Yes. Sadly it does. It's an all or nothing kind of thing. To stand for free speech means accepting and standing up for that right for those you agree with the least. Otherwise all speech is in jeopardy. To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall in summarizing Voltaire: “I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Or when the ACLU and a Jewish lawyer named Joseph Burton decided to take the case to represent an American faction of National Socialist to march in Skokie Il. Legislating away peoples right to free speech because it is offensive is counter-productive and destroys everybodies right to it. Good and bad. It's misguided and futile. It's better to use your and mine's free speech to counter it and oppose it. It's part of the hard work we accept responsibility for in order to be free.
Free speech can cost lives if the speech is inflammatory. So it isn't really free if it costs something is it? Thank you for your reply Glis and Happy Wednesday! :)
Actual calls to immediate violence aren't free speech. Hate speech is by logical definition is covered. Free speech is about not having a government use law to suppress ideas and the clear expression by the people of ideas. So if you yell fire in public building, that's covered because it isn't actually expressing an idea, thought, or view. It's "speech" in these terms. Same goes if you tell a mob to " Go hang that negro and beat that faggot" while pointing at them. That's not "speech" as in expression of ideas, opinions, or thought. That's calling for violence to another person.
If someone says: " That Glis is a real jerk. I think he should die. Hopefully he gets killed." That's an idea If someone says: " That Glis is a real jerk. I think he should die. Go kill him." Now that's not an idea at the end of it. That's an order to commit violence.
If you stop false flags, you're still suppressing free speech. That's a hole you probably won't ever be able to dig yourself out of either. Happy Wednesday.
There are non-US societies which have 95% of the free speech rights Americans do, yet those societies do legislate against certain forms of "hate speech" (e.g. as I understand it, engaging in Holocaust Denial is illegal in Germany).
On the other hand, I hold relatively absolutist views that free speech should not be suppressed merely for its semantic content. I worry the definition of "hate speech" can be blown about by political winds. We saw some of that in the wake of 9/11 and the invasion/occupation of Iraq. People who objected to Bush administration policies were publicly excoriated as "traitors" and "Unamerican." Thankfully, the demonization of Bush adminstration opponents was limited to rhetoric. But imagine if government officials had the power to legally sanction people for such speech. It would be an Orwellian nightmare.
So, yes, I think "free speech" does include speech I find hateful or obnoxious. So long as it doesn't threaten immediate public harm (e.g. egging on a mob to commit violence), I'll put up with it in order to protect my own rights to utter views other people find hateful or obnoxious.
Yes. The first amendment wasn't designed to protect speech which is acceptable, rather that which is unacceptable. It isn't a crime to hate or even to propagate hate.
Hatred is an emotion felt exclusively by the hater, given our inability to accurately read the minds of others, we've no way to enforce thought crimes and why would we even if we could.
That doesn't mean we must give* them a platform. In a truly free society ideas succeed and fail based on their merit, hateful speech is no different than a bad idea, throw it into the arena of scrutiny, challenge it and if it be found without merit, discredit it.
Punishing hateful speech gives the speaker far more power than they deserve.
This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at December 7, 2016 8:59 AM MST
Benedict Arnold 