Is Hate Speech Free Speech?

[charrob]

Is Hate Speech Free Speech? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhT2GEVXwBQ)





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhT2GEVXwBQ





How to solve the issue of free speech and hate speech? Some use violence to silence speech they do not like. Others use intimidation or shouting down. Many Republicans and Democrats takes sides based on political preference rather than principle. What's the libertarian view on speech?



"Others use intimidation or shouting down." This is the part I'm fuzzy on and confused about. The argument on the left is: "Yes, everyone has free speech. But that includes the speech of counter-protesters. The First Amendment only prohibits government from denying free speech. It does not prohibit private citizens from engaging in their free speech of shouting down a speaker they object with." I agree with Ron Paul that if the speech is held on private property the problem is easily solved. But what if the speech is held in a college auditorium or a college campus? Is it the right of counter-protesters to drown out a speaker by shouting since they are private citizens and not the government?

[Raginfridus]

In the case of heckling on campus, that's up to the rules of the campus and good faith of all participants, unless some law was deliberately broken. Its up to everyone participating in the event to swallow their personal pride and also keep speech orderly, because a public forum in chaos isn't free at all, its just the loudest, proudest, and most numerous wins. As for protests, that all depends on who's got a permit, when and where, and whether the law-enforcers are doing their job enforcing the permit.

[Schifference]

Soon you won't be able to look at people either. The way you looked at this person was disrespectful.

[Natural Citizen]

Individual Liberty should never be spoken or written absent the word Responsibility. Individual Liberty-Responsibility.

[angelatc]

Soon you won't be able to look at people either. The way you looked at this person was disrespectful.

Sexual harassment.

[Anti Federalist]

When my asshole speaks it is.

Mrs. AF would agree with this.

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/2/20/Frat_rape.jpg

[charrob]

In the case of heckling on campus, that's up to the rules of the campus and good faith of all participants, unless some law was deliberately broken. Its up to everyone participating in the event to swallow their personal pride and also keep speech orderly, because a public forum in chaos isn't free at all, its just the loudest, proudest, and most numerous wins. As for protests, that all depends on who's got a permit, when and where, and whether the law-enforcers are doing their job enforcing the permit.


Ron Paul in this video equated shouting over the speaker to the point where the speaker cannot be heard to cutting the line of a microphone. And, i agree, whether this is allowed or not would be determined by the rules of the campus. So how about if a group of the alt-right got a permit to hold a rally at Emancipation Park in Charlottesville VA; this group was allowed to gather at the park and the speeches began. Once the speeches began, counter-protesters with megaphones shouted so loud that it completely drowned out the speakers. The government is not really involved except with respect to the permit for the park.

Many on the left argue that the 1st Amendment Rights of the group with the permit are not being destroyed since it is private citizens, not the government, who are prohibiting the speech. Do you agree?

[Raginfridus]

Many on the left argue that the 1st Amendment Rights of the group with the permit are not being destroyed since it is private citizens, not the government, who are prohibiting the speech. Do you agree?No, I don't agree with them, I agree with Dr. Paul. Free speech is orderly speech, otherwise the whole concept of forum is subverted by chaos, and no debate or business can occur. If the tables were turned, the truth wouldn't be any different.

(The consensus story may be these were all private citizens, but I suspect COINTELPRO/PATCON maneuvers are involved.)

[ChristianAnarchist]

Yes it is...

[osan]

There is no issue with "hate speech". ANYTHING could be labeled "hate speech", including "good morning!"

The moment you start partitioning speech in this manner and accept the tacit authority of others to limit and even punish it, you embark down a very dark road that leads nowhere good. We now have several relatively recent examples of what happens when "governments" do this sort of thing, and a mountain of ca. 200 million corpses that stand in mostly anonymous testament to the truth of how badly it goes.

We should note the difference between speech and verbal threats. "I hate crackers" is not the same as "I'm going to kill you". The so-called "left" are doing everything they can to conflate the two. It seems to be succeeding*.









* Notice how the filters do not molest "crackers", but a word like "******" (<--- see?) gets the job done on it. We live in a world of raging fear, hypocrisy, and raving mad stupidity.

[Anti Federalist]

* Notice how the filters do not molest "crackers", but a word like "******" (<--- see?) gets the job done on it. We live in a world of raging fear, hypocrisy, and raving mad stupidity.

