CreateDebate


Debate Info

41
17
Yes No
Debate Score:58
Arguments:40
Total Votes:58
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (30)
 
 No (10)

Debate Creator

Bohemian(3861) pic



Should hate speech be protected as Free speech?

Yes

Side Score: 41
VS.

No

Side Score: 17
3 points

My problem with the idea of Hate speech is that it is entirely contingent on the sensibilities of other people. Almost anything can be construed as hate speech and indeed any form of criticism can be declared as hate speech, but we know that progress rides on the back of criticism. Hate speech is the modern equivalent of blasphemy.

What is happening in much of Europe right now, is that religion is being granted special treatment so that people are no longer able to criticize religion or religious views for fear of offending someone. If a belief is so frail that it cannot tolerate mere words, then perhaps it is not worth being believed in the first place. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to criticize something that somebody strongly believes simply because they really really really believe it to be so. In fact it is just such censorship which has allowed these intellectually and morally bankrupt beliefs to persist, these are the beliefs that benefit most from censorship, blasphemy, and hate speech laws.

Absolute freedom of speech, is one of two principal liberties (the other being the right to bear arms) from which all other liberties arose.

Side: yes
2 points

I agree...but the opposite is happening in America. Secular groups are gaining more laws and protection that prevent religious groups from speaking out on issues. This is what the hate crimes law is all about. It affords certain groups,..minorities and gays...more right. It is totally against the 2nd amendment.

This is an example of how a minority group works.

"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector...Gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice."

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, PhD After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (New York: Doubleday. 1989), 183.

Hate crimes sets up special classes of victims afforded a higher level of government protection than others victimized by similar crimes. That violates the concept of equal protection. And it politicizes criminal prosecutions.

Hate crimes is the cornerstone to criminalizing Christianity.

Side: yes
1 point

I agree with you to a point.

To define some murders as hate crimes is idiotic because what murders isn't a fucking hate crime? Nor is it right to punish one crime more than another identical crime because it is was motivated by prejudice. The same crimes should receive the same punishments.

Side: yes

What is happening in much of Europe right now, is that religion is being granted special treatment so that people are no longer able to criticize religion or religious views for fear of offending someone.

Tell me about it, check out this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=8222603&page;=1

I haven't been this annoyed about anything in a good while, this was a law passed by our last government, I'm hoping it will be thrown out soon, our current Taoiseach has denounced the Papal anuncia for lack of action in child molestation cases so here's hoping.

Side: yes
1 point

Such laws are incredibly barbaric. It's not as if we aren't aware of what happens when these law are instituted, there is a plethora of historical examples of how these blasphemy laws are used to stifle dissent and to extinguish free speech. I hope this law is repealed.

Side: yes
2 points

Yeah, the problem is never when the hateful speak, it's when the ones who know better don't.

Side: yes
1 point

Absolutely. I think this may have contributed to the sectarian extremism that has taken such a stranglehold on the middle east. There hasn't been very many pro-democracy movements in Muslim majority nations. We can speculate as to why that is, but the fact of the matter is that this has had a profound impact on the political climate there.

Side: yes

Of course, all speech should be protected by free speech. That is what the founders intended; otherwise, contingencies would have been put into place in the Constitution.

Side: yes
2 points

Free speech is completely and totally necessary in order to preserve creative thought, and novelty in general, hate speech is a real phenomenon but how much is based soley on the collectivised concensus about what opinions and beleifs are culturally acceptable is another important question. I doubt if any views can be categorised as being totally and unequivocally hateful (and only hateful) because ultimately they must be measured relative the morals of a given society, this is predicated on the prevailing traditions, culture, ideology, and religion (or lack thereof) etc., which are intrinsically linked to the societies collectivised consesus on morality i.e. what is considered moral and what is amoral behaviour, and by extension what are considered moral and amoral thought's

I beleive this question of categorisation is an interesting one, can any thoughts be categorised only as hateful? I can think of plenty of unbeleiveably hateful thoughts but none that can only be called purely hateful as everything is relative, if a thought can be purely hateful then does that justify it not being protected as free speech? Even if the answer is yes i don't think it could be justified due to the implications of such a move.

