[Wulfschilde]

have you guys never heard "hate speech is free speech" or that it is legally protected from government action in america?

[Pants-of-dog]

Is there a point to hate speech?

Does it do anything useful?

[late]

have you guys never heard "hate speech is free speech" or that it is legally protected from government action in america?

Read my post, which is the one immediately preceding yours.

[Verv]

Precedent now includes restrictions on hate speech...

"As a sociologist and legal scholar, I struggle to explain the boundaries of free speech to undergraduates. Despite the 1st Amendment—I tell my students—local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech. We regulate advertising, obscenity, slander, libel, and inciting lawless action to name just a few. My students nod along until we get to racist and sexist speech...

Legally, we tell members of traditionally disadvantaged groups that they must live with hate speech except under very limited circumstances. The KKK can parade down Main Street. People can’t falsely yell fire in a theater but can yell the N-word at a person of color. College women are told that a crowd of frat boys chanting “no means yes and yes means anal” is something they must tolerate in the name of (someone else’s) freedom.

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies.

These negative physical and mental health outcomes — which embody the historical roots of race and gender oppression — mean that hate speech is not “just speech.” Hate speech is doing something. It results in tangible harms that are serious in and of themselves and that collectively amount to the harm of subordination. The harm of perpetuating discrimination. The harm of creating inequality."

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-nielsen-free-speech-hate-20170621-story.html

I cited actual legal precedent. You cited an article that is a couple years old from a sociologist and a "scholar" talking about how people might smoke more cigarettes if they are verbally harassed -- a sociologist who also accurately stated that the KKK can parade down Main Street.

She also accurately wrote

If judges are asked to compare the harm of restricting speech – a cherished core constitutional value – to the harm of hurt feelings, judges will rightly choose to protect free expression.

With your new precedent, we would be able to bring all sorts of spurious charges against people for basically making them feel uncomfortable, and the double standards and biases would rise to the surface more than ever.

---

BTW, I am curious, @late , would you allow for people to express "racist/sexist/homophobic/islamophic" views politely?

[Verv]

Is there a point to hate speech?

Does it do anything useful?

Fortunately, this is not the standard.

The government does not determine whether or not speech is useful, or whether or not it has a point. It's out of their jurisdiction.

[Wulfschilde]

Is there a point to hate speech?

Does it do anything useful?

please provide evidence for this claim

[Pants-of-dog]

Fortunately, this is not the standard.

The government does not determine whether or not speech is useful, or whether or not it has a point. It's out of their jurisdiction.

I never argued that usefulness was the standard.

I think hate speech meets the standard for banned speech, though.

But as far as I can tell, hate speech could be banned and the world would not lose anything useful.

[Verv]

I never argued that usefulness was the standard.

I think hate speech meets the standard for banned speech, though.

But as far as I can tell, hate speech could be banned and the world would not lose anything useful.

Would you define hate speech for me? I think it's possible that we could have a definition of hate speech that was limited which would have a much lower impact on free speech and potentially would even strengthen public discourse by universally removing a lot of the crud from it.

But I simply worry that it will be broad and less about the violence of the rhetoric and more about outlawing the ideologies that the people in power dislike.

[Pants-of-dog]

Would you define hate speech for me? I think it's possible that we could have a definition of hate speech that was limited which would have a much lower impact on free speech and potentially would even strengthen public discourse by universally removing a lot of the crud from it.

But I simply worry that it will be broad and less about the violence of the rhetoric and more about outlawing the ideologies that the people in power dislike.

Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Now, how is hate speech useful? Do you agree that it is not?

[Verv]

Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Now, how is hate speech useful? Do you agree that it is not?

I think it is rude, and I think rude things can sometimes be useful in their context to motivate or galvanize people to action, so, yes, it could be useful.

I also do not see any grounds here for it to be illegal. Being rude or bigoted is not the basis for limiting free expression.

How would these be different from blasphemy laws that amount to you've made us all feel really bad & upset with your rudeness!

[Pants-of-dog]

I think it is rude, and I think rude things can sometimes be useful in their context to motivate or galvanize people to action, so, yes, it could be useful.

So do threats, libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theatre. All of these cause people to act, but this is not useful.

I also do not see any grounds here for it to be illegal. Being rude or bigoted is not the basis for limiting free expression.

Since I never claimed that rudeness or bigotry is the basis, this is irrelevant.

Besides, the point is not about legality, but about usefulness.

How would these be different from blasphemy laws that amount to you've made us all feel really bad & upset with your rudeness!

I have no idea what this is about. How does this relate to whether or not hate speech is useful?

[Rich]

Communist thought is hate thought. Communist speech is hate speech. Islamic thought is hate thought, Islamic speech is hate speech. Supporting the banning of hate speech is itself a form of hate speech. An inextricable part of politics is the organisation of hatreds.

The demand to ban hate speech is inescapably fascist. Because underlying all hatred is a perceived victimhood. Should a woman be banned from expressing hatred towards a rapist? Should a parent be banned from expressing hatred towards a paedophile? Should Jews be banned from expressing hatred towards the Nazis? Should Palestinians be banned from expressing hatred towards the Israelis?

