>FREE SPEECH IS AWESOME
>unless I disagree with you, you hate-speech preaching bigot!
The worst part of modern liberals isn't the oppression they cause, it's them thinking they are doing good.

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not really sure where they get "reasonable regulation" out of that, but then again i'm not a liberal.

there is nothing wrong with telling someone you hate them.

>How dare you deny my right to call for a genocide and incite violence.

Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

Hate Speech is Free Speech.

But Hate Speech is also very destructive.

Freedom or Prosperity?

We need to have restricted speech to have multiculturalism.

I'd rather have freedom though; freedom is awesome. This is why different groups shouldn't live together.

>>121401
>>121404
He said nothing about Liberals, or conservatives, or any political ideology for that matter. Why do you have to pull this thread down to the level of all threads on this board (Complete Shit) within the first post.

And this is where liberals lose the high ground regarding civil liberties.

Obvious troll thread. Don't bite guys

>>121566
>when conservatives would do the same thing for anti-Christian speech

Cons of allowing Hate Speech:

It incites violence
It is offensive
It's not constructive
It doesn't brings anything positive to healthy and respectful debate
It ruins lives (see: holocaust)
It ruins nations

Pros of allowing Hate Speech:

None

>>121592
that's how it always works. liberals push for new tools for the government and then the conservatives come in and use these new tools to shit all over the liberals. it's hilarious.

>>121592
except they haven't, you moron

>>121586
I disagree with you! you must be a troll!

>>121592
I'm atheist libertarian, and I don't see christian conservatives passing hate speech laws against christians

It's not like first amendment stuff isn't already regulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

>The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

>>121592

(THIS IS WHAT DUMB REDDIT LIBTARDS ACTUALLY BELIEVE)

>>121474
>>121604
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
-Thomas Jefferson

>>121586

some people actually believe this though, just look at europe and /pol/ is full of filthy liberals

>>121604
>It incites violence
this is illegal.

and the rest: fuck off and die you faggot.

>>121521
pic relted

Cons of allow people to dictate what qualifies as hate speech:
You can be shut up at any time if you don't tow the party line.

Pros of allowing people to dictate what qualifies as hate speech:
If you're in power you don't have anything to worry about.
I've been called someone who supports hatred of women for saying that it's not right for anyone who has been sexually assaulted to plan or execute the murder of their assaulted at a latter date. Somehow this is hate speech against women.

If it isn't a death threat, you should be allowed to say it. This whole concept of hate speech makes me laugh. I thought liberals wanted more personal freedoms, not less.

OP your entire post was hate speech and if I were in charge you would be arrested for saying it

guns don't kill people
hate speech doesn't incites violence

Hate speech = anything a liberal really doesn't want to hear

Nobody censors speech they agree with.

Free speech....

oh wait lol except it isnt free at all.

>>121999
So conservatives never ban books for moral reasons or school textbooks that some petty tyrant school board member decides is too liberal

You believe in free speech or you don't.

zionist divide and conquer propaganda

Hate speech = pointing out truth

>>122079
banning books is a little different from throwing people in prison/fining them for "offending" a "victim group".

OP is obviously a jew that wants people to stop discussing the jewish agenda.

Free speech is legal.

Hate speech is illegal.

Free speech doesn't cover things that could reasonably cause harm to others, incite a panic, etc.

See:
Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater - NOT PROTECTED
Calling for the extermination of an ethnic group - NOT PROTECTED
Spreading slander and libel about someone you don't like - NOT PROTECTED

This can cause immediate and measurable harm.

If you disagree with an ethnic group, you are free to try to convince others with well-formed arguments and evidence.

You CANNOT make shit up or call for their extermination or say things that would reasonably cause a panic.

OP is a jew who wants the agenda to continue to work. (Seriously, sympathy?)

>Hate Speech
>WAAAAAAH stop saying things I don't agree with.

Laws banning hate speech do little more than produce criminals of conscience.

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race...

Corporations are people

Therefore, speaking against Corporations is racist hate speech.

Liberals are disgusting. They want conformity more than even conservatives.

