Should we have hate speech laws?
Should racist/sexist/homophobic etc. speech be allowed in the interests of liberty and the free exchange of ideas? Or should it be outlawed in order to protect those in the group it is directed against?
Yes we should
Side Score: 1
|
 |
No we shouldn't
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Yes, we should. There has to be an upper limit of some sort to hate. For example, I think sharing photos of swastikas or denying the holocaust is beyond the pale. Side: Yes we should
|
I think the more we tighten our grip on who can say what, the closer we come to losing our right to free speech period. Right now, though hate speech is bad, it is still within our right. If we make it illegal, the definitions of what is hate speech would be almost impossible to not have blurred lines. What could be hate speech or seen as hate speech to one person may not be to another. So enforcing the legalities of that would be very difficult. Side: No we shouldn't
NO! The MAJORITY of the American people want to decide what is and what is NOT free speech. That is in the Constitution! If the MAJORITY of the American people think it should be "free speech", it should be. The MAJORITY of Americans think Trump should NOT be President, they voted against him. The problem is, free speech is not accepted by the RIGHT, unless it is in their favor. The left is no different, (we reserve the right, according to the Constitution.) BOTH sides have to follow the Constitution! It would be nice if one side wasn't so in favor of HATE .... for minorities, Gays, women, our allies, other religions included in the Constitutional intent, the poor, the disabled, the infirm, the sick, and SO in favor of those who are taking all the money and crying about being financially abused! Side: Yes we should
1
point
I agree 100% with what you're saying here, but I do think you brought up an interesting point. There is often a gray area in speech laws, where there's a struggle to decide between rules and standards. Rules are often restrictive precedents that only dichotomize free speech (which is the issue). Standards allow for case-by-case interpretation. Side: Yes we should
2
points
The speech its-self should not be controlled by laws. Words can hurt and cause feelings to be broken. Triggering is something what should be taken naturally and not forced for everyone to hear. For example if you talk about climate change and your peer gets triggered he/she should make the attack personal. That is where i draw the line. The line is drawled between two points 1) if the attack becomes personal and 2) if violence is encouraged or comes from speech. A personal attack would be ad hominem dictated towards the person. In other words a attack at the person about how they act, talk, look and others.My second point is simple if you encourage violence its no longer a hate speech but a order to do wrong acts. In the ideal world their would be no laws, but people would control each other even in hate speeches. Side: No we shouldn't
2
points
The Left always has double standards when it comes to hate speech. They fight to ban Confederate flags and nativity scenes, while supporting President Trumps severed head displayed on public College walls. I guess a decpitated head of our President is not an expression of hate to Liberals. Can you imagine if it were Obama's head displayed on public walls? Side: No we shouldn't
No, we should have laws about the consequences of the speech you exercise. Such as libel, slander, public endangerment, acts of treason, etc. If the hate speech you exercise gets judged by a court of law to be an infringement on Constitutional rights then that's good enough. We don't need and shouldn't have laws which ban specific words just because someone deems an alternative word more politically correct. Side: No we shouldn't
