so id say i take pride in bein a hippy, i have to write a paper in class on whether or not hate crime should be accepted. hippies belive in Love & peace and acceptance,but on the other hand they belive in freedom and freedom of speech. so what do you guys think should hate speeches such as KKK, anti-gay etc. be accepted?
In my opinion, the only exceptions to free speech are willful deception and threats. If I were to call you on the telephone and say "I am going to break in to your home tonight and kill you" you would have every right to prosecute me for threatening murder. The same applies if someone speaking publicly states that their goal is to kill all the Jews. However if they merely say that Jews are Jerks then their speach, as hateful as it is, is protected in my view. So in my view, free speech crosses the line not when it becomes hateful (many controversial viewpoints could be construed as being hateful to somebody) but when an actual threat is implied. The same applies to hate crimes; if somone murders a black person and erects a burning cross, it is not just the murder of one black but a threat to all blacks.
All speech should be free. But private institutions should be able to still place professional bans on speech. (It's hard to expect a business office to suddenly drop all the P.C.) I do agree with Zajko on the thread thing, but I must say that when someone issues a threat, then it becomes more of a criminal matter than a free-speech matter.
Yeah, saying "I hate niggers/fags/kikes/insert epithet here" is and should be protected free speech. Even "I think (minority group here) should die" is protected - there's no specific threat. I think George Bush should die but I ain't gonna fly to Washington and kill the bugger... However, saying "I'm going to go on a killing spree and kill only blacks cause I hate them" is really a cause for concern, although still protected free speech. Where the line is drawn is ACTUALLY going on a killing spree, or directly inciting others to do so, not just talking about it. That being said, all counter-arguments are protected, everyone's free to shout RACIST
What do YOU think? Dont think along the lines of a label....what's your opinion as an induvidual? Im confused....are you writing about hate crimes or hate speeches?? Cause those are two totally different ballgames.
Accepted and permitted are two very different things. Do I think that hate speech should be accepted (def: generally approved; usually regarded as normal, right, etc.), of course not. It should be challenged and opposed vigorously at every opportunity. But at the same time, it shouldn't be stifled. In the words of Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I hate to call myself a patriot because I'm pretty ashamed of many things my country has done. But the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines what Canadian values are, and I'm 100% pro-Charter. In terms of hate speech, this is what the charter says (verbatim from the legal document.)[/SIZE] RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW Affirmative action programs. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Essentially, this means that everyone has the right to free speech and everyone has the right not to be discriminated against. But free speech/press/etc. can't discriminate. In my opinion, this is the right freedom people should have
I think hate crimes only further bias honestly. It draws that very definitive us/them line. Punishing someone more or less because they harmed someone of an opposing culture seems silly to me. And I'm not "defending" hate crimes. Just saying they should be treated like regular crimes with no bias given on the basis of race.
hate speech has legal protection. Should we then accept that is is right? No. I expect people to be better than their lawmakers.
alright thanks for all your opinions and i guess i do believe that hate speeches should be tolerated.. we should have the freedom to say what we believe, good or bad
but with our freedom of speech we can say" what a complete bonehead loser" to the person spewing hateful rhetoric.
Yeah, I'm totally down on all censorship. The good thing about freedom of speech is it works both ways. The KKK can come and yell in loudspeakers about how the "niggers" are destroying the country, but you can yell in a loudspeaker right back that they're all a bunch of ignorant hillbilly freaks.
Even with censorship on hate speech, something like "ignorant hillbilly freaks" is merely an insult, it's definitely not hate speech. It insults them for their views, for their actions against others, not their race or religion or anything like that. But I believe that the right to not be discriminated against should almost always overrule the right to free speech. However, there are legitimate reasonable exceptions, for example arguing against changing the traditional definition of marriage by introducing same-sex marriage. Stating that opinion is very different than saying that heterosexuals are superior as people than people of other orientations. In that debate (in Canada, at least), there was never an argument over any kind of inferiority of homosexuals to others. What was argued was whether or not the "traditional definition of marriage" being between a male and a female should be legally changed to include homosexual couples. As it turned out, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is constitutional, thus changing gay rights. If hate speech was permitted over this issue, it would never have been resolved as it was. Sure, there are still "ignorant hillbilly freaks" such as my ex-girlfriend's father. He is the first person I ever met who actually expressed opposite (and and often warped) views on absolutely everything I believe in. As you'd expect, he's fiercely anti-charter. He made hateful remarks about gays, Blacks, Asians, and so many others, which angered me incredibly. He wouldn't dare say anything anti-Semitic in front of me or I'd pretty much kill him (or not seriously kill him, but you know what I mean). He is opposed not only to same-sex marriage (if he had a valid argument, then fine), but he's opposed to considering homosexuals people equal to him. Yes, it's fine for me to call him an "ignorant hillbilly freak" but it would be absolutely unacceptable for him to call me a "kike." This impedes on my rights as a person. "Life, liberty and security of the person" is the essence of what I believe in (the phrase used in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Calling me a kike would affect my "security of the person". Censoring his hate speech (it's fine in his own house, but to express his views to anyone else to spread hate) would remove a small amount of his liberty. Which do you think would be a "reasonable limit in a free and democratic society?" Of course I would say censoring his hate speech because it infringes on the basic human rights of someone else... But that's just my view, anyway.