>>125638
If Citizens United weren't specifically about expressing political views [through money], I'd say you could litigate that and win.

I'm pretty sure atheist rhetoric and expressions would incite violence among Muslim communities, even some Christian ones. Are you really going to support a politician that believes in suppressing speech you'd agree with (assuming you are an atheist)?

>>123353
>Free speech is legal.
>Hate speech is illegal.

I agree. You can say ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING you want, so long as it's nothing I don't like. That's free speech.

Millions of americans openly hate teams that oppose their chosen team of fandom, why are they not all arrested?

when hate speech is regulated or done away with, you lose the ability to keep track of them, and keep an eye on them/infiltrate and make sure they're not planning anything

Isn't it a protection from criticizing government? We don't have to listen to each other saying random stuff we might dislike but I don't think government can or should censor political criticism.

>>121447
A moral and just society would not be incited into genocide by mere words. It would take truth and extreme circumstances indeed, but that's not what the fear-mongering media wants you to believe.

Maybe you should snap out of this haze that the world has put you in and realize that words only hold power when they are regulated and excessive meaning is attached to them by the regulators.

Hell, if people are just talking about racist bullshit then you, as a logical and intelligent person, should be able to use your own words to defeat them and stop them from inciting violence and hate, right? Your kind and moral words should triumph if logic and fact is on your side, correct?

>>125813
Give an inch, they take a mile, etc.
Alternately

"This political group/party/affiliation dislikes our candidate and his policies, and I think one of them said something racist"

HATE GROUP

>>125841
Only a idiot would believe such claims so easily though.
>America
oh nevermind

How do you define "hate speech"?

If you define hate speech to mean "anything critical of group (x)," then you have effectively eliminated free speech.

You're free to say anything that I don't disagree with.

>>127012
Hate speech is irrational disparaging hatred of a race, gender, or religion.

I'll defend the right Neonazi dumbfucks have to heil hitler if they want, i'll defend the faggot's right to go on those depraved marches they make and i'll defend the right anyone has to voice their stupid opinions.

Because when i have some shit to say, I want to be heard.

>>130027
Yes, but how can you be sure that someone else won't use the label "hate speech" on someone's opinion for their own agendas? woudn't governments use a ban on hate speeches on dissidents because they're "destabilizing" social order? You see, silencing anyone's voice sets a precedent, a tool that can be used against all of us.

No, that would be Europeans.

Holocaust denial is still very legal in Murrika.

Allowing for hate speech allows hateful bigots to insult whatever race, color, or gender they want to with no recourse. The majority can offend the minority all they want with no recourse because the majority would have the numbers while the minority would not be able to find a way to avoid being offended.

>>121392

Even shit talk should be allowed.

In America we allow Nazis and the KKK to march in parades. Pretty sure we try to live up to that whole "freedom of speech" thing. There are plenty of liberals who hate it though. I actually consider myself fairly left wing but I've talked to a number of "collegiate" types that think things like Quran burning and racial slurs should be illegal while constantly defaming the character of anyone who disagrees with them. I fucking hate those hypocrites.

liberals - destroying freedom in the name of equality

The crux of the issue is in the question "Who defines what 'Hate Speech' is?" A government agency? The courts? Organizations like the SPLC? The U.N.?

It's impossible, and would lead to totalitarianism.

Let me clarify: those who want legislation to control how people THINK and EXPRESS themselves, want government to control every aspect of our lives. They want a nanny state.

>>132240
And you have a right to be offended. Isn't freedom wonderful?

free speech is about fighting for what you hate the most.


Also enlightened despotism = best government.

>>130027
Who defines what's rational and what's not?

>>130027
So is love-speech.

>>130027
That would mean the end of atheism. Which in turn is a religious viewpoint (for the dickshits who will jump in here - yes it is you morons, it is the view that no religion or deity is correct or exists. viz. a viewpoint on religion). You would therefore be denying people their right to religion as well as free speech. Thus banning hate speech is unconstitutional in the extreme.

>>132724

Not the person to whom you're replying, and not in favor of banning hate speech, but what does that have to do with your misunderstanding of atheism?

