If hate speech is banned

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 64
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
SJW Liberals: Hate speech should be banned.

Me: What do you think is hate speech?

SJW Liberals: Anything offensive to somebody and that hurts their feelings.  The KKK are offensive to black people, ban Klansmen.  The Nazis are offensive to Jews, ban Nazis.  People who misgender on ideological grounds are offensive to transgenders, ban misgenderers.

Me:

The Pro life movement is offensive to women who have had abortions because your dehumanizing them as murderers.  Should we ban pro lifers?

The Pro choice movement is offensive to unborn babies because your dehumanizing them.  Should we ban pro choicers?

The Anti gun control crowd is offensive to victims of school shootings because it doesn't care about their feelings.  Should we force people to support gun control?

The Pro gun control crowd is offensive to owners of AK 47s because they don't care about the feelings of AK 47 owners.  They want to ban these guns regardless.  Should the
US make it illegal to support gun control?

Back the Blue offends black people, should we ban the Back the Blue movement?

BLM offends police officers, should we ban BLM?

Kneeling for the national anthem is hating where America is right now.  Is this hate speech towards America?

Being a Republican entails being hateful towards AOC.  Being a democrat entails being hateful towards Ted Cruz.  Are political parties now hate speech towards politicians?

Very few democrats want to ban Pro lifers, being Anti gun control, Back the Blue supporters, or Republicans.

Very few republicans want to ban Pro choicers, being Pro gun control, BLM supporters, or Democrats.

With the exception of the popularity of an idea (which shouldn't be a justification for banning an idea) there is no principled difference between banning Klansmen (which you could argue is hate speech towards black people) and banning pro lifers or pro choicers (you could argue that pro lifers preach hate speech towards women since they call women who get abortions murderers)(you could also argue that pro choicers preach hate speech towards unborn babies since they dehumanize unborn babies).

We should legalize being pro life, we should legalize being pro choice, and we should legalize being in the KKK.  Legalize all the ideologies.
#2
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
What qualifies speech as hate speech isn’t whether someone listening gets their feelings hurt, it’s whether the content of your speech taken to its logical end would incite or serve as justification for violence towards another group.
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
it’s whether the content of your speech taken to its logical end would incite or serve as justification for violence towards another group.
The pro life ideology believes that abortion should be classified as murder.  This means punishing women who commit abortions with life imprisonment (just like murder since apparently abortion is murder).  They would commit violence to women who have committed abortions by beating them up for it, similar to how if someone murdered your mother, you would want to beat them up for it (and maybe shoot them) if you knew the cops wouldn't do anything about it.

The pro choice ideology believes that a fetus isn't a person.  This means that they advocate for the right to commit violence to unborn babies.

Both sides you could argue advocate for violence towards one group if you take the ideology to its logical conclusion.  For pro lifers, that is violence towards women who have had abortions.  For pro choicers, this is violence towards an unborn baby.  I could argue both beliefs are hate speech, but both beliefs should be legal because "hate speech" is protected under the first amendment, and jailing someone for their opinions is a violation of the 8th amendment.
#4
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
I personally think the Brandenburg case should apply here
Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I think advocating for violence should be protected under the 1st amendment and here is why:

If someone says, "Death to murderers.  I want all murderers to die", this would be free speech, whether or not you agree.  Everyone believes that you should have the right to advocate for the death of murderers.  Telling someone to kill a murderer is not legal, since it's not your place, but the states (Although I think murder victims should have the power to put their murderer to death).

If someone says, "Death to rapists.  I want all rapists to die", this would also be free speech, whether or not you agree.  Everyone believes that you should have the right to advocate for the death of rapists.  Less people will agree with this position, but everyone agrees with the right to say it.

If someone says "Death to pedophiles", this is also free speech.

If someone says, "Death to drug dealers", this is also free speech.

If someone says, "Death to J walkers", this is also free speech.  Granted, you probably won't be able to find anyone who believes that J walkers should be put to death, but it is your right to advocate this position.  You can't tell people to kill J walkers though.  It becomes a problem when you kill J walkers, since that is illegal.

If you say, "Death to unwanted fetuses.  They cause so much unwarranted pain to women" or "Death to women who get abortions.  Abortion is murder and should be tried as mush", then this is also free speech.  You can't kill women who get abortions, but you can advocate for their death.




