Hate Speech v Free Speech

Are they right, Veeky Forums?

Who gives a shit when you could be writing about how to destroy the value-form and capital?

Define hate speech

The post seems to define hate speech as any speech that makes a particular person have hurt feelings.

No.

By saying something is "hate speech" and shouldn't be protected by freedom of speech you're essentially saying someone should be given authority as to what is and isn't "free speech". The following argument is a bit of a slippery slope but really if the government is granted the power to remove protection from say racism what's to stop them from justifying criticism of the government as "free speech". No one should even have the power to determine what is or is not free speech, as that just defeats the point of free speech all together.

That's over-exaggerating

>Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

From the American Bar Association. I think it works quite well.

You're right, I don't want /pol/ to control our speech, let alone hear one whine about how the jews hurt their feelings.

>muh bogeyman

So you would allow racists and sexists to spew their garbage. Unlike /pol/, I actually don't want to live in a bigoted society.

And honestly, it's not really a slippery slope. Just racism,sexism and homophobia.

Neither do I. But fortunately free speech also protects the rights of people to call them out on bigoted opinions and defend themselves.

With that in mind what would be a constructive solution to this problem would be empowering people to speak up and generally be thick-skinned enough to be unshaken by bigotry. Of course this is counter-productive to anti-individualistic society so it's more within our present cultural ideology to restrict individuality even more.

this

Going on Veeky Forums and interacting with /pol/tards did more to eliminate my racism than any 'check your privlige' college student ever could.

Why is this line of thinking basically restricted to Veeky Forums tho?

I think people need to get a handle on their fucking self, self respect, and sanity if mean words impact any of those things. People can say whatever the fuck they want about you as long as it's just that, their opinion. SJWs have taken it to a ridiculous extreme where you're not permitted to say anything that makes a person uncomfortable.

That said, if you're advocating actual action that can harm a person, that's more worthy of concern. Free speech is one thing, if you believe a certain race is subhuman that's your opinion. If you begin actively advocating all people of that race should be shot, or encouraging people to get lynch mobs together, I'd say that deserves the label hate speech and should be curtailed.

It's complicated, though. Where to draw the line between something that's a person's opinion and something that encourages action isn't always cut and dry.

>Going on Veeky Forums and interacting with /pol/tards did more to eliminate my racism than any 'check your privlige' college student ever could.

>>Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
>From the American Bar Association. I think it works quite well.

Lacks context.

Have you read the entirety of the ABA publication on hate speech? In most cases, it is protected under the 1st Amendment. (For the most part, situations that don't involve actual criminal conduct directly connected tot he hate speech, or employment discrimination.)

Generally, the law of the land is that hate speech, without some criminal/unlawful act, is protected.

People who deliberately present things out of context tend to be scumbags.

They absolutely should be allowed to spew their garbage. People who you disagree with are still entitled to their opinions.

You need someone to decide what constitutes "racism, sexism and homophobia", and if you've paid any attention whatsoever to the nutjob SJWs that infest our society that can be a pretty fucking broad spectrum. Do you seriously want to live in a society where any tiny micro-aggression you make can get you censored or possibly punished?

I think it's because Veeky Forums is anonymous.

You have no inhibition to stick up for yourself and anonymity naturally leads to people acting like dickheads, so unless you can hack the banter you would have left within your first week. Places like reddit, facebook and tumblr have accounts and/or reward systems for what you say so with an identity attached to what they're saying they're more likely to think twice about what they post, and especially with the point systems eventually you learn to get gratification out of conforming.

>They absolutely should be allowed to spew their garbage. People who you disagree with are still entitled to their opinions.

This, although we should also be able to exterminate them.

Fair point. Was literally the first thing I googled. It's not meant to be legal advice, just a framing for what Hate Speech is

>anonymity naturally leads to people acting like dickheads

Nah, it just leads to dickheads acting like dickheads. This drives away most people who just don't want to deal with it, leading to echochambers like /pol/

No, what they wan't is physical violence used to stop people from having "huwt feewings". They're pussies, you have only your self to blame if you get upset over what someone else says. But, sadly, the government will jump on this as an excuse to take away rights.

Any speech that doesn't serves the interests of communist intellectuals.

