Does freedom of speech include hate speech?

everyone has their own unique linguistic understanding of reality

own unique individual/istic* understanding

Yes. There is not such thing as hate speech. That is merely any speech that does not not follow the narrative liberal elites have set up for is.

BLM is a terrorist organization who's founder is on the FBI most wanted list? RACIST

Loads of Muslims are incompatible with western culture and are actively hostile towards it
ISLAMAPHOBE

We shouldn't encourage transgender children to transition as their not even old enough to consent to sex.

TRANSPHOBE

Feminism as a modern movement has become less about equality and more about hating men

SEXIST

It is not illegal to say any of those things you retard.

triggered much bitchboy?

So what you are saying is that conservative straight white males are the most oppressed group and need social justice to gain equality?
Hmmm really makes ya think.

What if someone says, "I hate all black people and I wish I could kill them if I had a chance"

You can make all of those points without sounding like a stereotypical opposite side of the coin to what you're railing against, dude.

People like you are what make anyone with conservative or right-wing beliefs look like fucking raving 14 year olds.

Freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences.

If someone says something that is wrong, they should and will be ejected from every place of civilized discourse.

So, Freedom of Speech in name only?

No, kid, not in name only. You're free to say what you want without being thrown in jail. That doesn't mean it's the government's job to protect you from people thinking you're an idiot because of what you say.

Hate speech and freedom of speech only matter in the context of laws. Otherwise, all speech is considered just speaking.

Yes
Call for genocide included

"People thinking you're an idiot" is different from "ejected from every place of civilized discourse."

im talking about the current laws fucking nigger.
this is a philosophical question go fucking steal iphones.

Hate speech is not free speech.

Also self-censorship is not censorship

Yes, and it should be forbidden because it does disproportionate harm, just like slander is also free speech, but forbidden because it does harm.

Most particularly.

There is no need to assert a right to be nice to people.

Restrictions of freedom exist only to serve the interest of those in power

Better wake up and get out of your safe zone, snugglebunny. The real world is gonna chew you up and spit you out like garbage.

Don't bother replying, if the best you can muster up are personal attacks. It's a waste of time for everyone involved, including you.

Hate speech is a sub section of Free speech.
It's things that are ethically, morally or "lawfully" offensive/wrong.
But they still fall under free speech.
One thing people forget is, there is no such thing as consequence-free speech, as in, even if you are allowed to say whatever the hell you want, doesn't mean you won't have to suffer the consequences. Either that be getting a fine, sued, or kicked in the face.
You can say "I hate the Jews", but don't think you won't get a bunch of people yelling at you, calling you a racist and shit.

>don't think you won't get a bunch of people yelling at you, calling you a racist and shit.
because that's free speech too.

...

I have filed charges for hate speech against you, as I have suffered grievous harm from your hateful words. Expect an arrest at any time.

Nothing of this is illegal, it gets said on a regular basis and most of your example are the general consensus in most areas. So what's your point?

Yes, freedom is freedom.

It's not easy but it is how it is.

exactly, see you get it! You deserve to go outside and feel the sunshine knowing how free speech works and smile. Or not. I don't give a fuck. Fuck you.

Not really, the latter is bound to follow from the former.

In some countries, this is considered hate speech.

Politically tribalism at its finest. I'm not right wing in the slightest.

Black people say that all the time except for white people. It's not considered hateful so no. I don't think so.

fuck off nigger.

Freedom of speech is just an empty buzzword. It has no real meaning in society.

in my opinion, hate speech should be allowed, at least in some forms, or maybe not. It doesn't matter because free speech is just a meme anyway.

Not in the case of Clear and Present Danger.

If we don't have freedom of speech for opinions we despise, we don't have freedom of speech at all.

WOW!

You really hit the nail on the head!

>Does freedom of speech include hate speech?
Of course...

>im talking about the laws of hate speech you fucking nigger
See
Behold!
Racist hate speech

>pic related

>people want free speech
>so long as what people so doesn't 'offend' them

Is there a more retarded point of view?

youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs

In America yes. Rest of the world? Not necessarily.

I would say threats of violence, at the very least credible but then you go down the hole of who decides what's credible. A woman going through a divorce and her husband saying "I'll kill you bitch" might need some protection and vice versa. It is very unreasonable to assume that the person should just wait out until the divorce happens hoping they don't die.

