Hate Speech

[revolutio]

There has probably been a topic on this but here is another one.

What are your views on hate speech? Do you think it should be allowed? Are your views on it influenced mostly by your own experience or by your religion/philosophical beliefs?

 

[Vylo]

A good defintion of hate speech would be appropriate.

Voicing your opinion on something, even if hateful, is protected by the first amendment. However, if you directly threaten someone during such speech, that could be consider a serious threat and a condoning of acts against a person or group.

 

[ms_lizzie]

If we do not have hate speech then we will also lose the right to disagree vocally. Too often hate speech is abused by those who truly kill with words. However, hate speech is so broad that it can include dissenting voters, Christian interest groups, and those who oppose "politically correct views". So unless we have a long geneology of Christian leaders, which in Canada we do not, then hate speech is necessary for even the Christians to speak their views.

Times are changing and so are politics. I would not be surprised to see more repression of Christian views in the mainstream.

What do you think?

 

[ms_lizzie]

P.S. By 'Christians to speak their views" I am referring to Canada passing a same-sex marriage law in which many Christians have been considered using hateful words.

 

[kdet]

'Hate Speech' Law Could Chill Sermons
Pastors say bill would restrict preaching against homosexuality.
Tomas Dixon in Ljungskile, Sweden | posted 07/25/2002


Swedish lawmakers have given initial approval to a law that could have a chilling effect on preaching against active homosexuality. Voting in May, Sweden's parliament, the Riksdag, passed on first reading a bill criminalizing "hate speech" against homosexuals. A final reading will occur this fall.

While targeting Nazi and racist hate campaigns, the bill also addresses "church sermons," causing conservative Christians in Europe to sound the alarm.

"The bill clearly violates the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights," said Johan Candelin, president of the Religious Liberties Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance and a Finnish Lutheran pastor. "If the bill passes, it will place Sweden on level with China, with the state defining which theology is permissible."


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/009/15.22.html

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

I posted a thread in News about a nazi recently arrested due to his swastika tattoo. I think freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and should in no way be restricted. If we do not like what someone says, we can turn our back to them, or try to show them the "light" so to speak. But it definitely should not be against the law.

 

[ZiSunka]

I honestly think that if any kind of speech is forbidden, all types of speech are in danger.

Because we are separate people with separate minds, it's impossible to only say things that cannot be conscrued as hate. I might not like lima beans, and you might be a lima bean farmer. If I say I don't like lima beans, the farmer might conscrue that as hate speech that is trying to influence other people to hate lima beans. You laugh, but that's what happend to Oprah in Texas in, what was it? 1996? Oprah was sued for making hate speeches against beef, because she said it was unhealthy to eat beef.

 

[kdet]

I honestly think that if any kind of speech is forbidden, all types of speech are in danger.

Because we are separate people with separate minds, it's impossible to only say things that cannot be conscrued as hate. I might not like lima beans, and you might be a lima bean farmer. If I say I don't like lima beans, the farmer might conscrue that as hate speech that is trying to influence other people to hate lima beans. You laugh, but that's what happend to Oprah in Texas in, what was it? 1996? Oprah was sued for making hate speeches against beef, because she said it was unhealthy to eat beef.

It boils down to who is interpertating what to be hate speech. It is too vague and can be too easily used to oppress another's rights while trying to protect someone else. Two wrongs never make a right.

 

[Vylo]

Here is an example I gave of hate speech in another thread, the first one being the only one protected under the 1st amendment:

So long as you are not calling explicitly for the oppression or persecution of that group that would be permissible.

Examples (these do not necessarily represent my own views):

1. "Homosexuality is an evil act that promotes immoral behavior. It spreads disease and is against the natural order that god has made for us. It is an abomination." - While hateful this is an opinion that the person would be enititled to.

2. "Homosexuality is an evil act that must be eliminated by any means possible. We cannot allow them to have legal marriage rights under any circumstance. Be sure to keep the pressure on our senators to make sure any bill that might promote this abomination is crushed". - This is advocating the oppression of another person or group and directly telling people to participate in it.

3. "Homosexuality is an afront to god that must be purged from this nation. We must force them to mend their ways, or punish them for their wrong doings. We must not suffer them to exist" - This would be advocatiing the persecution of of another person or group and directly telling people to participate in it.

 

[Vylo]

It boils down to who is interpertating what to be hate speech. It is too vague and can be too easily used to oppress another's rights while trying to protect someone else. Two wrongs never make a right.