The only people who have problems with hate speech are the jews and other minorities, and they are desperate to silence white people. If white people are to be silenced by hate speech laws, they must also categorically apply to minorities. Hate speech is an all or nothing proposition, it must apply to EVERYONE, or it applies to NO ONE.

Freedom of speech is exactly that, freedom to say whatever one wants. So is anyone seriously going to argue against free speech on fucking 4chan? Talk about hypocrisy.

All issues have different opinions. On a lot of issues, there are multiple equally legitimate opinions, IE no right and wrong or correct and incorrect view.
Freedom of speech, however, is NOT one of these. You're either right or wrong here. You can be against freedom of speech, just like you can be of the opinion that the earth is actually flat, but someone holding an incorrect view point does not legitimize it.

>>132546
>>130027

This goes back to the problem of emotions.

We should ban emotions.

>>135203
Go back to Vulcan, Surak.

>>121392
any limit on speech is a violation of the first amendment. the first amendment is not so we can talk about the weather. its their so we can say very controversial things. like the 2nd amendment it is their to protect us from the government.

Any sort of government imposed restriction of freedom of speech is a violation of the constitution in the US. Any other questions?

>>135313
>>135270

But the constitution is a living document, it must change with the times! It must become a progressive document, that understands that minorities need to be protected by harmful speech.

>>121724

That's a common misconception. THey'll say they're for free speech all day long and then seriously consider banning hate speech.

This is problematic in that, well... who determines exactly what that is? There was a guy in Britain who put up a sign around the last election saying "Throw the lot of them out" in the colors of the Union Jack. He was determined by the police to be making a racist statement and arrested.

tl;dr the best part of OP ran down the crack of his mother's ass and he needs to learn that freedom doesn't come with fine print. Fuck! I hate you statist pieces of shit so much.

>>135371
words are just words nothing more nothing less. its regulation that attaches actions to words then they become evil. what the fuck happened to sticks and stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me.

You can't put a limit to speech if you want it to be free. Fucking pussies man. For any government to tell you that you can't say certain things is utterly ridiculous.

>>135396
insults leading to violence between individuals is one thing.

Free speech is about not letting the government stamp down on people saying the truth.

>>135371
Incorrect.

>>135458
he was being sarcastic.
Yuo need to be able to recognize these things.

>>135371

So fucking untrue it's not even funny

>>121465
>>121465

sure, tyrone

>there are things called systems
>speech constitutes a system
>free speech is a system
>a system has an element of duration: either a system tends to destroy itself (by inner contradictions kept sustained), or a system tends to maintain itself existing (ontologically positive; does so by ""solving"" contradictions)
>hate speech threatens the positive existence of free speech, for it compromises the elements of the system of speech to reproduce itself (since they are disallowed to have a speech)
>hate speech must be suppressed in order to maintain free speech positively existing

inb4 paradox
-formally, yes. put in praxis, no.

inb4 you define hate speech herp derp
read again

>>135798
>liberal logic

HERESY!

Each society has its own word for HERESY!

Communists called all HERESY! fascism. Fascist Italy called all HERESY Communist.

Today, under the Politically Correct tyranny, HERESY! is called HATE! or “racism.” Nobody wants to try to deal with points like the ones I make, so they start demanding that nobody say it, just like any other tyranny does. They call people who speak HERESY! names.

You Political Correctness fanatics are playing a very old game.

When you call people names who disagree with you or scream Hate or racism, a.k.a., HERESY! it says nothing about the point we heretics make.

But it tells us ALL about YOU.

>>135798
What the fuck are you on about? What a bunch of philosophical dick stroking bullshit.

>>135878
Anti-white "liberal" scumbag making excuses for censorship.

>>135818

>argues labeling what was said

conservatives, try harder

>>135887
>>135878

just for your your information, this is plain logical formalism. arent you gonna try any harder besides typing HERP DERP LIBERAL HERP

mfw im not even what you americans call "liberal"

>>121392
>Americans don't understand that "hate speech" isn't the same thing as "free speech"
Your dislike of my unique American view on freedom of speech is clearly rooted in your hatred of American culture. I am deeply offended and you need to apologize and beg the forgiveness of my ancestors. Seriously though, most of us believe that censorship is more dangerous than hateful use of freedom of expression. If anything, censorship lens credence to hateful expression.