Silence!

Move along for your atonement.

http://www.renegadetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IMG_0797.jpg

[KEEF]

When my $#@! speaks it is.

Mrs. AF would agree with this.

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/2/20/Frat_rape.jpg
That is too funny!

[osan]

When my asshole speaks it is.

Mrs. AF would agree with this.

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/2/20/Frat_rape.jpg


Dufuque?

You know what... never mind. I don't need to know.

[osan]

Silence!

Move along for your atonement.

http://www.renegadetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IMG_0797.jpg

Oh yeah, this shit is rich. The attempt at brownie points is just too funny... in a sadly sick and impossibly twisted way.

Seriously, those white people who feel this way should man up and kill themselves. Anything less tells me they are just attention-whoring.

Oh, and I have to admit my curiosity as to where, exactly, they are trudging. What's the upshot here? Slave auction? Dunno if Manray is still in business in Boston, but they used to have slave auctions there weekly.

[ChristianAnarchist]

There is no issue with "hate speech". ANYTHING could be labeled "hate speech", including "good morning!"

The moment you start partitioning speech in this manner and accept the tacit authority of others to limit and even punish it, you embark down a very dark road that leads nowhere good. We now have several relatively recent examples of what happens when "governments" do this sort of thing, and a mountain of ca. 200 million corpses that stand in mostly anonymous testament to the truth of how badly it goes.

We should note the difference between speech and verbal threats. "I hate crackers" is not the same as "I'm going to kill you". The so-called "left" are doing everything they can to conflate the two. It seems to be succeeding*.









* Notice how the filters do not molest "crackers", but a word like "******" (<--- see?) gets the job done on it. We live in a world of raging fear, hypocrisy, and raving mad stupidity.

But I will argue that "I'm going to kill you" is also free speech. When I was a kid people said this kind of thing all the time. It was considered flapping your jaws. No one ever had anyone arrested for it!! That's nonsense. Now if someone was holding a gun and saying he was going to kill you that was a different story and people would start to duck and cover (or go for your own gun). Simply saying you are going to kill someone is not "assault" and it does not "harm" anyone. If someone says they are going to kill you then you would evaluate the statement to determine if you believe that someone means to carry it out. If you feel they might, then you arm yourself and watch them closely. First time they move to hurt you you can defend yourself. Not before...

[osan]

But I will argue that "I'm going to kill you" is also free speech.

Sure it's free speech. Bump into me on a city street at 0-dark:30 and say you are going to kill me and you will get yourself shot. Just as you are free to say such a thing, those at whom you hurl such stupidly ill-considered utterances are free to respond appropriately to the apparent threat.


When I was a kid people said this kind of thing all the time.

Same here - doesn't mean it is smart; doesn't mean saying it to the wrong person could not get you hurt, or worse.


Simply saying you are going to kill someone is not "assault"

I am afraid you are mistaken. To wit, from Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856:


ASSAULT, crim. law. An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness; for example, by striking at him or even holding up the fist at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances as denote at the time. an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it. 6 Rogers Rec: 9. When the injury is actually inflicted, it amounts to a battery. (q. v.)
2. Assaults are either simple or aggravated. 1. A simple assault is one Where there is no intention to do any other injury. This is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment. 2. An aggravated assault is one that has in addition to the bare intention to commit it, another object which is also criminal; for example, if a man should fire a pistol at another and miss him, the former would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder; so an assault with intent to rob a man, or with intent to spoil his clothes, and the like, are aggravated assaults, and they are more severely punished than simple assaults. General references, 1 East, P. C. 406; Bull. N. P. 15; Hawk. P. B. b. 1, c. 62, s. 12; 1 Russ.


and it does not "harm" anyone.

But the person being assaulted doesn't necessarily know this an by that virtue alone stands in possession of sufficient justification for bringing the utterer to grave and possibly terminal harm.


If someone says they are going to kill you then you would evaluate the statement to determine if you believe that someone means to carry it out. If you feel they might, then you arm yourself and watch them closely. First time they move to hurt you you can defend yourself. Not before...

Nope. Courts have upheld a man's right to strike preemptively if he has good reason to believe a physical attack is imminent.