Having hate speech laws have already existed for this long right? Should we continue to have it exist? NO because it GETS RID OF OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! ANYONE WHO TRIES TO SILENCE US WILL BE SILENCED IN RETURN. BAN HATE SPEECH LAWS BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROLLING HOW PEOPLE THINK. LGBT ARE INVALIDATED IN AN ABSOLUTE MANNER. THERE ARE ONLY 2 GENDERS. MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. TRUE LOVE ONLY EXISTS EXCLUSIVELY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. GENDER CANNOT BE CHANGED. AGE CANNOT BE CHANGED. PRIDE NEEDS TO BE BANNED. TRANS PEOPLE NEED TO BE INSTITUTED IN MENTAL HOSPITALS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. LAWS NEED TO BE PUT OUT TO BAN DRAG QUEENS IN SCHOOLS FOR INDOCTRINATING AND SEXUALIZING KIDS. YES YES YES. BAN ALL HOMOSEXUALS FROM EVER HAVING THE RIGHT TO 'GAY MARRIAGE' AS IT DOESN'T EXIST. "LOVE IS LOVE" IS A MISREPRESENTATION OF LOVE ITSELF AS IT IS ALL ABOUT PRIDE AND LUST AMONGST THE PRIDEFUL SNOWFLAKE DYSTOPIA. FREEDOM OF SPEECH CAN CERTAINLY HAVE IT'S LIMITS AND THAT MEANS RESTRICTING UNPOPULAR OPINIONS SUCH AS "TRANSGENDERISM", AND "GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT" ETC ETC ETC BECAUSE IT LEADS TO IMMORAL ACTIVISM WHICH LEADS TOWARDS INDOCTRINATION OF INNOCENT CHILDREN WHO ARE UNDERAGE AND NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE OF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG. THERE ARE NO GREY AREAS IN TEACHING RIGHT AND WRONG. WE AS HUMANS ARE NOT PERFECT. MISTAKES REFLECT THE GRAY AREAS IN LIFE BUT THAT DOESN'T JUSTIFY RELATIVISM. IT JUSTIFIES THERE IS GOOD AND EVIL. GOD IS REAL. LET ME REMIND YOU, PEOPLE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WRONG. LGBT HAVE BEEN DOING WRONG THINKING THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WRONG. THAT IS WHY HATE SPEECH LAWS SHOULD BE BANNED BECAUSE THEY THINK WE HATE THEM JUST FOR SPEAKING OUR MINDS FREELY. FREEDOM OF SPEECH CANNOT BE LIMITED BY LAW, IT CAN BE LIMITED INDIVIDUALLY IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES IF NEEDED SUCH AS NO SWEARING, MORAL VALUES PRESENTED ETC. TOO MUCH FREEDOM CAUSES CHAOS AND ANARCHY. Side: No we shouldn't
Free speech is not there to protect people who are talking about puppies and rainbows and shit. It is there to protect the ideas that are unpopular, even hated. And yes, that means it protects the views and opinions you don't like. So stop whining about hate speech. You're just giving bigoted assholes undue attention. Side: No we shouldn't
Exactly why you are a pinnacle of hypocrisy. Remain silent, ignorant truthphobic, Christophobic and heterophobic atheist. Freedom of speech allows everybody to debate etc etc etc. But it does not give one side the right to control how we think. Bigoted hypocrites of lgbt are examples of people who do not have the right to indoctrinate kids which is why they will be silenced and hated for their immoral behavior and danger to society. We have absolute objective moral values in society. Too much freedom will lead towards chaos. FREEDOM OF FAITH IS ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED. FREEDOM OF SEXUAL IMMORALITY IS ABSOLUTE NOT ALLOWED. THOSE ARE THE LAWS WE NEED. FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED BY LAW. PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WRONG. Side: No we shouldn't
Exactly why you are a pinnacle of hypocrisy. Dude, this argument is four years old. What the fuck are you doing with your life? Remain silent, ignorant truthphobic Eh... Who here can honestly say they're not truthphobic. Welcome to Createdebate, the internet's cesspool of societal rejects. Christophobic Happily married to a Christian, fuck off. heterophobic Happily heterosexual, fuck off. Freedom of speech allows everybody to debate etc etc etc. But it does not give one side the right to control how we think. Bigoted hypocrites of lgbt are examples of people who do not have the right to indoctrinate kids which is why they will be silenced and hated for their immoral behavior and danger to society. Cool. We agree completely. FREEDOM OF FAITH IS ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED Never said it wasn't. You did. Unless "freedom of faith" means "freedom to believe what you believe", since apparently, you have a problem with me being an atheist. My dude, you seem to think that I'm a stereotypical liberal. Allow me to introduce myself: 8 years of honorable military service, white straight male libertarian, and oh yeah, I BUILD GUNS FOR A LIVING. Slow down on the meth pipe, and if you want to spread rage, at least get your reasons straight. Side: No we shouldn't
|