Except the two are literal opposites. Let's observe the following examples.
1) John runs a newspaper. He falsely accuses Bob of embezzling funds, hence committing libel. People reading John's newspaper think Bob is a criminal, he loses his job and has difficulty finding a new job. Even if the allegations are ultimately proven false, there has been permanent damage to Bob's reputation
2) John calls Bob a shiftless, thieving nigger. John's statements are (rightfully) dismissed as baseless accusations based on racial hatred. There credibility of John and his newspaper have been permanently damaged. Bob's feelings may be hurt for a while, but then he goes and has a drink, fucks his girl and gets back to his life.

See the difference?

>your rights ends where my feelings begin
Discuss.

Or John runs a newspaper and published an article implying vigilantly action should be taken against Africian Americans because they commit the most violent crime. Should that be allowed under free speech?

Who's going to listen to such blatant racism? It's 2016.

Look at how Australian media justifies what is happening to the Indigenous.

Yes, but so is people telling you to shut the fuck up in return. You also have the right to not and get ostracized by normal people.

offense is never given only taken

Are you implying people never want to be assholes?

Yes. However, calls to violence should not be protected, anything else should be. The ever expanding definition of hate speech and what is deemed racist, is what concerns me.

>freedom
How does it feel being stuck in the 18th century?

Absolutely. The only reason hate speech has restrictions is because it makes authority feel insecure.

The only speech that should be restricted are verifiable threats.
>I'm going to nuke Washington DC
would only be a verifiable threat if the speaker had access to fissile material, whereas
>I'm going to murder Hiroyuki Nishimura, administrator of Veeky Forums, with a utility knife
might garner some sort of investigation should our admin believe he is in danger.

Other than that, it should all be universally free speech.

No.
Hate basically equals inciting violence which cannot be tolerated.

Yes. Absolutely everything should be allowed and the government shouldn't try to silence you. However that doesn't protect you from the consequences of walking around some bad Detroit neighborhood and shouting "I hate niggers".

Oh fucking neck yourself, cuck.

>Hate basically equals inciting violence which cannot be tolerated.
No, it doesn't.
Idle speech doesn't do shit.
Are you one of those weirdoes whose crazy aunt bought them the book "The Secret" that claims words are magic and make things happen if you wish positively enough?

"Hate speech" is just a modern-day blasphemy. Free speech was invented exactly to deal with this kind of thing. It's like all the discourse around "cultural appropriation" is just another reincarnation of sumptuary laws.

Authoritarianism and oppression will always try to return in the most fashionable ways according to a certain era, it's the job of true liberals to stay alert.

>However that doesn't protect you from the consequences of walking around some bad Detroit neighborhood and shouting "I hate niggers".
It does. Cops might roll their eyes and not investigate too thoroughly, but whatever crimes committed against the shouter would be investigated.

I'd like to deviate a bit on a related theme. Should doxxing be considered free speech, or is it extortion/harassment/coercion?

Yes.

But speech conspiring to commit a crime is evidence that a crime is being conspired, we just have to remember that it isn't the speech that is (to be made) the crime.

Yes, it does.
As made precedent by the International criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, on march 31st 2016.

yes. hate is too subjective.

Yes, just don't act on it.
Talk about how X is the cause of all the problems.
Helps me identify who is an idiot, and in the rare cases where someone can get such an idea when they're actually intelligent.

Yes. Spic here.

Fuck liberals.

This. You shouldve gotten dubs.

If everyone has some set code they live by then idk mine. Are you sure?

I change my opinions on things often

retard

Which countries?

This.

Ahhhh yes, the self-denigrating sub-human seeking approval from his white overlords.

Exactly. It should not be allowed

"T-t-this is f-for your own good, m-mister latino-american".

Fuck you, don't you know i also have to deal with niggers, feminists, and bolivians in my country?

Harassment is not free speech, so you cannot force others to listen to you which means you may need to shut up in certain places.

It sort of has to. The term "hate speech" is too malleable to make for an effective determinant. Just look at Canada and its dumbass "hate speech" laws that don't really accomplish anything than waste resources prosecuting folk for having the wrong opinions.

Absolutely not. Absolute freedom of speech is not freedom of speech at all. It only promotes the oppression of the weak by the strong.

How can you have 'freedom of speech' when the rules that govern what this speech is is determined by the powerful?

'Hate Speech' laws are simply laws that restrict the powerful's hold over what is considered free speech to be more in line with the oppressed's interests.

Is that you in the OP looking like a faggot?

>Absolutely not. Absolute freedom of speech is not freedom of speech at all. It only promotes the oppression of the weak by the strong.
Actually, absolute freedom of speech prevents said oppression by permitting the oppressed to say whatever the fuck they want.

>How can you have 'freedom of speech' when the rules that govern what this speech is is determined by the powerful?
That's clearly not absolute freedom of speech. What are you going on about?

