If you align yourself with or defend racists/bigots/white supremacists what does that say about you?

I agree that there is a difference. I don't agree with what you said on another post about there being no such thing as hate speech, or it being a contrived term. When people say things like "Mexicans are a cultural cancer", "Bulldozing bodies into mass graves is the obvious solution", "child molestation is the real homosexual agenda", "F*ck you Fag*ots"... what else would you call that?

Trump continues to refuse to distance himself completely from these hate groups. He welcomes them at his rallies. They thank him personally. They see him as their hero and he embraces them. 

Hate speech has turned into anything college kids disagree with. Why are so many speakers protested or stopped from speaking at universities. This is what happens when we coin terms like hate speech. It opens a slippery slope so almost anything cannot be called hate speech. I’m sorry you fail to see this.

Trump has denounced white supremicists. There are videos out there. I hate when I have to defend him but you people make us have to at times. 

I cannot stand racists and the vile that exits their mouths, but if we call it hate speech to silence it, we open the door to silence more speech. This post was edited by Rizz at August 12, 2018 5:13 PM MDT

I think I understand. You don't agree with the term "hate speech", regardless of how hate-filled the words are, correct?

Trump stated publicly that some of the white supremacists in Charlottesville last August were "very fine people". He retweets "white nationalists" repeatedly. Steve Bannon (enough said). He endorsed and campaigned for a man who has spoken positively about slavery and tried to ban someone from congress because of his Muslim religion. He called a Latin Miss Universe "Miss Housekeeping". 
The list goes on and on...

Your use of the term "you people" is pretty offensive, in case you weren't aware of that. 

He said there were some good people on both sides. He didn’t say any of the white supremecists were good people. Not all protesters were racists. What some people say isn’t hateful. Hate speech doesn’t exist. The Supreme Court said so.  

He said "very fine people". He said that some of the white supremacists were "very fine people". This is not unique to Charlottesville, either. Steve Bannon, Corey Stewart, Roy Moore, David Bossie...

You are incorrect, sir. 

https://www.paccusa.org/hate-speech-international-law-v-u-s-law/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

I’m actually correct. I wouldn’t use Wikipedia or PACCUSA as sources. The Supreme Court even said hate speech doesn’t exist. You obviously didn’t watch an unedited video of his statements. He condemned white racists with his comments. He was pointing out not all the protesters were racists. Do I need to link a video to provide the truth? This post was edited by Rizz at August 12, 2018 9:17 PM MDT

If you'd LOOK at the Wiki article, it discusses hate speech laws in various countries. It even states that HATE SPEECH IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE US! 

Legality of something and its existence are not the same thing. It's not only things that are illegal that exist. This post was edited by Just Asking at August 13, 2018 1:42 PM MDT

Oh look, a cheap shot at law enforcement. Stay classy and respectful. Hate speech doesn’t exist. Hateful people exist. Hate speech is a term coined to silence people who disagree with them.

Here's a chart that may help to sort out how biased the various new sources are, in case you're interested.
I am sorry that you took what I said as an attack on law enforcement. I did not mean that as in insult. I only meant that due to your line of work, you may be accustomed to seeing things as legal or illegal. 
 
https://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/

I know what sources are biased. Which ones are far more biased than others. The truth is all media sources are biased. Period. This is why I read from several sources from far left to far right, excluding Info Wars and Breitbart. 

I have issues with this chart. It lists a few sources as fair representation of news. Anything remotely conservative on the charts is listed far right to completely “damaging to the public”.

I attempt to look at what the "other" side has to say about things, too. It seems often that there is no mention of things at all by the reasonably unbiased sources on the right, which is disappointing. 

I know plenty of people on both sides of the aisle that take issue with the chart, which tells me that it's probably reasonably accurate. If you look at it again, you'll see that the entire key is listed on the right side (not just the description of those listed in the red rectangle). It's describing all sources contained in the various colored rectangles, not just the ones on the right. 

Apology accepted. 

I have a distrust for our media and journalists. Too many have a political agenda and are nothing but propaganda tools for their party of choice. 

https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/20/sorry-college-kids-theres-no-thing-hate-speech/

Those examples are hateful.  They may indicate that one hates another, but they are not what is known in the law as hate speech.  The confusion is that in the law there is a thing called hate speech which is very specific and narrow.  It refers to speech that is not protected under the First Amendment.  It is speech that is likely to rally people to violence and that was spoken with that goal.  Your examples are not hate speech, however, they are mean words and hateful words.  Mean and hateful words are protected speech usually.  If the speaker at a protest used these words as part of a goal of propelling a mob into a violent rage of destruction, then yes they might rise to the level of hate speech.   That could happen, for example, by getting the crowd to chant your comment about Mexicans.  That would certainly help provoke violence.  The First Amendment protects us from the government regulating the content of our speech.  Hate speech is the exception.  But hating is not illegal.  Being a jerk is not illegal.  When people realize that maybe the country will settle down a bit.  

There is a lot of ignorance among those people screaming about hate speech.  There is a lot of ignorance among those people screaming.  

Good answer. :)

I believe you're speaking about the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean that it's not hate speech. Hate speech is not something that is unique to the US. Many countries have far more stringent laws that regulate hate speech. It appears that the general consensus of what constitutes hate speech (not the illegal "fighting words" that you're speaking of) is "speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)". As you said, hate speech is more likely to cross the line to illegal fighting words if it's a more specific and immediate threat. 

(E.G - "Kill all ___" vs. "Kill THAT _____ right over there".)

Hating is not illegal. Most hate speech is not illegal. Both are very much in existence and I'm pretty sure that most people realize that they aren't illegal. Maybe this country will settle down a bit when people stop thinking that legality is what should define human decency. 

 Hate speech and fighting words are the phrases used in the cases.  

THANK YOU!  I have said this so many times and you are the first person, besides me, that I've heard say it.  We may not use the exact same words but the premise is the same.  We should not look to government nor the law to define our moral code.  Our laws should reflect us and the morals that we hold dear.    But for society to look to government to tell them how to live and what is right and what is wrong is totally backassward.  

This post was edited by Thriftymaid at August 18, 2018 2:57 AM MDT

Nice to agree with you! :)

I think this is particularly important that Americans remember separation of church and state exists for good reason. I know that many people look to religious teachings to condemn the choices, lifestyles and the very essence of others and attempt to justify that condemnation. 

I don't disagree with you about starving them of attention or publicity, though I understand the motivation of the counter-demonstrators. Hey, I know what should be done about these pieces of crap! There should be no counter-demonstrators and the only news about them should be that they are "professional protesters". 

Many of these groups are pretty stealthy with their recruitment practices. Not unlike how Trump was able to be elected, really. The role that scapegoating plays in all of this is sociologically fascinating to me. 

I was speaking of people and groups who are vocal and proud of their racist and bigoted belief systems. Those who have been identified by either the SPLC or identified as terrorist groups by the FBI (or both). 

I'm aware that there certainly are extremists other than those who are racists and bigots. I don't see this as a left/right issue. I'm not sure what there is to ponder. Although I've gone into it extensively above, I wasn't speaking about the legality of hate speech or hate groups. It's not name calling when the groups in question are openly vocal and proud about their beliefs.