For example, If I say: "We must throw Marxist professors out of helicopters". That's hate speech. But if a Marxist professor says: "We must abolish the white race as a social category", that's free speech.

Yes, it's literally just their opinion. I don't agree with it, but if it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem proving that to them. Instead you wan't to stick your fingers in your ears like a fucking child.

Everyone would be a dickhead if you gave them the utility for it. It's not that Veeky Forums is some special breed of people, it's just where people are most honest.

I suppose they're dickheads on the inside, but I doubt IRL you'd realize a /pol/tard is half as bigoted and generally toxic as they really are.

What do you mean social category?

Because your former example is a literal avocation for murdering all people teaching that political philosophy. Marxist or not, if it was a serious advocacy for this why wouldn't that be hate speech?

>And honestly, it's not really a slippery slope. Just racism,sexism and homophobia.
and all the other meme phobias right?
why stop there?

>it's just where people are most honest.

It's time to be honest with yourself. If you're a shitty person on 4chin, you're probably a shitty person in the real world. You're just allowed to express yourself here without repercussions

>Comparing murder to redefining categories

Come on man

This.

While it's a little optimistic considering how easily swayed the average person is, in an ideal world free speech (both for opinions you agree with and opinions you don't) promotes discourse. If you have an opinion you have to prove its value in the face of your critics. Censoring opinions that offend you just means you don't have to defend your own stance. This is the height of arrogance, feeling so assured you're right that you won't bother to listen to any that disagree, or even permit them to disagree.

This is why I hate shit like safe spaces and people who can't handle having their views criticized. If your views don't hold up to scrutiny that's your fucking problem. Free speech on all ends of the spectrum permits this scrutiny.

If I say "we should break into user's house and murder him" that is conspiracy to murder. It's also a call to action to commit murder.

If I say "We should work towards make everyone think user is a poo-poo head" that is conspiracy to slander, which isn't a crime, to my knowledge,

Am I gonna go to jail for saying the truth about gypsies or not?

Free speech is more important than someones feelings, besides restricting peoples speech doesn't make people better, it just makes it harder to figure out who the assholes are.

I'll die with my hands around the throats of two gypo children before I allow this to happen

There is a simple way to parse this out.

If the proposition in question can be analytically derived from propositions like " I hate all black people" " Women should be raped into submission" etc then it should be banned. If not then it is fair game.

Isn't it libel illegal in many places, though?

IE if you conspired to get everyone to lie about a person with the intent of destroying their reputation.

Define offense, threat and insult objectively

Not a Veeky Forums thread.
Take it to /pol/

>then it should be banned

By who? And why?

It depends on your perspective, I personally don't think people are necessarily bad just because they make unpc jokes on an anonymous imageboard. I save judgement for truly terrible people

Only two?
What about your toes?

"I hate all black people" isn't necessarily malicious. It could be someone expressing their deep-seated knee-jerk reaction. Saying "I hate all black people" isn't the same as saying "I am going to shoot every nigger I see in the head until this country is bleached." One is a statement of opinion, one is a threat.

Can you tell the difference between your first and second example?
Why should the statement "I hate all black people" be banned when it's merely an opinion? Where do you draw the line? What can you say you hate, and what can't you? Is it for race, political philosophy, what?
Saying "women should be raped into submission" is a call to action, you are suggesting and encouraging that women should be raped. Rape is illegal.
Saying you hate black people doesn't tell anyone to do anything, it's your own fucking opinion. It might be a bigoted opinion, but why should it be banned, except that it offends someone? Now if you said "I think black people should be lynched" that's a different statement alltogether.

Libel is just the actual slandering, not conspiracy. It's that conspiracy that is at issue here.

Safe spaces are not about not having peoples views critiqued, they are about providing an area for members of marginalized groups to come together without fear. It's about sharing the experiences you have as a marginalized member of society.

I honestly don't get why people are anti-safe space.

Why? Give me one objective reason why speech that offends some can't say those things, even if they are hurtful.

(cont)

I'll answer to you: You can't. In the end, it would put another extremely subjective law where the application of said law is entirely on the whims of some law officials personal morality.

>I honestly don't get why people are anti-safe space.

Idiots that don't understand while they complain about them in their own safe spaces

Sadly the "and humanities" leaves this board open to all sorts of philosophical (and by extension political philosophy) discussion.

