Am I the ONLY one who believes that "hate" MUST be contained?

[Just Me]

:shrug:

How can any speech be "free" if we fail to protect others' right to speak from hate and oppression?

:shrug:

Is there some "rule", made-up by some barabaric ass, that we must all support a free-reign to hatred?

:shrug:

If so, I call that "rule" freakin' WRONG!!!

FREE SPEECH IS BEST PROTECTED BY DEMANDING MUTUAL RESPECT!!!

[LoZoccolo]

1. OK then, what is hate?

I just absorb any junk that people say about me as the cost of free speech.

[The Traveler]

2. Rational discourse between those with differing views

is how we discover new ways of moving forward, and truths we did not previously apprehend. Hate renders that dialog impossible. If anyone doubts that, all they have to do is turn on Fox News. Ugly. Very.

[Just Me]

8. Isn't that true "freedom of speech": the ability to communicate,...

,...without threat of harm?

Hatred is harm and stops freedom to speak one's mind.

Hatred must be contained, gated, restricted.

[The Traveler]

9. Exactly.

Hatred is a consuming thing. Someone once shared this insight with me: "Hating another is sorta like drinking poison in hopes it will kill someone else."

In an atmosphere in which vitriol and hatred are encouraged in the public debate, free speech is definitely at risk. Meaningful discussion becomes impossible. Valuable new ideas become lost in the noise. In the long term, the problem is self correcting ... but we won't enjoy the process.

[MissWaverly]

3. agree with you, dislike terms like "bitch slapped"

don't understand why there has to be such demonetization of your opponent.

[Bluzmann57]

4. Yes we should not have hatred

But it's just too bad that we have to have laws on the books to regulate it. It is wrong to demean a person because of their race, religion, or sexual preference. It should never get to the point where we must make laws to not hate, but unfortunately, it will always be with us. The last line of your post states that "Free Speech is best protected by demanding mutual respect". That is true but there is a lot of disrespect going on in America at this time. And it goes on with Liberals as well as conservatives. There have been many many posts here in DU stating "I hate all repubs", etc. That is not respect at all. We must have respect, and we Liberals should try to rise above all hatred and disrespect. I include myself in there because I have certainly been angry enough to say things like that.

[MADem]

5. Hate should be EXPOSED FOR WHAT IT IS, not contained

You contain it, eventually it will blow. We do have constitutional rights in this country, barely.

You expose it, and shame and ridicule and ostracization will pulverize it into dust, and it will blow away in the wind.

Put enough heat on hate, and it burns up! The haters get out of the kitchen....

[aaronnyc]

6. I strongly disagree

I support the right to say all "hateful" things as long as they are not explicit threats to individual people. There is no clear-cut way to define what is "hate"; thus, there is no way to avoid the possibility of this becoming a slippery-slope in which all free speech rights are violated.

I assume there is something in the world which you "hate"? Well, by your logic the government should take away your right hate. I am sure there is somebody who considers considers your beliefs to be "hate."

Basically, no person has the right to define what is "hate"; it is necessarily subjective- and I don't want my speech or what I perceive as being "hate" speech, to be made illegal by the government.

[blogbear]

12. amen! What's more, oftentimes hateful actions (including by the..

government) 'speak louder than words'..I don't have a problem being respectful of those who treat (and talk to) me that way..However, I do have a problem with those who bark out orders and demand respectful treatment when they don't deserve it. I believe that we decide this for ourselves and that it is alright to be this way because respect is not a gift but is something which may or may not have been earned..

[dxstone]

7. Hatred is irrational...

...at least, as you're using the term. It's prejudicial, fixed judgement before and/or despite actual experience, resulting in a continuous smoldering anger attached to the irrational hate-object.
So it's one thing to, for instance, hate the poor because you have come to somehow believe they're what's wrong with this country, they're a big drain, they need to be punished and corrected, etc etc ad nauseum...
On the other hand, is this sort of rampant stupidity the same as white-hot anger at REAL villains, and the desire to contain, punish or correct them? Is that really the same sort of hate, when the basis for the emotion is actually rational? To revile, for instance, a person or group who continuously threatens your family's health and well-being?
If I hate Reeps for supporting this INSANE administration...



...can you really lump me in with neo-nazis, the Klan or other very OBVIOUS and blatant "haters?"
I mean, what are you really discussing here?
I think it's a pretty moot point, IMHO.
D

[Erika]

10. Bush put the hate propaganda in full force

As he spoke of the axis of evil and all the evil doers. He suspended the Golden Rule and approved of violence. Most anti-Christian.

[B Calm]

11. I hate cheap labor conservatives and it is very hard to respect

them when they're keeping you over a barrel.

[Senior citizen]

13. Like Ghandi said about Western civilization,

I think free speech would be an excellent idea.

But it isn't free. I can't afford as much "speech" as a Rupert Murdoch or a Rev. Moon. I don't own a single newspaper or major TV station. In order to post here I have to own a computer, and pay a phone bill and an ISP bill. And I try to take part in media blasts whenever the mass media is full of lies and we try to make the truth heard. But we don't get much attention and what we do get is usually too little, too late.

Government propaganda can shape our lives and thoughts. Look at how our government used propaganda to get women into the workforce during WWII, and force them out again afterwards. Or how Goebbels used it to demonize the Jews.

Words with a patina of authority attached to them have a special force: witness the experiment where people were induced to give electric "shocks" to others by "doctors," or the Hutus induced to kill Tutsis in Rwanda.

Dworkin and MacKinnon cite the case of a woman who sued because her husband tied her up, tortured her, and filmed it. She lost her case because he had gagged her with duct tape and her pleas for mercy were unintelligible--the husband's defense was that they were cries of pleasure. According to our law, she had freedom of speech, even though she was unable to speak through the duct tape, and he was exercizing his freedom of speech in filming her.

Germany banned hate speech only after the Holocaust. That's what it will probably take for us to do so.

I have the freedom not to watch FAUX news, but they won't give me equal time on air to rebut them. The loss of the Fairness Doctrine was the end of freedom of speech in the U.S. People keep saying not to ban hate speech, but rather to respond to it, totally ignoring the fact that we do not have the power to respond effectively.

According the MacKinnon, the purpose of Freedom of Speech in our Constitution was to permit the powerless to speak truth to power. The powerful no longer permit those who disagree with them to speak in the same venue, and therefore they go effectively unrebutted.

We either need a universal Fairness Doctrine so that hate speech can be effectively rebutted, or else we need to ban hate speech. I don't care which way we do it--either way is fine with me.

[adwon]

14. Could you

be more specific or provide examples? I don't want to assume that you're saying something that you're not. Thanks.