Every demand to ban hate speech is always really a demand to be able to express one's own hatred unopposed. As I grew up I had the lying hate filled racist filth, that some describe as the Holy Bible rammed down my throat. Are you really going to ban the Bible, because who can deny that the Bible like Islam is full of hatred? This is why I assert the 3 freedoms:

The right to lie, because today's lie, such as Jimmy Saville is a rapist Pervert, may turn out to be tomorrows truth.

The right to offend, because the truth is often painful and offensive.

The right to hate, because hate and amnity are fundamental human emotions, and to pretend to ban them is the beginning of the end of end sane and free expression.

[Godstud]

Jimmy Saville was a pervert and rapist. I expect right-wing conspiracy theorists to latch on to demented hero worship, but even that's going a bit far.

Saville was a scumbag rapist and child molestor.

On 18 December 2014, North Yorkshire Police published a report of an internal inquiry into its actions. The inquiry, termed Operation Hibiscus, found no evidence of misconduct by officers, but also concluded that opportunities had been missed to prosecute both Savile and Peter Jaconelli, a former mayor of Scarborough who died in 1999, for child sex abuse. The report stated that 32 allegations had been made against Jaconelli, and five against Savile. Jaconelli was stripped of civic honours earlier in 2014 after allegations against him were first published by the North Yorks Enquirer.[142] The Assistant Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, Paul Kennedy, said that the report showed that there would have been sufficient evidence for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider criminal charges against both Savile and Jaconelli if they were still alive.

On 29 April 2015, Surrey Police published a report stating that Savile had sexually assaulted 22 students and a visitor at the Duncroft Approved School for Girls in Staines-upon-Thames between 1974 and 1979. The report said that Savile had committed at least 46 offences at the school, including one which would have been classed as rape under current law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Sav ... _in_Jersey

Ban the hate speech and don't generalize, or soon that religion/ideology you want to ban will be ALL religions/ideologies(except your own, I mean). Let's start by banning fucking stupid conspiracy theories. Oops. Then you'd have nothing to gaze at all day, would you Rich?

[Patrickov]

Youtube is a platform, just like PoFo and (before this) Usenet / BBS, and therefore I believe it has almost absolute power to decide what to be shown on it.

Even if one is banned on Youtube one always have alternative channels -- albeit relatively secret ones -- to express one's views, and nobody have the power to lock the person in concern away.

Freedom of speech means I can speak my words without my personal freedom being threatened. I don't see "whether Youtube thinks I can post on it" being part of that.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Youtube is a platform, just like PoFo and (before this) Usenet / BBS, and therefore I believe it has almost absolute power to decide what to be shown on it.

Even if one is banned on Youtube one always have alternative channels -- albeit relatively secret ones -- to express one's views, and nobody have the power to lock the person in concern away.

Freedom of speech means I can speak my words without my personal freedom being threatened. I don't see "whether Youtube thinks I can post on it" being part of that.

Pofo is alot more freer now than it used to be 10 years ago
I used to get warning evrey day for some crap I was posting
I was alot more shitposting back in the old days but still got tons of warnings and suspensions for even minor stuff
old pofo resembles the UK and new pofo is like the US with first amendment that how it feels

the more freedom of speech the better if far left can safely state their opinions so does the far right and even Nazis

[Godstud]

@Zionist Nationalist maybe you're not the asshole you used to be? It's possible you mellowed.

I think there are more right-wing reactionaries than ever, on this forum and so they had to start easing up on yellow and red cards, or there'd be no one to talk to. Racists are far more common on this board than they used to, or rather their hate is more evident.

[Zionist Nationalist]

@Zionist Nationalist maybe you're not the asshole you used to be? It's possible you mellowed.

I think there are more right-wing reactionaries than ever, on this forum and so they had to start easing up on yellow and red cards, or there'd be no one to talk to. Racists are far more common on this board than they used to, or rather their hate is more evident.

There arent that many right wingers here as you think majority is still leftist
noemon just isnt as harsh as SiberianFox with right wingers because he is himself a nationalist

[Verv]

I have no idea what this is about. How does this relate to whether or not hate speech is useful?

I would like to apologize, then. I had assumed you would want your post related back to the thread and discussion at hand, which largely is about the legality of certain kinds of speech.

[Rich]

Jimmy Saville was a pervert and rapist. I expect right-wing conspiracy theorists to latch on to demented hero worship, but even that's going a bit far.

Saville was a scumbag rapist and child molestor.

Yes I know, the point is that John Lydon, aka Johnny Rotten, wanted to say this in 1978, but no one dared publish this, because of the threat of being sued. Legally it would have been considered a lie and heavy fines would have been imposed. This is what I mean by today's lie is tomorrows truth. Look at virtually all the high profile abuse cases and they all used slander and libel laws to protect themselves. Slander and libel laws mean the courts rule on what is truth and what is lies.

[Godstud]

@Rich I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that this is a generalization you can use for everything.