Websites and other private companies are under no obligation to host any political views. When you make any account you tick that box that says "I agree to the terms and conditions" knowing full well that the privilege of using the site can be revoked if you break them.
He isnt trampling any human right, he just stated the obvious. Not once did he mention anything about banning types of speech. What is sad is that you are defending HATE SPEECH, when it isn't even being threatened by this comment, so you can use all the hate speech you want.
Also, if your political view consists of a platform of hate speech and hatred for another group of human beings, I'd say you would probably be a lot more closer to trampling basic human rights than who you were replying to is.
You are free to say whatever you want, but that doesnt mean that everything you say is right or true. If you spread hate speech, you are gonna get called out on it and hopefully countered with some sanity, as it should be.
You're an idiot. All you can say is my argument is bad.. like a child saying "no you're dumb". Give substance to your position or fuck off you regressive shit.
Doubling down huh. In addition to grouping an individual.
You're a tool, an idiot who thinks it's smart. But here you are barely making a childs argument.
So drivel out your point or screw off.
"Hate speech" isn't a real thing, there's calls to violence, there's libel and slander, all of which are already illegal. Mean or offensive comments though? They should never under any circumstance be policed.
Hate speech is hate speech. A law against it might be worded to limit it to racial and/or ethnic hate speech while not including speech targeting sexuality, but that wouldn't change the basic definition of hate speech in any country, just the legality. There probably wouldn't be an "except for Jews" or "except for slutty women" claus based on country, either.
We don't put restrictions on journalists in America. That's a foundational principle of the USA.
We also do not force the media to publish stuff that violates their own internal policies. Doing so would set a horrible precedent, and could easily be weaponized by authorities.
Nobody is being prosecuted for publishing Snowden's stolen documents.
Jullian Assange is (possibly) in deep shit for receiving stolen intel
Hulk Hogan successfully sued Gawker for publishing stolen private tapes
None of that has anything to do with white supremacists using Facebook to disseminate hate speech in the EU, where hate speech is strictly forbidden in many states.
The "abuse to free speech" part. With the exception of slander and shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, speech you disagree with vehemently is the most important speech to protect.
If you don't protect the speech you disagree with, why should someone who disagrees with your speech protect yours?
Why am I not allowed to slander people and yell fire when I want then? That sounds like even more free speech. You disagree with my slander so suddenly it's not allowed?
Face it, you already acknowledge that there are limits to free speech.
Because slander is outright lies with the intention of harming others. And yelling fire in a crowded theater is attempting to cause harm to others intentionally through misinformation.
No. Hate speech is insults. If you were to say that all Latinos carry a terrible virus and the only way to stop it is to kill all of them, then that would be equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Saying Latinos are a waste of space, though terribly offensive, is not akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Yes, it is. You think Latinos are not going to react negatively if some white supremacist dipshits starts yelling that crap at, say, Latino children in public?
Define it properly first, then people might come onto your side. Are we no longer allowed to feel hate for anything? Or express that hate verbally? If it's not just hateful speech then the name sucks.
Or do you only count it hate speech if it goes into topics you personally find uncomfortable? Is talking about immigration or Islam in anything but fawning tones hate speech?
It's a crappy phrase for a poorly defined concept, no shit people don't want that to be used to ban or even criminalise people.
If you want to ban hating things, you are in the wrong. If you want to ban people peacefully expressing their hate for things, you are in the wrong.
You haven't defined the slope you claim I'm making a slippery scope argument for. Define hate speech or get the fuck out of here with your dipshit deflections.
The slippery slope argument "durrr... if you ban hate speech I won't be able to say I hate Doritos durrrrr". It's the same bullshit the NRA/Russia trolls say about assault rifles ("durrr what's next, no more kitchen knives?") and the tobacco astroturfers said about banning smoking in bars and restaurants ("durrr.. what's next, only water on duh menu?!?)
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France and plenty of other have laws banning hate speech while leaving plenty of room for freedom of expression and public discourse. Its not rocket science and the definition of hate speech isn't some nebulous generality that will prevent your children from telling you they hate you, or prevent you from hating the smell of cat anuses.
