Hello all
My messege to all supporter of hate of speech (whatever his race or religion ...)
Why you wonder when it's become/transform to acts/facts on ground ?!
Is not hypocrisy to support an opinion and deny it's acts on ground !!
The problem I have with the term hate speech, is there is no logically consistent definition of hate speech that is consistent across the board and applies to all, fairly and equally. It often appears subjective and designed as a club for one side of the political spectrum. I get the impression it is a censorship scam because it is one sided and not universally applied.
In terms of an objective definition of hate speech, the first word in the term hate speech, is
hate. The secondary term is
speech; words. Therefore, a more logical definition of hate speech, would be a speaker saying anything that is driven by hate in their heart. It is not about the secondary buzz words. It is about the emotion behind the words of the person who is speaking. It is not about the conditioned reaction of a person who hears; the audience reaction is secondary. The person who hears, is not speaking. The current definition should be called
speech-hate, since speech appears before hate, with hate inferred, secondary, from a conditioned buzz word.
For example, before the Mueller Report was released in the USA, the media and Progressive party would criticize Trump all day, with hate in their heart. This was not called hate speech, since by the rules of speech hate, this was not against a Progressive, nor did it use any buzz word defined by the Progressives. The objective definition of hate speech; hate first, would make this hate speech, since you could feel the hate of the speakers, and even see it in their faces, before they spoke.
On the other hand, consider the comedian, who uses buzz words in his comedy act. As you look at the comedian you can see fun in his eyes and everyone in the audience having fun. This is not hate speech. It is only buzz words, without any leading emotion of hate. This is just poking fun. Pointing out cold hard facts, in an objective way, without hate, is not hate speech, since there is no hate in the voice or heart. Scientists try to avoid emotions. Free speech is anything, including all the buzz words, if there is no hate, at the leading edge of the heart and voice. It may be speech-hate if you are conditioned that way.
Hate coming first, as the definition of hate speech, makes the definition very universal. For example, say I said a speech-hate buzz word about a race. Currently, the buzz word will be called hate speech, even if used in comedy without hate. To change this up, instead of saying the same buzz word, in the common language, I say it as a foreign language translation. Since the new sound is very different, this buzz word's cousin, may not be taken to heart, as hate speech, if the person is not able to translate and therefore have not yet been conditioned to this particular dog whistle. Speech hate is not universal, language to language. On the other hand, if you sense hate in the speakers heart, one can still tell this is hate speech, even if you do not know the foreign word. It is about a universal human emotion leading the noises and sounds.
I do not accept the speech-hate; buzz word first, criteria of hate speech, since this is subjective. It is designed to censor, even in situations where there is no hate in the heart. It is all based on using dog whistles that trigger conditioned defensiveness in the audience, instead of teaching the audience to sense speaker hate, and react only to that.
For example, if a feminists was to blame with all males for the woes of the world, with anger in her heart, this is hate speech, even if the term male is not a conditioned dog whistle, for speech-hate, by a Progressive audience. Ir should not be about dog whistles, but about a universal human emotion; hate, first.