No Stupid Questions

It really depends on who defines what hate speech is.

Is questioning the Zionist genocide hate speech? Is being an outspoken socialist hate speech against capitalists? Is stating you want to separate church and state hateful against Christians? Is supporting Palestine hate speech in the UK?

I'm a fan of free speech. Unless it is literally inciting violence or panic.

It's fucked up innocent people holding Palestine action signs are being arrested in the UK. Attacking free speech is what leads to situations like that.

I think hate speech should be censored online and from the press, but allowed irl

Wanna say controvertial shit, own up to it in person lol.

Dont just hide behind a keyboard

(Should require a court to approve of such censorship

Something like a Grand Jury thats sitting for a long term, but require a 3/4 supermajority to censor it)

You cant sockpuppet IRL lol

Can you think of a useful purpose it serves?

If it were not, it would just be inviting the government take a massive dump all over it.

Despite the crapshow that is the current US government, you can't be arrested for standing in front of the Whitehouse shouting your support for whatever idea or group you beleive in (granted you are a Citizen of the USA).

Compare that to something like the UK where people have been charged and thrown in jail for wearing a t shirt or holding a sign, even outside of a protest because the government can just designate whatever it wants to be "hate speech".

Private spaces like social media are not bound by this which is fine, but social media is so ridiculously controlled and filtered as a result, that you're better off sticking to a non mainstream platform (like lemmy) where your comments won't get banned and deleted for stepping out of line.

No, hate speech should not be protected, and there's an obvious reason for that. We already recognize that speech that purposely harms people is not protected, for example going into a theater room and screaming FIRE causing people to panic and stampede and killing someone the person will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That is not so different from someone going online and saying "gay people should be killed" and causing people to go out and do that, in fact I would even drop the involuntary from the charges against that person, because his intention was clearly to incite someone to do it. I'm not taking away the responsibility from the person who committed the act, but this situation is similar to a how in a group planning a crime even the boss who was in every meeting telling people to commit the crime but did not actually participate in gets charged with. And the same excuses apply "No, I didn't think that because I told them to go and kill someone they would do it" is not a valid defense for a mafia boss, and it shouldn't be for any person with public influence.

I really wonder how many people in this thread have ever had hate speech directed at themselves.

If it already is, because it had already been decided. People once again misunderstand what exactly the 1st Amendment even covers. It protects you from the government silencing your voice and expression, which is what someone like Trump has been working hard to do.

It does not and should not protect you outside from that. You do not have a case on your hands when you're banned from an online forum for using hate speech. Because that forum, is not the government. Facebook, is not the government. Reddit, is not the government. So on and so forth.

Despite interesting debates. I think they all ignore the big issue: the internet.

No, it should not. "My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights." is the basic law of humanity. Any law book should basically follow this line, and mostly actually do.

Isn't it suspicious you're the one who said "Fuck them" about Gaza children?

Everybody should be able to say anything they want, and everybody else should be able to make fun of them.

The problem is you hand government and courts the right to decide what is hate speech.

In the UK the government is already trying to classify anti-zionist speech as banned hate speech.

Laws are weapons, your enemies can use them against you.

Hate speech laws are fascist. As in, they are laws that differentiate between people. Some are protected but not beholden, while others are beholden but not protected. These laws are already used to protect cultist child abusers from criticism.

Yes because otherwise you can shut down speech you dislike by labeling it "hate speech"

Yes.

They should be encouraged to say whatever they want to say.

What they really want isn't freedom of speech but freedom from consequence. And that's something they shouldn't have.

By voluntary associations (like a fediverse instance) absolutely not.

By government? Absolutely. What happens when disparaging the One True God Baby Jesus or His Followers is declared hate speech?

Whatever powers you give the government, you also give to the worst form of that government which you can imagine. The civil liberties that protect rapists and drug dealers are the same ones that are helping keep more people from being kidnapped by ICE in America.

Yes it should. "your freedom ends when you start to hurt my feelings" is just plain censorship, as anything you don't like can be labeled as hate speech

I think that if something is made illegal, it should be very clearly defined. "Hate speech" is wide open to interpretation and can easily be used to silence all kinds of speech. The issue isn't the obvious cases but where exactly we draw the line. If that line can't be made crystal clear, it's a slippery slope toward tyranny. Being offensive is okay - spreading hate and inciting violence isn't.

I think it should. People should me able to say what they want. Even the most stupid or hateful things. They are thinking them anyway, it's not like hat it's going to disappear with a ban on hat speech. Hate speech is the expression of the hateful thinking but not the root.

Ban on hate speech would be like puting on a blind and thinking that you made the sun dissapear.

The US extremist version of freedom of speech that also means freedom from consequences to what you say has nothing to do in a functional society. Which is why only the far right parties try to adopt it.

!usdefaultism@lemmy.world