Maybe this argument, though extreme will get the point across why censorship is evil in all forms, EVEN in regards to hate speech. For the majority of us, it's pretty clear what constitutes hateful speech and what shouldn't be said. Fine. So the way our government works we vote some people into office and they come up with a list of shit you can't say. Well what happens when the people making the decisions about what constitutes hate speech changes? Imagine hitler and the SS's idea of hate speech. Are they on par with you? How about a racist governer? Is his definition of hate speech the same as yours? What about when lobbiest groups decide that this group of people that do action _____ or participate in subgroup ______ are being discriminated against so now that's hate speech. Even though a lot of us here are on the same page, "you know it when you hear it" is not something i want tossed into law in any way. Nor is a list productive, as there will also be omissions in that. The problem is not that we all want to disrespect people, the problem is that censorship is a slippery slope. It's not easy to say "no more!" and all it takes is a shift in leadership to alter the perception significantly and then the law is already on the books. Just mind YOUR OWN speech. Let the rest work itself out.
Do you think maybe a constitution might help? Maybe one that wasn't written a hundred years before Darwin discovered evolution? You're acting as if the government is George Carlin. Sure, I hate the government just as much as all of us, but once there is something to PROTECT the people from the government and prevent a country from becoming a racist fascist police state. I'm a leftist...a strong one. I hate censorship with a passion, more so than most. But all I'm saying is that if you have a document that puts rules in place with the intention of debating what they mean, and use them to protect you as a defense in court. As long as a society has a government, there is an absolute need to protect the people. Hitler and the SS overthrew the government, with no intention whatsoever on following any established systems in already in place. In Canada at least (I'm really not familiar enough with other legal systems to say) those policies on race could never happen unless there was some kind of hostile takeover of the country, and I don't imagine there will be in the foreseeable future.
Well dude, I see what you're driving at and you have a point. Though I'm not sure I want the government deciding how best to protect me. Besides that, constitutions are up for so much word mincing it's not even funny. The question is not what is meant by the text on the page, but how to judiciously edit, interpret, excerpt, and present the text on the page to achieve the desired ends. There's just no long term way to keep everyone on the same page. Besides, a hundred years from now the same problem will come right back again.
hate speeches are useless forms of breeding negative thoughts amonst the peers within a society... nothing good comes from a "hate" speech. debating a subject is usefull. it gives all onlookers and both parties involved incite on what others are thinking and what thier opinions are... A hate speech to me is a onesided ass lashing of another individual, group of individuals, race, religeon and so on and so forth..... there is no need or use for that....
You're right, there's no need or use for it. But does that mean it should be censored? Can't we manage to control ourselves as a group of people without needing some nanny to come down and give us a time out?
Hate Breeds Hate this usually turns to violencecan we controll if people want to be violent ?NoCan we controll the stimulents of the violence ?Yes
There's definitely no possible way to keep everyone's freedom and still have peace within the community (on a large scale). And it's a huge question regarding where to draw the line and what freedoms are more important than others. If there are no limits, minorities will be completely marginalized and hurt, and with censorship, ideas can't be properly expressed. I talk about my opinions regarding society in Canada at this present time. But it's impossible to know what's going to happen in the future. And obviously the situation in every community is going to be different. So what I'm saying is that I may be fiercely pro-Charter for the time being, but you're absolutely right that the problem will never go away and no piece of paper could ever have a long-term solution. I've always wondered if hate has existed since the beginning of human civilization, is it part of human nature? Perhaps it only comes out in some people but is a part of all of us. Not against any specific thing, but in general, do you think it could be some kind of a survival instinct that we have? I can't say that I've never felt hateful...never towards any minority group, but towards specific people. I wouldn't call it discrimination in any sense that we're talking about, I would probably call it a very large degree of arrogance. I felt superiority over them and pride about it. I wouldn't express it to them, but I've spoken badly of them to other people. In retrospect, it was not justified at all, and I was probably more envious of them than anything else. I'm sure all of you have felt this to some degree... Racists are the extreme of this, picking a racial group to blame (arbitrarily) and hate because of their need to feel superior. I certainly hope that it's just pure ignorance that causes hate, but it's a theory I've thought about a little bit, don't know if I agree with it, it's just a thought. Bit still not a reason for censorship. What do you think?