>Safe spaces are not about not having peoples views critiqued

Hmm..?

>they are about providing an area for members of marginalized groups to come together without fear.

For most of those people, the "fear" IS being critiqued. They see criticism as oppression, this is fairly plain to see.

The problem with safe spaces is the implicit assumption that all other spaces are therefore "unsafe." If it were a serious issue that marginalized groups weren't heard outside of safe spaces, you wouldn't get national coverage of Black Lives Matter protests.

Perhaps I misunderstand the concept, but I've seen safe space been used in a context of a "this is an x safe space therefore you can't disagree here."

Do you consider Veeky Forums a safe space for anything? Because I've not seen any opinions be disallowed so long as they're board relevant. People get shit on for their opinions, but they're not censored.

and religion..

A big problem for censoring free speech, is that who decides what hate speech is, you can just as easily say that someone like Richard Spencer with his racial Identitarian ideas are equally as bad as someone saying we need to lynch all niggers. It's like how leftists abuse words like racist or bigot to the point where they mean nothing and anything can get you labeled bigoted and racist

We did quite recently have a scientist who wrote a book about Gypsies in my country, quite a well researched one but got a lot of criticism because it made Gypsies feel bad and put parts of the blame for their ill adjustement on society on themselves rather htan Swedes, structural racism or something like that.
Should he, even if his book got a solid amount of facts, be banned from publishing the book or even imprisoned if someone perceives his book will lead to hate crimes against Gypsies even if true?

No. The people who commit those crimes are responsible for those crimes. Saying something unpopular isn't illegal in Sweden, is it?

Self defense is obviously illegal in Sweden, so soon it may be.

And if we ban hate speech, and hate speech may mean that you simply claim some group due to any reason is more violent or otherwise more criminal than another, won't that possibly make telling the truth hatespeech.

You really think you could have a positive discussion about feminism on Veeky Forums? A discussion on gender theory? You are out of your mind.

Safe spaces are needed so that marginalized peoples can form opinions in a positive, constructive way without further marginalization.

Parts of 4chin are racist safe spaces. Go to /pol/ and tell them to stop saying nigger and see what happens. If you're lucky, you might get one person that wont spout 3 word responses. It's basically a safe space at this point.

Are Universites gonna get safe spaces for all groups who are there, including Racists and Sexists then?

Those ideas get marginalized in open discussions because they're stupid ideas.

If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you disagree with you don't believe in it at all.

Freedom of speech is a natural right.

Why can't "marginalized groups" form their opinions like everyone else does, by butting heads and discussing with everyone else they meet, out where they can be challenged? Is it because they wouldn't be able to handle it?

No, it fucking isn't, people post gore and shit there all the time.
None will ban anyone eithere, I have seen real discussions with anti racists there.

Sadly political correctness does often impact the publication of scientific / social studies. If you posit a theory that's sound and well researched but controversial, it can seriously damage your career.

I think people underestimate how influential culture and politics really is over science.

>You really think you could have a positive discussion about feminism on Veeky Forums?

What do you mean by positive discussion? Everyone should pretend there is nothing to be critiqued? Or are you trying to say that there are no feminists on Veeky Forums? Because they are, go to /co/, Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums and depending on the thread you can find several.

No, Veeky Forums is not a echochamber where everyone only says positive things about feminism and it's a good thing

>A discussion on gender theory?

Several discussions about gender have appeared in Veeky Forums

I should have clarified. I meant to say that " If we take hate speech as something that should be banned then this is how we should do it. And this parses out what is and is not hate speech."

I don't actually think hate speech should be banned though. As mentioned, we have laws for threats in general. Saying that " we should murder John" is illegal, so "we should murder the blacks" can be illegal under those laws, without hate speech laws even coming in, although the two would overlap if they were both active.

It isn't a matter of right or wrong. The feelings of those hated upon can not be taken into account when determining if certain speech is permitted. I have an absolute responsibility to HATE those against free speech and I have the right to speak out with hatred toward the opponents of free speech.

It might suck and it might destroy the minds of the weak, but that is what freedom is all about.

America is pretty weird that way.

/pol/ has one of the widest range of political beliefs on Veeky Forums.