>>135878

AMEERICA FUCK YEAH

(i didnt understand what he said. but since hes a liberal, he must be wrong)

FUUCK YEAH

>>135798
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with that unnecessarily over-complicated pseudo-intellectual bullshit you just made up. All it means is everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and if you don't agree you can fuck off.

>>136056

this is what we called logics in my country. in conservatives-english it must be called UNIFENAIFUNAIFUNAHFBJEHFBAJHFBJAHFBAj, since none has ever heard about it.

>>136091
Well it sounds like bullshit to me, bullshit that needs cut with occams razor.

>>136116

>doesnt understand thing
>thinks its complicated
>must be false since its complicated for my understanding
>occam's razor is the solution

not sure if stupid or just trolling

>>136171
>retarded leftist psuedologic babble
>starts with retarded assumptions that come straight out of communism
>procedes to a point that is quite clearly divorced from reality
>complains about "conservatives" calling him on his lunacy

HURR, OUR FREE SPEECH IS STRENGTHENED WHEN WE BAN IT!

>>136171
It's false because it argues against freedom of speech, not because it's complicated. The truth is very often beautifully simple, which is why occams razor is used. Any country that claims to be free in anyway must acknowledge the right of freedom of speech.

>>136191
>>136191

what comes out of communism? jesus, im not even a communist. sir, this is a system. these kinds of things are well known in a thing we do called science. in science we don't simply link pat buchanans interviews to state something.

>>136245

circular logic is circular. let me try to put my argument another way:

1. there is free speech
2. we want free speech, dont we?
2.1 no, we dont want it. so free speech must be destroyed. here ends the process in this case.
2.2 yes, we want free speech
3. hate speech exists
3.1. no, it doesnt. if this choice is made, the process ends.
3.1.1 yes, it does.
4. hate speech compromises the plain free speech.
4.1. no it doesnt. here ends the process. both hate speech and free speech exists and are not mutually excluding
4.1. yes it does. hate speech and free speech are mutually excluding. we have to suppress one of these in order to have one of them existing (positively).

my argument for why hate speech compromises free speech is here >>135798

>>136330

"both hate speech and free speech *exist"

>>136330
Again filled with logical fallacy. The reality of freedom of speech can be summed up in three points:

1. People have a right to say whatever they want.
2. Governments do not have the right to pass any law infringing upon that right.
3. People do not have a right NOT to be offended.

>>136330

I haven't been posting, but I read your posts.

Why will you not define what hate speech is?

Who defines what hate speech is?

Do people have a right not to be offended?

>>121392
Obviously "hate speech" is a subset of "free speech."

The mere concept of 'hate speech' is antithetical to the idea of free speech.

The constitution affords you the right to offend someone with your speech. It affords you the right to insult someone with your speech, it affords anyone the right to be a miserable sonofabitch towards others with their speech. It does not afford you the right to not be offended. Nothing affords anyone the right to protection from offensive speech.

Ban all hate speech laws. They do more harm than good.

>disconnecting the exercise of free speech from self-ownership and property

Should hate in itself be illegal?

>>136440
I think this video pretty much sums it up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPhje8wepyg

Go Fuck yourself Nigger...

( i feel very Free right now)

( Hateful would be "i got pics of your mom sucking a Nigger's Cock...and smiling in each pic !" )

>>136490

Define hate?

>>136370

>implying im talking about government to do anything. and this is not informal logic, this is logic build through a system. these are philosophical concepts btw.

>>136374

hate speech is a speech that deprives some elements to exercise speech. ive said it before. who defines? its and ontological condition: as in highlander, there can be only one. hence, its not about getting offended.

I believe that free speech is good but we should not tolerate anti-white speech.

In order to safeguard free speech, anti-white speech must not be tolerated.

