Should Free Speech Include Hate Speech?

[BrentWil]

The right to free speech is almost universal in the United States. You can say anything hateful about any group. However, many European countries ban "hate speech". Should the United States amend the constitution to ban this type of speech?

[lazarus]

1. free speech should include hate speech

But people need to be aware of what "free speech" really means. It doesn't mean a network has to give you a platform, it just means the government can't shut you up.

I don't like the idea of banning hate speech for a simple reason. Who decides what is hate speech? We start with attacks on protected minorities, then it mutates into criticism of the government or religion or anything TPTB want to protect.

[XXY]

2. What is your definition of free speech..?

Who decides what is hateful?

[Javaman]

32. Welcome to DU! nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Of course

The European model is a shame to them

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Any 13 states can block a consitutional amendment from being ratified.

I think that you would have an easy time finding 13 states who would be against a hate-speech amendment.

[Barack_America]

5. Where will this speech occur?

[Warpy]

6. For individuals in daily life, yes

On the public airwaves, including the cable/satellite systems, a resounding NO.

Broadcast hate speech has consequences individual speech does not and it's time this country recognizes that fact.

Remember, much of the genocides that have occurred over the last century started with hate speech on radio, especially.

That's where the line is. It should never have been crossed. It might be too late to reverse it.

[RKP5637]

12. And particularly true wherein MSM has become conglomerates controlled by a handful of

corporations. Hitler would have loved the model we have here today. What we have today is irresponsible free speech on the public airwaves filled with lies and distortions. We need to get this sorted out or eventually none of us will have free speech.

[BrentWil]

27. That is pretty much the European model. NT

[Warpy]

30. It sounds like I need to move

because I'm certainly disgusted by the US model.

[BrentWil]

36. I think you are supposed to be... And you can be discussing back...

In all seriousness the point of the US model is to get it out there and deal with it.

[Scuba]

29. Excellent point. Individual speech has always been treated differently than 'corporate'...

...speech.

The real problem is that the Powers That Be will get to define 'hate' speech, and right now seem to be getting away with declaring any criticism of their corporate masters as hateful.

[KonaKane]

7. Best way to fight hate speech is to expose it with better speech

And I know we have the better ideas than the racists and assorted bigots.

As much as I deplore hate speech, I cannot make myself screw with the first amendment here. It's too important.

[Codeine]

8. Of course.

Goes without saying.

[Vickers]

9. Of course it should, don't be ridiculous. n/t

[Fuzz]

10. Yes, it should. Sucks, but yes.

[Jkid]

11. Yes

Unless it publicly incites hatred in such a manner where it constitutes immediate lawless action.

[The Northerner]

13. Obviously yes

Free speech should protect ALL speech, including unpopular speech.

[Cleita]

14. Free speech was about being about to tell the truth without ending

up being burned at the stake, so surely it means that hateful people can vent their hatred. However, I don't think free speech means that you can use propaganda to spread lies, like hatred lies unless there is a way for the opposition to have equal say. We don't have that today. The corporate media doesn't really put out, in an unbiased way, both sides of the story. I think we need to change that by regulation. Sure, let the racists say anything they want to, but equal time has to be given to those who can prove that they are racist and wrong.

[Nye Bevan]

20. Yes. Someone should start up a website where people opposed to racism can espouse their views.

Some kind of internet discussion board, perhaps, where anybody who wants to can speak out against corporatist lies and racism. Until this kind of platform exists, there is simply no way for us to publicly express our views.

[Cleita]

24. We need to have this on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX and everywhere

on radio or the media where propaganda is put out. We need equal time, not the BS the stations do where some host shouts over the disclaimer and then they are never heard from again. We need a real discussion that puts lies to rest and brings out the truth. Since these media outlets excel at repeating a lie over and over and over again, we need the equal space to speak the truth repudiating their lies over and over and over again.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Yes.

The 1st Amendment was put first for a reason.

[Confusious]

16. What is your definition of hate speech

mine includes anti-vaxxers.

[Oregone]

17. Let the invisible hand of the magic free market decide

[BrentWil]

28. HAHA... glad you can point out I am a one trick pony and then come to another thread continue to be

a one trick pony

[Swamp Rat]

18. I HATE BP!!!

Didn't even cost me one calorie to say that.

[XemaSab]

19. I think banning hate speech makes it the forbidden fruit

If I post "The Jews killed Christ" on a public message board, then 200 people can call me a bigot and tell me how ridiculous I am.

If the only place that kind of garbage is allowed is in the alley behind the MMA club, then how can we combat such hateful speech?

[proteus_lives]

21. Hell no. Free speech includes hate speech.

Banning it is the coward's way out.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. boy, that is a tough one...

but I have to say, if the speech advocates the killing or other violence upon another group of people, like African Americans or gay people- I cannot support that one little bit. You can't yell "fire" in a theater for a reason.

[guitar man]

23. Of course

As ugly as some of the things that are said might be, they should not be banned. Free speech gives the bad guys ample opportunity to shine a light on themselves so we know who they are.

[ScarletFyre]

25. Hate speech...

Makes it easier to spot the assholes.

[Scuba]

26. Yes, let's ban hate speech....

...anything critical of corporations or their Republican tools will now be labeled "hate speech" and is illegal.

[spin]

33. That's the first thing I thought ...

Dick Cheney would be all for it if he got to determine what was hate speech.

[Xenotime]

31. Yes. There are many changes that are needed to the constitution.

[demwing]

34. Only if it's free. I refuse to pay for it.

An none of this "buy one get one free" crap either.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Yes, free speech should include hate speech.

Here's a hint: if it's a form of speech, it should be protected. Even if it's a form of speech you don't like.

[Xithras]

37. To many, "Free Palestine" = Antisemitic hate speech.

The First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular and subversive speech. The problem with undermining that concept is that doing so grants the government the right to define "acceptable" speech.

Or, as one of my own college professors put it so many years ago: "Do you really want to give the government the power to declare that discussions about Jim Crow laws are banned, because those discussions generate anger and discrimination against whites by minorities? When you grant the government the power to define hateful speech, you open a Pandoras box of unintended consequences."

In theory, ANY conflict that pits members of one culture or society against another could eventually generate accusations of racism and hate speech. Determining the "acceptability" of publishing the opinions of both sides should NOT hinge on political favors or the nations mood-of-the-moment.