Free Speech

Free speech in America has been very hotly contested as of late, and it seems people are very torn about the 1st Amendment and why we have it. Obviously, we all have the rights to speak our minds, whether it be criticism of the government, opinions on a political party, or just about anything. However, where people become split is when hate speech is considered. Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. There is no exception to what speech can be used unless it immediately presents danger, direct violence, or incites riot (e.g. you can't yell that there's a bomb in the building if there is not). But, hate speech is defended entirely as long as nobody is directly threatened by whom speaks it.

What this means is that nobody is allowed legally to attack someone who is preaching hate speech, whether or not they're a racist, a Klansman, a nazi (ahem), or anything of the type. If you do, you get arrested for physical assault. This seems to be a rather controversial thing, especially when people feel that hate speech threatens a specific group. Retaliation is punished, while the speech is not.

While it is personally my belief that all free speech must be protected, and all legalities regarding how people respond or act upon it should remain, what do you believe is the correct way to approach free speech in America? How should we regard hate speech?

The way we do now in America. A Neo-Nazi can say what he wants about Jewish people. He can not go out and actually be violent towards them. The same goes for people opposed to that ideology.

Unfortunately for that Nazis and those against him, people can attack you. If they get caught they could be punished by the law.

Assault is illegal, there's nothing else that needs to be done except deterring violence towards anyone.

Going to keep this really simple. Do I believe in free speech? Absolutely. But it isn’t free speech that I feel is the true problem anymore. Thanks to the digital age, information travels at rapid rates. A person can’t do much these days without it being able to become an instant headline on Facebook/Twitter, and inevitably, breaking news on CNN. Just look at the recent debate about “fake news” and the kind of harm it has done. With free speech, comes the realization that hate speech and false ideals that truly no one should believe in gets around fast, becoming mainstream quicker than we can blink. So, how do we handle that? I don’t really think you can in the end, especially with the way the internet is.

One aspect of this site, for example, that I like is even in discussions like this, we can be respectful and civil of another person’s opinion. If people could just do that, and remove bigotry in order to sit down to discuss their disagreements, I really believe this wouldn’t be worth talking about anymore. Yes, that is a very optimistic view, something that will never exist in the world we know today – and probably never will. Rather than talk about free speech, we should start talking about tolerance (within reason). Some things can be salvaged, some people reasoned with, yet as a society, we have this idea that this can’t happen so everyone is on edge.

You’ll always have those bad eggs, but we should really find a way not to let that hold us back. Sadly, we tend to focus on the negative more than the positive which is why normally, that is the only thing that makes headlines.

~M

I agree with how it's been described in the OP, unless if you are directly causing physical harm to someone it shouldn't be something getting censored. Cause the second it changes to perceived harm, or mental harm you open the flood gates to anything someone finds to be offensive to be considered Hate Speech, which effectively cannibalises the law into being a way to silence unpopular opinions.

The University of Toronto actually had such a situation pop up differently, where Canada Hate Speech laws were in the middle of being changed to include using the wrong gender pronoun for someone. This ultimately led to one Professor Jordan Peterson trying to make his points against it through YouTube, but then was warned to stop expressing said views. Which lead to some protests and a debate at the University, and ultimately got him fired, for holding a certain opinion. And within the debate that happened the question was brought up of (paraphrasing) "How is it stopping you if you only have to pay a fine?", and his answer was basically "What happens if I can't pay the fine?".

So basically, I'm not a fan of the way what qualifies as Hate Speech is changing, at all.

I find freedom of speech is one of those areas that a lot of people get turned around with. I can't count the number of people I know and/or have met, who don't know what freedom of speech IS. They think it's the right to say whatever they want, anywhere, at any time. This creates so much confusion over what is and isn't allowed, and misconceptions into what the government does and doesn't allow. That said, I'll be writing the following from the understanding that it is the right to not be censored or restricted by the government, and it only extends so far as you aren't infringing on the rights of others.

IE, the government can't come arrest you for hate speech. But if you stand up in a classroom shouting it? You're infringing on the other students' rights, and thus can be removed from the class room. On private property? They can ask you to leave if they don't want you spouting hate speech on their property.

The degree of hate speech plays in also. If someone is using hate speech to incite violence? Not protected. IE, you can run a protest that some racial denomination is vile and awful and should all be deported home. But if you run a protest inciting people to riot against said individuals? That can be stopped. Also if you pointedly and directly attack an individual of that denomination (not physically, but just verbally), depending on the ruling it may very well be covered under the restrictions regarding language/words directed at another individual with the likeleyhood of provoking a violent response. (The violent response is ALSO illegal, but the provoker is likewise no longer protected under freedom of speech). Also doesn't protect you from being fired at your job, or make it okay to slander others. You can express an opinion, but can't post a news story that your neighbor is a pedophile (because he's mexican and you don't like mexicans and want to make everyone think he's an awful person). You can't say 'I hate teaching homosexual kids' and expect to keep your job as a teacher when angry parents start calling up your boss.

That all said, I feel we already have restrictions and regulations in place that draw the line on hate speech that's essentially we can mediate it ourselves on a case by case basis from business to business, household to household, and property to property. For example, we don't allow hate speech on Storyteller's Circle, and that's our right to determine we don't want that kind of behavior here. The Government can't come tell us 'you're not allowed to have hate speech there'. We choose to not have it here. Government infringement on speech largely boils down to 'it's fine, until you start infringing on OTHER peoples rights', and then it's not.

Honestly i feel like free speech exists but to a minimum these days because of political tension and sexual backgrounds and racial things.