Agreed, can you count how many times an atheist has taken a christian's opinion of homosexuality on this board, and thrown it back in their face as though they were advocating oppression/persecution, even though it was benign?

I think it would be a very large number.

 

[kdet]

Here is an example I gave of hate speech in another thread, the first one being the only one protected under the 1st amendment:

I thought you handled this question beautifully.

 

[ZiSunka]

So, how do you "control" hate speech when everyone would interpret that differently, without robbing the nation of any type of speech at all?

 

[Jet Black]

it depends if it is incitement or not. if it is incitement then it should be illegal, if it is simply stating an opinion then no it shouldn't.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

Here is an example I gave of hate speech in another thread, the first one being the only one protected under the 1st amendment

So long as you are not calling explicitly for the oppression or persecution of that group that would be permissible.

Examples (these do not necessarily represent my own views):

1. "Homosexuality is an evil act that promotes immoral behavior. It spreads disease and is against the natural order that god has made for us. It is an abomination." - While hateful this is an opinion that the person would be enititled to.

2. "Homosexuality is an evil act that must be eliminated by any means possible. We cannot allow them to have legal marriage rights under any circumstance. Be sure to keep the pressure on our senators to make sure any bill that might promote this abomination is crushed". - This is advocating the oppression of another person or group and directly telling people to participate in it.

3. "Homosexuality is an afront to god that must be purged from this nation. We must force them to mend their ways, or punish them for their wrong doings. We must not suffer them to exist" - This would be advocatiing the persecution of of another person or group and directly telling people to participate in it.

Then many on here are committing hate speech, when they advocate the oppression by not supporting marriage of homosexuals. (#2 for anyone who missed it)

 

[kdet]

Then many on here are committing hate speech, when they advocate the oppression by not supporting marriage of homosexuals.

That statement doesn't even make sense.
You just gave a textbook example of why hate speech laws are wrong.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

vylo said...."Homosexuality is an evil act that must be eliminated by any means possible. We cannot allow them to have legal marriage rights under any circumstance. Be sure to keep the pressure on our senators to make sure any bill that might promote this abomination is crushed". - ****This is advocating the oppression of another person or group and directly telling people to participate in it.**** (meaning it is hate speech)

sweetkitty said...I thought you handled this question beautifully. (meaning she agrees)

Shaman said...Then many on here are committing hate speech, when they advocate the oppression by not supporting marriage of homosexuals

sweetkitty says...duhhh

seems pretty easy to understand, with my basic high school education. but then again, i do like to read.

 

[ZiSunka]

Then many on here are committing hate speech, when they advocate the oppression by not supporting marriage of homosexuals. (#2 for anyone who missed it)

Get a grip. You are saying that failure to support someone else's pet project is de facto hate speech?

See how complicated it gets? Now, it's not only what you SAY that consitutes hate speech, it's what you DON'T say, too.

The whole idea of censoring people by calling their words or lack of words "hate" is out of control.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

Get a grip. You are saying that failure to support someone else's pet project is de facto hate speech?

See how complicated it gets? Now, it's not only what you SAY that consitutes hate speech, it's what you DON'T say, too.

The whole idea of censoring people by calling their words or lack of words "hate" is out of control.

oh i get it....if you dont like it, pretend to not understand it. that is genius! I will have to remember that.

 

[ZiSunka]

oh i get it....if you dont like it, pretend to not understand it. that is genius! I will have to remember that.

Oh, I got it. It was just stupid.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

Get a grip. You are saying that failure to support someone else's pet project is de facto hate speech?

See how complicated it gets? Now, it's not only what you SAY that consitutes hate speech, it's what you DON'T say, too.

The whole idea of censoring people by calling their words or lack of words "hate" is out of control.

and uh no, i didnt say it someone else did...

taken from vylos' post

2. "Homosexuality is an evil act that must be eliminated by any means possible. We cannot allow them to have legal marriage rights under any circumstance. Be sure to keep the pressure on our senators to make sure any bill that might promote this abomination is crushed". - *****This is advocating the oppression of another person or group and directly telling people to participate in it.**** (hate speech not protected under the first ammendment)

I just think it is funny that people on here are always denying their speech is hate speech.(when in fact they do plan on voting against the right to marry, and incite others to do the sam, shich is oppression)..but then they agree with this post...funny...