Should "hate speech" be criminalized?

In theory, no. Because then you run into the problem of, well, who gets to decide what is "hateful" and isn't.

While most could point a finger at, say, the Ku Klux Klan and say, yeah, that's definitely hate speech material. To some, Christianity is hateful, but here is where the divide and arguments come into play. This forum is just but a tiny example of that conversation, mind you, but it is a good idea of how perception towards a faith can, or could, go.

Also, you run into the problem of, when does it go from free speech into hate speech? When you allow exceptions, even in the form of satire or comedy, you allow advantages to be taken via loop holes or the classic "Well, THEY did it!".

This is one of those, it's hard to pinpoint, but you definitely know it when you see or hear it.

 

Making speech illegal is the first step toward making thought illegal. As a free-thinking individual, I find that notion abhorrent.

I also find handing the government (any government) the power to decide what can and cannot be said (let alone thought) to be a pretty scary one. Even if the government is currently 100% trustable (and name one that is), it need not always be.

And what is the supposed reason for giving away our right to free speech? So we can avoid the inconvenience of hearing the Westboro Baptist Church spew ignorance and stupidity? Sounds like a pretty shallow reason to me.

Stupid people will always think stupid things. To think you can legislate those thoughts away is silly and ultimately self-defeating. As long as they think them, I want to hear them...otherwise, we have no idea what's brewing under the surface, and there is no room whatsoever for counter-argument. And I certainly don't want to hand the government what could easily become unbridled power to decide what can and cannot be said.

 

I am all for freedom of speech as hateful and offensive at it is we should not have the right to limit it. As long as it is not threatening the lives of others people have the right to speak their mind and say what they want and I have the right to ignore that person and have no respect for them. If we start limiting the freedom of speech it changes the whole dynamic of what we want to be in this world and everything else. But I even admit there are times where I wish some speech would be banned cause it makes a whole group of people such as christians or republicans all look bad.

 

No.
not in any way shape or form.

 

As much as I despise those who use it, I personally wouldn't. Once you start allowing the State to limit speech, you open the door to limiting all kinds of discussions. Imagine how the Christian Right in this country might pervert such a law, as they've done recently with "religious freedom." There is too much room for "scope creep" with such an idea.

Plus? Makes it a lot easier to figure out who the bigots are! :dry:

 

Unequivocally. Both me, myself and I would be supportive of such a law wherever it is.
And there are in fact such laws in places. Westboro Baptist Church are violators of X number of international charters on human rights. The US has signed at least one that I know of, and are thus violating international law by allowing WBC to, well, exist.

For example, Sweden has been heavily criticized for allowing 'the Swedes' Party', a neo-Nazi political party, to prosper freely, to demonstrate on the streets, etc.

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind..." - Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
" No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." - Article 12, -||-

So, yes, there is such a law. I would firmly support not breaking it.
And a national one (in whichever nation), specific about hate speech - yes, that would also be welcome.

EDIT: Assumptions made to support the above. Gov does not equal illuminati, and gov would be fairyly responsible. Also, the process would be democratic (call me naive, but it is possible).

 

and to a Christian or a republican, what you just posted would be considered hate speech to them.
How does one draw the line on hate speech.

should have said could be considered, not would be considered.

 

I would say no, because then we're starting a thin line where people aren't allowed to say innocent things that could be taken as offensive.

It would be different if said hate speech was violent and could lead to assault.

 

Fair enough. I am christian so what I meant was sometimes hateful speeches by christians makes all christians look bad and like bigots so in that respect it would help some situations where you don't have to defend your beliefs as peaceful and loving which i think they are in my prospective. But the point I was trying to make is that freedom of speech should be protected because it causes room for hypocrisy and double standards. It is better to share things from your prospective such as peaceful loving christianity and fight back that way than ban a constitutional write. It is a matter of where you draw the line and things would be far too complicated if you banned it altogether.

 

No, free speech is a fundamental right for all; even hateful idiots.

 

No. There shouldn't be any restrictions.

 

...i don't really think so.Stopping hate speech will not stop the hateful thoughts.(and as already mentioned who would decide what is hate speech and what's not?).It's also hard to define in some cases whether it's"hate speech" or not.
The key is education.If people know better they won't listen.

Around here insults are officially banned (not that anyone beside politicians and television really are affected by that)

As for denying the shoah/holocaust...it should be forbidden.It's a fact not any kind of opinion and denying it is simply respectless.
(even though its somehow overdone here as in people having to pay for saying that whith the data they gathered not as many people as usually assumed died.But its also kinda understandable why they are so strict about it)

On that note it's also forbidden selling a hakenkreuz and "mein kampf" (it's ok to posses it though) as well as wearing a SS uniform.

 

No, I don't think so. However, I do think we ought to maximize legal opportunities for people to put political and social pressure on those who do engage in hate speech.

If they answer to hate speech is more speech, then I think it's natural for us to demand policies that allow us to document who is engaging in hate speech so that they can make their own decisions within the law (such as publishing allegations of hate speech and organizing boycotts against businesses whose executives engage in hate speech).

I definitely do agree that coercion needs to be applied and applied continuously in order to eradicate hate most of the time, but I think individual action, rather than the law, is the way to proceed about it.

 

Nein.

 

No its a very slippery slope to go down it's is on society to deal with bigots not government

 

No, but people have a right to try to ostracize you from society if they don't like your speech. (also known as freedom of speech only protects you from government punishment. If somebody wants to fire an employee for posting a racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. rant, by all means go for it).

 

nope, who decides what is "hate speech" the government???

so is harsh criticism of the government going to be termed "hate speech"

you can not believe in free speech and want some words or phrases banned from public use. it's not going to make anyone who hates not hate.