The minute we ban any kind of speech is when we set a domino effect into totalitarianism.

 

I say banned, because hate shouldn't be tolerated in any society and it can incite violence; with people already saying they plan on "picking up where Omar left off" and other shit.

 

Hate speech is a nh it too subjective to place a ban on imo.

 

Who is going to ban it?

Politicians?

You really trust elected officials to make wise decisions on this?

 

God no. I'm a strong supporter of the first amendment (USA).

That said, when speech is physically threatening or makes someone feel like they may be physically harmed then I think there should be some limit. There is some laws out there already, isn't there? Like you can't continually harrass people, eh? Or tell them you will murder them.

 

Hate speech is a crime in England and Wales and rightfully so. I completely disagree with the United States' view that there should be an outright freedom of speech - yes, there should be freedom of speech, but to a limit.

 

There are limits in Canada and in the UK, beyond a politically defined standard.

But in the United States, just ask yourself this: If Donald Trump is elected President, would you feel comfortable with him defining what he thinks your hate speech consists of? It's always easy for the party in power to enact rules, that open the door to fascism.

In any case the Supreme Court long ago set very strict standards for prior restraint of speech. You can be punished for illegal speech, after you make it. So for example, if you disclosed classified state secrets or inflame people to murder in some concrete manner, then of course there may be punishment.

I'd be just as happy, to let old Westboro keep picketing those U.S. Marine funerals. I'd make it perfectly fine for them to do it. But if the marines come out and beat the crap out of them, at least from me they could find sympathy between shit and syphillis in the dictionary.

 

As much as I hate to say it, we need to Allow all free speech. If you ban the freedom to have a hate speech what do you define as hate? Saying you don't think being LGBT is right or saying you don't care as long as it doesn't get shoved down your throat. If you ban the freedom to say everything and anything where does it stop? Plus humans are hateful, there is no stop to the hate a human can make. But that's just my two cents.

 

There are laws against it. You aren't allowed to threaten someone's life, nor are you allowed to incite violence or a panic (i.e. yelling "fire" in a movie theater). So clearly free speech is not completely free, not when it begins to threaten people's lives.

Ultimately I have a fairly typical American view of free speech: other than these dangerous exceptions, I think any speech should be allowed. As it is, many other countries around the world do not have a sense of free speech that it as lax as that of America. In Canada and some European countries, hate speech is illegal, such as Holocaust denial or white supremacist speech. In many Muslim countries, blasphemous speech is illegal. America takes it to the extreme in this sense, allowing almost any speech, unless it can be seen to directly threaten someone's life.

Clearly, however, free speech is one of the most misunderstood concepts in American society.

Free speech does not mean:

-You are guaranteed an audience.
-You cannot be criticized or disagreed with.
-Private institutions cannot set their own rules regarding speech.

All of the above are common misconceptions about free speech. You cannot, for example, make blatantly racist or sexist statements in most workplaces. They set their own rules and you agree to abide by them on the condition that you might be fired. Additionally, not every venue must accommodate you. Universities, schools, and other places can prohibit you from speaking there based on what you are planning to say.

So, ultimately, no, I do not agree with hate speech laws, but I also must point out that free speech is not so libertine as many people think it is. Just because the federal government will not prosecute you because of what you say does not mean that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, with no consequences.

 

I absolutely believe in freedom of speech.
It's fine if private institutions set their own rules.

 

Um, just so you know, religion is an ideology, not some minority group of people that needs to be protected. If somebody can criticize a cartoon, they should be able to criticize religion, because for a lot of people they're the same thing- fake.

That aside, I'd side with free speech regardless, because once we start trying to use the public space as a "safe space", we're excluding people from places they have a right to be, which I think is much more bigoted. Of course, some people might be disruptive to your cause- but there is always somebody disruptive to everyone's cause, and those movements still managed to overcome those obstacles and thrive as a whole. So, your feelings might get hurt- Get over it. If somebody's not a danger, let them be there to say what they want. If we stop letting all ideas surface, then eventually we're going to let very few surface. Now, I'm not saying that if you're on a stage speaking that you should just give the mic to somebody else, but you should address the other side's views and- if you're in a public space- you shouldn't be able to take that person away from that public area unless they're inciting or doing violence. If you want a private space, go to a private space, but people like those SJWs on college campuses are doing more harm than good.

 

You can't tell me with a straight (or queer~) face that you're comfortable with risking a visit from the local thought police over your views. Not only legit "hate" will suffer from such.

And considering the crazy things totalitarians who think they are on a righteous crusade against hate speech are already doing/saying, yes, it should be allowed or the effects would be terrifying.