Side: yes

I take it then that you hate this shitty Blasphemy law passed by Fine Fail and their Green bitches.

Side: yes

ya im surprised in this day and age that something like that can actually be passed at government level, it just goes to show we haven't completely cast off the veil of the theocracy this country used to be.

Side: yes
2 points

I hate Seth McFarlane. Can I not call him sell-out, just because my intentions were hateful?

OH WAIT!!! I'd have to call him a Patty McFinnigan in order for it to THEN be hateful.

If someone hates someone, they have every right to express their hatred. Be it towards a bunch of blacks, a bunch of jews, or a shitty animator (Seth McFarlane). This country was built on Civil Liberties. Taking them away just because they could be insensitive is total bullshit.

If someone dislikes this country just because of the blasphemy and hate speech is allowed they can go off to some speech regulated country. They'll be very happy not being allowed to say w/e they want but also not getting their feelings hurt.

For all the people who say that I'm a bigot, fuck off you niggerfaggots.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes, it must be. Sometimes hate speech is a contingent by or without context. It is the most effective form of speech that leaves the intended impact. If your using a language of such sought, the reason must have been core.

Side: yes
1 point

Hate Speech i think should be considered free speech. If i say something about person x then person x is not obligated to listen to what i am saying and neither can i use force to compel him to listen to what i am saying so therefore it should be considered free speech. I am merely expressing my views and opinions about a particular subject or person to which i am entitled to especially if we all would agree that we are living in a society where we are entitled to our basic rights.

Also, we all have our differences in society because we all think and act differently except in rare circumstances. We cannot expect everyone in society to be perfect when our leaders and rulers themselves are not perfect. Hate speech is not bad for the public. It is rather a tool to speak out against the unjust actions of a particular group or person.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes. I do not like it, but yes .

Side: Yes
1 point

There is no objective way to prove whether or not it is hate. There is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the action was hate related or if the person is just not very tactful.

Side: Yes
1 point

HItler was elected through hate speaches.

Side: No
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
2 points

And do you suppose by the cultural standards of depression era Germany, what he was saying would have even been considered 'hate speech'?

Is it right that people who criticize the Vatican or who criticize Islam should be convicted of Hate speech? I certainly don't think so. If I have a problem with either of those institutions, I have the right to speak my mind even if it may offend people, but here is the thing nobody has a right to not be offended.

Side: yes
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
1 point

Hitlers was making people hate a minority, it's like launching hate speaches about black people, or obese people. It's really just a form of bullying.

Side: No

Hitler terrorized his own people. They obeyed out of fear.

But we have to allow free speech or we would be like Hitler.

Side: No

Verbal abuse is still abuse. I'm getting frankly tired of people not remembering this. Hate speech is abusive to certain people who hear it, and that makes it unprotectable in such situations.

Side: No
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
2 points

If hate speech is verbal abuse, then why not treat it as such? If hate speech constituted verbal abuse then why would we require the creation of new laws?

Side: yes
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
1 point

The problem is that some practitioners of hate speech do not know the line in between abuse and mere speech, and therefore argue their rights all the way into the Courts. Such as the Westboro Baptist Church. The hate speech they assert has caused some people, inadvertantly, to become psychologically damaged. This does not stop them though from arguing that they have the right because of freedom of speech.

Therein lies the problem.

I don't suggest that new laws by created necessarily, but if they need to be created to protect people from verbal abuse, so be it. Make them very specific so that there's no possibly way any judge could rule that certain abusive hate speech is legal.

Side: No

Hate Speech loses its protected right as Free Speech because Hate Speech incites to riot or violence toward a group of people.

Side: No