I see you still don't understand what a safe space is

nigger nigger chicken dinner

nigger I can say nigger all over Veeky Forums
you don't seem to know the difference between a safe space and a containment zone either
safe spaces are protected because they are weak, the sheer power and toxicity of a containment zone protects itself

Racists and sexists have a safe space, it's called society.

>Safe spaces are needed so that marginalized peoples can form opinions in a positive, constructive way without further marginalization.

Criticism of your ideas is not marginalization, nor hate.

...

>Why can't marginalized groups just stop being marginalized

No, it's because some groups won't hear/understand what the marginalized group is saying. That's why they are marginalized.

Thats why I said that it would have to be analytically derived from an explicitly hateful statement.

To give an example: we can derive "he is a bachelor" from " he is an unmarried man". That would be the only fair criteria. So if they can find Spencer saying something like "white north Americans need a homeland of their own" and show us how it can be analytically derived from " I hate non-white people" then that would be a fair way to parse it out imo.

Is that what safe spaces are for? "Positive discussions"?
What's a positive discussion? Somewhere where you can avoid hurtful opinions?
You can discuss whatever you like here (in the relevant board). It's very easy to ignore worthless posts and focus on the posts that actually provide something of value to a discussion. The fact that most people fail to ignore shitposters doesn't suddenly mean Veeky Forums is a safe space for anyone, you are always welcome to post a dissenting opinion as long as you're willing to take some flak. You won't be removed or censored, except perhaps by nature of bump limits usually getting hit sooner in controversial threads.

>safe spaces are protected because they are weak, the sheer power and toxicity of a containment zone protects itself

So hardcore man!

Clear and Present Danger.

Or maybe they just don't have any good points, and claiming that they are "marginalized" is just a way to deflect from this.

>Safe spaces are needed so that marginalized peoples can form opinions in a positive, constructive way without further marginalization

So hiding in a safe space where you don't need to engage in discussion with opposing ideas is the solution?

>Go to /pol/ and tell them to stop saying nigger and see what happens.

Telling someone to STOP saying something isn't the point of free speech. The point is YOU are entitled to say what YOU want to say and be heard. Nobody has to fucking agree with you. The fact that /pol/ has a gathering of likeminded individuals does not make it a safe space for those people, people with contrary opinions can enter the board in exactly the same way, start threads in exactly the same way, and post as frequently as any other poster.

Not in Canada or any European country.

do you deny this?
if I went to your average uni 'safe space' and criticized people there I'd be escorted out by security
if I went to /pol/ and talked shit about trump I'd be ignored, called a shill, or get meme responses

In the end, legislating something like intent to murder or conspiracy to murder is difficult, because it is all about context. You end up with phrases like "reasonable to fear harm from." I don't disagree with you, though. I think specific calls to illegal action should be illegal, at least as a form of criminal negligence.

...

Total free speech is the best way to trash shit idea and shit thinking

Separation of dialogue, and immediately shutting down criticism is the way to not be able to build a meaningful dialogue.

What harmful effects?

And again, define hate speech.

So what if a black man says "white north Americans need a homeland of their own"
Does he hate non-white people?
Even if a white man said it, you can't just assume that because someone advocates for a segregated society that they hate other races. They could be of the opinion that regardless of which races is segregated that societies perform better when they're racially homogenous. Should that opinion be unduly censored? No, he should be allowed to say it, and ecnouraged to prove it. And in doing so if someone can prove him wrong, they should be able to prove it as well.

>the majority and unmarginalized are ALWAYS right ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the time

I dunno, I am not a leaf.

What does seperation of dialogue mean?

What's wrong with saying "i hate non-white people". What is the harm in saying this?

If you pushed it I bet you'd get a debate out of somebody. You'd just need to provide points and somebody would try and dismantle them.
It might be full of shit-flinging but that's the nature of Veeky Forums regardless of ideology.

What makes a group marginalized?

I think I may have expressed myself badly there. More appropriately, it would be the segregation of dialogue between insular groups with no discussion between them.

Not him, but presumably he means creating places where certain people can speak, detached from other discourse. IE certain people are not allowed to contribute or challenge those opinions.

But you yourself followed that logic as well, when you promoted so-called safe spaces.

The only speech that needs to be protected is that which people might not like.