Almost all first-world countries have laws against hate speech. Why shouldn't America?

example time!

Time to compile the list of hateful speech type thingies that are considered hateful by liberals

NOTE ...Most "hate words usually describe a subgroup of the liberal voting demographic....i'll start....FAGGOT

>>136495

>post a system based in logics
>this is therefore universal
>people try to argue with american constitution

mfw

Wetback....

>>136546

lol wut

>>136572

no laws

>>136572

Who defines what hate speech in those countries consists of?

Can anyone on this board define hate speech?

>>136637

you just went full retard

>>136611

No, no, no those are undocumented workers and
loving human beings. I'm gonna call Eric Holder and he is gonna convict you of a hate crime.

>>121392
The reason that the founding fathers gave us free speech, is so we can state the controversial without getting arrested.

Consider the good words of some who we call evil, and consider the bad words of some we call good.

"In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith. And so I considered that the tone adopted by the anti-Semitic Press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of a great people. The memory of certain events which happened in the Middle Ages came into my mind, and I felt that I should not like to see them repeated." - Adolf Hitler

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man." - Abraham Lincoln

People strive to live in a free society where their opinions can be spoken without consequence.

If you would just let der fuhrer say bad stuffen about das Juden we wouldn't of had the turn Auschwitz into the world largest ashtray...just saying

>>136644

Thats hate speech using the R-word I'm telling.

you know what ?
I am not surprise at all
Freedom in westerner ideology is always paradox in itself . it is impossible idea even in metaphysic way , no one actually understand when some one want to have "freedom to hate freedom"

>>136644
...retard

...that's just gay

>>121392

OP is on to something here, there could be great potential in adressing this american'ts, heed the OP well

>>136704
would it be hateful to remark on the size of this womans congas...see has huge tits too

>>136637

It should take into account the context, such as the picketing of funerals. It's not just the words.

>"In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith. And so I considered that the tone adopted by the anti-Semitic Press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of a great people. The memory of certain events which happened in the Middle Ages came into my mind, and I felt that I should not like to see them repeated." - Adolf Hitler

I used to agree with his sentiment, until I discovered that jews were a race/ethnicity.

Not just any race/ethnicity, but the kind that propose and support hate speech laws to keep their evil machinations from being exposed.

>>136679

so. isnt anyone present solid arguments? im gonna hit the hay in a min.

>>136637
>Who defines what hate speech in those countries consists of?

Leftists.

>Can anyone on this board define hate speech?

Anything critical of progressive ideology.

jesus christ.

when i was younger i was a fat kid. i got made fun of often for around 5 years. i lost the weight eventually.

but i don't think anyone should be fucking fined or locked up for insulting me.

oh, and before someone argues that "at least you had a choice when it came to being overweight" that didn't fucking soothe anything after a long day of being teased at school.

so basically, liberals need to fuck off.

>>136772
Yea, it was a scam from a beginning, that holocaust.

Martin H Glynn wrote a news article that predicted the "Holocaust of 6 million Jews", which he keeps repeating in the news article.

We didn't even fight Germany for any right reason.
We heard that Adolf Hitler wanted to take over the world, but he wasn't actually a globalist; he only planned to extend Germany into parts of Communist Russia. And then there was the fact that Adolf Hitler was anti-semitic; but then again, most people in the world was anti-semitic. Hitler actually wanted to ally Britain and America, Britain mostly.
Everybody thinks that Hitler is the main attraction of WW2 nostalgia; but in reality, the Japanese, the Soviets, and the Italians could have been equally popular. In China, the Japanese men used thousands of Chinese women as sex slaves; It was a Nazi that got thousands of Chinese women into safety.
Again, Hitler wasn't so bad as people made him out to be; he had Jewish and African soldiers, unbelievably.

I believe it was the Jews that made everybody want to fight Germany; after all, he was the one behind "The Holocaust".

People should stop framing this as a liberal vs. conservative issue. There are people for and against "free speech" on both sides of the aisle.

Can there be just one thread where people are discussing just the issue instead of just ranting like idiots about liberals and conservatives? Who am I kidding, of course we can't.