#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
it’s whether the content of your speech taken to its logical end would incite or serve as justification for violence towards another group.
Does that include speech supporting government violence against the public?

Or should the government be trusted to wield violence unrestricted and without question?
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Violence can only develop where no compromise can be reached. Banning any speech, hateful or not, offensive or not, ensures that the non-violent path to negotiation, compromise, debate, and rehabilitation through non-violent dialogue can never exist.

In fact, banning any speech with the force of the government is an act of violence itself.
#8
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog

Hi, Alec- long time no see.

Unfortunately, your premises are entirely false.

Added 02.23.21 10:57AM
SJW Liberals: Hate speech should be banned.
Define your terms, please.

Wikipedia:
LIBERALISM in the UNITED STATES is "a political and moral philosophy based on what liberals consider the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the separation of church and state, the right to due process and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation of liberalism"

By definition, Liberals invented Freedom of Speech and promote Freedom of Speech as a primary value of Liberalism.

Me: What do you think is hate speech?
SJW Liberals: Anything offensive to somebody and that hurts their feelings. 
  • The fact that you begin with a prejorative (SJW) rather disqualifies you from reliably characterizing the liberal response, don't you think?
  • Hate speech bans are prohibited in the US
Wikipedia:

"Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated due to the basic human right to free speech recognized in the American Constitution.  While “hate speech” is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint."

In fact, the most liberal Supreme Court in US history ruled in Brandenberg v Ohio (1969)

"the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".  Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence"

The whole of your argument is predicated on straw and ether.  I seriously doubt you could find even one serious legal or political thinker  who thinks that  American governments should restrict "anything offensive to somebody and that hurts their feelings," much less a serious liberal thinker.
Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@oromagi
LIBERALISM in the UNITED STATES is "a political and moral philosophy based on what liberals consider the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the separation of church and state, the right to due process and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation of liberalism"
This definition does not describe 21st century liberals, just like the word, "conservative" doesn't mean conserving the status quo.  If being conservative meant keeping the status quo, then they wouldn't want to lower taxes or overturn Roe V Wade, since both of these ideas go against the status quo.  Being conservative means being pro personal responsibility first and economic liberty second.  Being a liberal means wanting to reduce suffering and expand life.  This is why they want to ban radical right wing speech, which they see as causing emotional suffering and a threat to the expansion of life because of their fear of extreme speech radicalizing into extreme actions.

 I seriously doubt you could find even one serious legal or political thinker  who thinks that  American governments should restrict "anything offensive to somebody and that hurts their feelings,"
Then, why do people want to ban Klansmen from expressing their opinions?  Should the KKK be banned? | Debate.org states that 78% of the people here want to ban the KKK, so there are people that want to ban the KKK.  If they don't want to ban the KKK because they are "offensive to (minorities) and that hurts their feelings", then why do these people want the Klan banned?
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

-Noam Chomsky
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
It wasn’t meant as an all encompassing definition, just a response to the false examples provided in the OP.

Another element of hate speech is that it focuses on a person or group and characterizes them or their behavior. It is not merely a logical response to a perceived fact, but an attempt to paint a particular picture of a person or group in order to portray them in the worst light possible.

What is the point of this? Are you trying to argue that hate speech doesn’t exist, or that we as a society should not fight back against it?
#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Does that include speech supporting government violence against the public?
Provide an example.


Or should the government be trusted to wield violence unrestricted and without question?
You act as if the government is a person. It’s not, it’s an institution made up of our representatives chosen to answer questions such as these. If our representatives enact laws allowing anyone to wield violence without question they need to be voted out immediately.

#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
If our representatives enact laws allowing anyone to wield violence without question they need to be voted out immediately.
So you are okay with voting out the entire government for using the military and police to wield violence?
#14
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So you are okay with voting out the entire government for using the military and police to wield violence?
No. Read my statement again, take note of the phrase “without question”.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 take note of the phrase “without question”.
Questioning authority today makes you a traitor and a pariah. Most people are just going to give up and let the government do whatever.

#16
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
This definition does not describe 21st century liberals, just like the word, "conservative" doesn't mean conserving the status quo.  If being conservative meant keeping the status quo, then they wouldn't want to lower taxes or overturn Roe V Wade, since both of these ideas go against the status quo. 
My definition comes from Wikpedia, the most popular reference work of the 21st Century.  Ideologies don't change just because Tucker Carlson tells you so.