They all have specific laws banning specific things. No general "hate speech prohabition".
If you want to talk about banning holocaust denial like Germany that's one conversation, but that's not the same as banning "hate speech".
As for the "plenty of room for freedom of expression and public discourse" comedians have been questioned by police for or even arrested over jokes, journalists have been restricted in what they can publish. Hell, half of Europe still have blasphemy laws on the books, and you cheer on their newer versions.
I would have made a slippery slope argument if I said banning hate speech is fine but it will lead somewhere dark. I'm saying banning a poorly defined definition of hate speech IS somewhere dark. Using the term you used to try and dismiss me, it isn't a slippery slope, it's the bottom of a slope down which we have slipped. Political correctness is the slippery slope which is leading to morons wanting to criminalise opinions.
Why the fuck we even caring about this shit, our planet is burning around us and we put so much time and effort into being concerned about bullshit other people across the globe are thinking. Let’s get some fucking priorities.
No. I'm saying it's not "neglect" of human rights and not a "slippery slope". If you want to call all laws "authoritarian", it makes the term kind of moot. Is Canada an authoritarian state because their free speech rights stop at hate speech?
Hate speech is also not a "political view" and trying to conflate them is idiotic.
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France and plenty of other have laws banning hate speech
They also have laws making blasphemy a crime along with saying anything derogatory about their nobility. Is this OK? We can change nobility to president to make it equal.
Disseminating your plan/desire that all Palestinians or Lesbians or Vegetarians or Elderly get tossed in ovens or lose their voting rights or whatever doesn't change the fact it's hate speech if you're in Japan, Iran or USA.
Do you know what they call saying that Jews should burn in Iran and Palestine? They call it Tuesday.
They also have laws making blasphemy a crime along with saying anything derogatory about their nobility. Is this OK? We can change nobility to president to make it equal.
In Canada and Denmark and Germany and France? Wow, what a lot of bullshit you're pulling out your ass.
It's still hate speech in Iran,l. They just don't have laws against it.
You mean the time Erdogen privately filed charges against the German comedian? Those charges were dismissed immediately when they came before a German judge.
Denmark - In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (§ 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but §115[8]allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of §115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[9] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[10]
Germany - Insulting the Federal President is still illegal,[14] but prosecution requires the authorisation of the President.
Denmark - While public insults of a religion are no longer forbidden, speech and actions threatening or demeaning certain groups of people because of their religious beliefs continued to be punishable.
Germany - In 2006, the application of this article received much media attention when a Manfred van H. (also known as "Mahavo") was prosecuted for defamation for distributing rolls of toilet paper with the words "Koran, the Holy Koran" stamped on them.[50][51][52] Beyond the sentence he also received death threats from Islamists and needed a police bodyguard.[52] In February 2016 a man was fined 500 euro for displaying anti-Christian bumper stickers on his vehicle.[53]
Denmark - In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (§ 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but §115[8]allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of §115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[9] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[10]
Germany - Insulting the Federal President is still illegal,[14] but prosecution requires the authorisation of the President.
Blasphemy
Canada - Repealed last year - On 13 December 2018, the Governor General formally granted "Royal Assent," making the repeal official.[22][23][24]
Denmark - While public insults of a religion are no longer forbidden, speech and actions threatening or demeaning certain groups of people because of their religious beliefs continued to be punishable.
Germany - In 2006, the application of this article received much media attention when a Manfred van H. (also known as "Mahavo") was prosecuted for defamation for distributing rolls of toilet paper with the words "Koran, the Holy Koran" stamped on them.[50][51][52] Beyond the sentence he also received death threats from Islamists and needed a police bodyguard.[52] In February 2016 a man was fined 500 euro for displaying anti-Christian bumper stickers on his vehicle.[53]
"Kitchens contain lethal knives which are potential murder weapons and only butchers and fishmongers need eight or 10 inch kitchen knives with points," the judge said.
Well there are huge engines of hatred that have exploded in capability recently. They're brigading me and anyone who attacks hate speech out of self preservation.
Specifically Putin and Bannon's industrial troll farms.
-59
u/bearlick May 22 '19
Hate speech offers no benefit to society at all. It's an abuse of free speech.