>'Hate Speech' laws are simply laws that restrict the powerful's hold over what is considered free speech to be more in line with the oppressed's interests.
Let's turn this around. Who exactly do you think are the "powerful" vs the "oppressed" are? Because whoever can no longer voice themselves have automatically lost power. Also, who exactly controls what is considered "hate speech?" The oppressed? More often it's the elites who decide they know better than everyone else how people should act or what they should think. Restriction of speech always occurs from the top down.

You are not combating oppression; you are encouraging tyranny.

>People like you are what make anyone with conservative or right-wing beliefs look like fucking raving 14 year olds.

No, he's completely uncensored. He doesn't try to disguise his views with a thin veil of political correctness just so that he can say he's not [Insert Buzzword Here].

I like it.

>Freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences.

Well put. At least if you're talking about social consequences as opposed to institutional or governmental consequences.

Elaborate

>Actually, absolute freedom of speech prevents said oppression by permitting the oppressed to say whatever the fuck they want.

But thats how the powerful oppress the weak. Would we really have as much homophobia in this world if the hateful bigots couldn't spew their filth?

>That's clearly not absolute freedom of speech. What are you going on about?

When being 'politcally incorrect' is about being a racist more than about overthrowing a system of cultural oppression and privlige, I think we have a problem.

>Let's turn this around. Who exactly do you think are the "powerful" vs the "oppressed" are?

The oppressed are usually non-white, non-male and non-straight. I don't know of anyone who disputes that.

>Restriction of speech always occurs from the top down.

Which is why we need more people in the community to police problematic behaviour and stand up to injustice.

I think it doesn't, because hate speech is explicitly violence.

If it purposely incites violence that's where it should be limited, the problem is it's a fuzzy line. If it hurts someone's feelings they should get over it. Even saying another race / group is inferior shouldn't be curtailed, but I think once you start adding "and they should be exterminated" you're crossing a line where you're suggesting a crime.

Generally speaking, if you're shouting "I hate niggers" that's your business, but if you're the guy shouting "lynch that nigger!" around an angry mob then pointing at a guy, just because you didn't hang him yourself doesn't make you blameless.

>Would we really have as much homophobia in this world if the hateful bigots couldn't spew their filth?

You could ask the same question in reverse - would we have as much homophobia in this world if homosexuals couldn't "spew their filth"? Do you not see it as a problem if suddenly the curtailment of freedom of speech prohibits gays from talking about their sexuality? That "don't ask don't tell" philosophy.

So it's okay for right-wing zealots to go around policing homosexuals with their backwards views? These people believe that the mere existance of the LGBTQI+ community is an affront to their doctrine. Why should we allow this hateful garbage?

>We should censor things that offend me, it's 2016 people!

I think homophobes are irrational and complete jackasses, I still think they should be permitted to voice their "hateful garbage" because it isn't freedom of speech if you add caveats that you can only say things that are politically correct. Besides, considering how many social justice nutjobs are about as hateful to people who don't conform to their specific ideologies I'd much rather nobody have the authority to censor than either group, either right-wing zealots or left-wing zealots. I'd rather everyone be able to spout their garbage than one group being curtailed. If someone actually acts upon their hate they've committed a crime and should be dealt with accordingly, until then it's thought-crime bullshit. All censorship of controversial stances does is limits dialogue, if you're so certain your ideology is in the right you should be able to prove it in discourse rather than merely preventing your opponents from voicing their opinion, that's the surest sign of a coward who lacks confidence in their ideology. All ideas, "hateful garbage" or not, should be put to the test through dialogue and argumentation, and if the idea is clearly flawed it can be proven as such. Censorship isn't going to prevent irrational retards from being irrational retards, but it will make some reasonable people think "what are these people so afraid of that they silence dissent?"

Why allow you a say at all? Maybe your degenerate filth is harmful to the average person. Hating on normal heterosexual white folk with your queer propaganda. So shut up! Good thing absolute free speech isn't around, otherwise people might be obligated to let you have a say!

I.e. you fail to realize actual application of free speech is what has allowed so much progress for said causes in the first place.

Of course it does.

That 2011 Supreme Court decision (the one having to do with the Westboro Baptist Church) said that hate speech is protected as long as it doesn't "promote imminent violence" IIRC

Freedom of speech only applies to the government. There are legal private repercussions for exercising your legal right to free hate speech as a private citizen.

Yes, but not threats of violence.
Hate speech van be ignored without direct consequence, but if someone threatens you you'd be stupid to ignore it.