Being conservative means being pro personal responsibility first and economic liberty second.  Being a liberal means wanting to reduce suffering and expand life. 
If you are just going make up your own personal definition for words, then you might as well simply define conservatives as saints and liberals as demons and end the conservation right there.   If you can't find a definition in any dictionary that conforms with your definition, that's a very good way of knowing that your definition is faulty.

Since Republicans can't seem to take personal responsibility for any fucking thing these days, not

  • Jan 6th attempt to assassinate the Vice-president and make Trump President for Life
    • Actually blamed Antifa
  • Worst COVID response of any nation on Earth- deliberately spreading and promoting disease and death
    • Actually blamed China
  • Texas power grid burnt out because Republicans build cheap and pocket the dividends
    • Actually blamed the Green New Deal
  • Losing the White House and Senate after four years of corrupt chaos
    • Actually blamed Hugo Chavez
  • Adding $16 Trillion to the National debt in just four years with nothing to show for it
    • Actually blamed economic stimulus
Since Republicans don't take personal responsibility for anything, I assume that you count no Republicans among the ranks of Conservatives

This is why they want to ban radical right wing speech, which they see as causing emotional suffering and a threat to the expansion of life because of their fear of extreme speech radicalizing into extreme actions.
I am a liberal and I believe in social justice but I don't want to ban radical right-wing speech.  I don't even know what the expansion of life is supposed to mean.  My experience is that liberals are way more tolerant of conservatives than the reverse.  Your customized definitions aren't just ad hoc, they're also out of touch with reality.

 I seriously doubt you could find even one serious legal or political thinker  who thinks that  American governments should restrict "anything offensive to somebody and that hurts their feelings,"

Then, why do people want to ban Klansmen from expressing their opinions?  Should the KKK be banned? | Debate.org states that 78% of the people here want to ban the KKK, so there are people that want to ban the KKK.  If they don't want to ban the KKK because they are "offensive to (minorities) and that hurts their feelings", then why do these people want the Klan banned?
I asked for one serious legal or political thinker and you gave me an anonymous poll on DDO?  That might explain why your political definitions are so out of whack with mainstream political thought.
#17
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Then we have Twitter who is banned in china, a nation that has no full free speech and bans everything supporting west propaganda; and bans people who generally support the main force against china(Trump).

Ironic.
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'm guessing Biden isn't banned in China for apologizing for the dead Muslims.
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10

Shapiro claims the age of free speech is over.
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Tucker recently did a show on political censorship.

#21
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I stopped watching Fox lol, just the same stuff over and over again 
#22
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
If hate speech is banned, I'm going to prison.
#23
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
What qualifies speech as hate speech isn’t whether someone listening gets their feelings hurt, it’s whether the content of your speech taken to its logical end would incite or serve as justification for violence towards another group.

Are stupid ideas that lead to mass starvation 100% of the time also banned? Or is that fine?
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Are stupid ideas that lead to mass starvation 100% of the time also banned? Or is that fine?

HOW DARE YOU!
#25
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
HOW DARE YOU!

Are you quoting climate scientist Greta Thunberg?
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
#27
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Questioning authority today makes you a traitor and a pariah. Most people are just going to give up and let the government do whatever.
Questioning authority is the right of every American, claiming that makes you a traitor is just plain stupid. What does get you treated like a pariah is when you pretend you’re asking questions while really just spreading conspiracy theories. And in that case it’s not the government that holds you accountable, it’s your fellow citizens exercising their first amendment right to call you out on your BS.
#28
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Are stupid ideas that lead to mass starvation 100% of the time also banned? Or is that fine?
I’d be happy to answer your question... as soon as you can tell me what this has to do with this the topic of this thread or with anything I have said.
#29
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
I’d be happy to answer your question... as soon as you can tell me what this has to do with this the topic of this thread or with anything I have said.

Not sure where the confusion is coming from. You say "hate speech" is speech that leads to violence against people. I'm asking if an idea has historically lead to death and starvation, should it also be banned from advocacy, or do you put an arbitrary rule of "might cause violence" on speech?
#30
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
"SJW Liberals" more accurately describe people who are progressively oriented, though it is interesting how much its used as a strawman to dismiss other people.