Hate speech is protected under the first amendment.

😂😂😂

LOL what a fucking reaction!

lmao bruh r/whoosh

wtf do you realize pro didn't even post a single argument? You call me a troll but this demonstrates that you are either a troll or an unequivocally retarded imbecile.

There have been some good points and great debating on both sides, but as a voter, I have to say pro has the edge by far. He debunked con's arguments flawlessly leaving con in the dust which is why he forfeited in the later rounds because he knows he lost. Props to pro, well done, you have my vote.

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath

this sounds like u lmao

He hit the nail on the head right there. This argument is essentially A = A

Too easy. The USSC has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is protected. You should change it to, Hate Speech Should be protected. I'd take that debate.

If interested, you can make a debate on if free speech is good. I agree with that so I won't debate with you on it but RM might. He takes a lot of debates.

"You see, if we allow people to speak of pure loathing of a particular race, gender or lifestyle-type, we naturally will have speakers encouraging people to 'end them by force'." They won't become mainstream, so it's not going to negatively affect society. It's not like race based slavery will come back, unless it is blacks enslaving whites. If your worried about whites advocating for killing black people, given that not even the KKK supports this, I doubt it would gain enough popularity to be a threat.

People can try to spread hatred but with today's society i doubt many people will listen or pay attention.

It's a very fine line on what's illegal. What exactly inspires the ones who say to hurt the type if not the speech inspiring hatred?

If youre not going to prove it then why am i even trying to debate this with you. *sighs* i honestly thought there were people on here with intelligent arguments not based on feelings. Calling for violence is already illegal. saying that you hate a certain person of color is not illegal. its wrong but what can you do? you honestly havent provided any evidence that hate speech leads to violence.

you cannot prove something that slowly reduced over a long time was only due to their approach to hate speech, you can however spend your OWN TIME to try and prove there isn't a reduction which you'll find is brutally false. I cannot be bothered to prove it to you, you will argue it's immoral regardless and that we need to tell people not to listen to the hate speech if it makes them violent and blame the readers and listeners but that's simply too impractical for a justice system to do as it will end up with too many people in prison to be able to cope economically with them taken out of the work-force as well as putting into the prison system the dumber, violent ones rather than fining the smarter, influential ones.

What do you define as harmless joke and one what platform is the joke being expressed to how many people of the race/sexuality/group-etc that you're sadistically laughing at while making it?

In case you go into humiliation-kink masochists who get off on being made fun of, I am both for that and the above making it clear that hate-speech ban isn't applied to in-house type jokes and that abusive parents who hate-speech bully their children are not having their children away because it's hate speech in itself but because of the role of a parent vs what they're doing to their children psychologically (probably physically too as stress can lead to diarrhoea and much else that will indirectly harm the child's development but that's for another debate).

Hate speech bans and the entire left-wing progressive group that I identify with are not usually against hate speech in a private 'fuck them' kind of manner but also kind of are against it when the victimised group is present and also when the speech is made in a very large-scale manner that can both influence hatred that leads to more hate speech and furthermore into violence via butterfly-effect AND that itself is so large-scale that the pain is causing a rift in the nation's social landscape.

Bullying is already wrong. And should be stopped. If youre constantly making a joke to someone then yes that's bullying. if you make one harmless joke then no. if you cant stand what someone is saying then ignore them or politely ask them to stop. and you didnt provide any evidence when you claimed that banning hate speech caused a butterfly effect in social democracies.

banning hate speech has severely reduced the exact agony and butterfly-effect violence in all social democracies that all ban it (western europe, canada, australia and... Well okay I can't say NZ now I suppose)

https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/bullying-may-have-worse-long-term-effects-than-child-abuse/
https://www.psycom.net/effects-of-bullying
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/the-long-term-effects-of-bullying/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552909/

Comedy shows are just that and will always be a semi-exception (but you'll still never see them daring to hate-speech Muslims or Jews for different reasons, the first being more what I'm getting at). If you meant comedy shows that have clear context and warning 'we are only kidding and are rude as fuck, please don't watch if you're sensitive' that's fine and has a fair warning. If you meant making constant remarks at someone until they snap and they are the ones who end up demonised and fired, that's a whole other story. People experience agony at verbal bullying, no matter how funny the jokes are.

What "pain and agony" can someone experience from a joke. a damn joke. if your feelings get hurt than grow up. Banning hate speech isn't going to stop it. and you shouldnt imprison or fine someone who speaks their mind. There are many racist who are not violent.

The pain and agony felt in the brain after a severely humiliating and ruthless joke passed about one's ethnicity, sexuality etc., is as involuntary an agony to experience as the physical pain received after a physical strike.

If you believe in true free will, you are simply deluded.

While the violence is illegal, it genuinely happens more often (much more often) the freer that people and especially people who are influential to the public, are allowed to broadcast loathing of that kind of people and this is objectively proven beyond any doubt.

It is true that the speech is strongest when it is done with the opposite: banning speech in defence of the attacked type of people while broadcasting severe hatred for them. What is untrue is that it can't still easily win out and influence many people even though people are free to speak against it.

https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/hate-speech-and-violence
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_hate_speech_a_precursor_to_more_serious_crimes_and_violence
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-22/facebook-twitter-and-violence-are-all-linked
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/06/22/jacob-mchangama/data-about-free-speech-violence

Since the US is capitalist that means in most places you go someone else owns it and can establish their own rules. This includes places like this site and places like youtube or facebook for example. Free speech is an illusion because almost everywhere you go someone else has the right to shut you up for saying things they don't like. Freedom of the press means the freedom to lie to the public to protect financial interests and government interests, the right to petition the government with a redress of grievances is the right to flap your gums at people who have power and be ignored by them. It's very convenient for the powers that be that you think their freedom to lie to you is there to protect YOUR freedom, meanwhile unless you own the platform you speak from or the place you speak in you can be forced to shut up at any time.

I have never been presented with the evidence that making a joke about or not liking a race causes the person to become violent. Which is already illegal. Yes racist have killed minorities but they had mental illness which shouldve been treated.

You can actually, by filling their minds with good or bad information. Very few people are both motivated and intelligent enough to push past that and even if they can, such as those born into North Korea, they have very little ability to speak over the catchy, brainwashed BS that the masses believe and want shoved into their minds, regardless.

You see, if we allow people to speak of pure loathing of a particular race, gender or lifestyle-type, we naturally will have speakers encouraging people to 'end them by force'. Then this will become something quite unlike speech and no, there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop the influence other than to ban the communication.

You can't control what people say or think and you shouldn't.

The 1st amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.". If this didn't apply to secular speech, it would merely say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

On one hand free speech in the US is a lie but on another hand I don't necessarily support free speech either. Hate Speech is actually illegal in the US in certain contexts but the bigger issue is the fact that the first amendment is primarily there to protect religious groups and freemason-type fraternities and to protect the right of corporations and government officials to freely lie to the public.

You named one issue with it.

I don't really see what's wrong with the amendment.

I agree it is. I disagree with the amendment.