Hate of speech and its consequences "crimes"

[Twilight Hue]

Unless someone says: "there's a bomb in the hospital that's set to detonate in 2 minutes". And in running out of the building, people in ICU die, and patients fall off gurneys as staff races to save their lives. Women in labor are left abandoned, a doctor in heart surgery excuses himself from the procedure.

...I would want the caller to be prosecuted in that case.

That's good point. It shows were there is a gray area. The challenge is to whittle it down where you can have a definitive line.

Like maybe a charge could be levied against someone whose speech causes proven real objectifiable damage as a direct result.

Never for speech alone though.

But even that can create some legitimate arguments pro and con between what could happen and what does happen.

 

[Shad]

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 !!

Define hate speech.

 

[Cooky]

Define hate speech.

Everything I hate..?

 

[LuisDantas]

No ,I don't .

Well, this will be a difficult conversation then, albeit a potentially very rewarding one.

 

[We Never Know]

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 !!

First off, what is the difference from hate speech and freedom of speech?

 

[David1967]

Thanks for share your opinion.

There is another question,why don't want to criminalize a view almost certainly always leaded/leading to crimes in the end !

The problem is in the question of who gets to make the decision of what qualifies as hate speech.

 

[Shad]

Everything I hate..?

It is a short list right?

 

[Godobeyer]

Someone saying that their goal is to "wipe Israel off the map" is a promised goal.

...That is why we want to disarm Iran and punish them.

Plan of great Isreal from Iraq to Egypt is also promised goal,it's not secrect
For sure there is idealogy in Isreal ,wipe Arabs from map,that's on practice don't you see ?

 

[Godobeyer]

The problem is in the question of who gets to make the decision of what qualifies as hate speech.

Commun sense , and put them on UN laws, to vote.

 

[Godobeyer]

*sniffs in disdain*

Why do I get the feeling you started this thread with the specific goal of dragging Israel into it?

Freedom of speech,don't I ?

No,not mean, I recalled him to main problem between USA and Iran.

 

[Godobeyer]

I wouldn't support anyone encouraging others to act in violence. Maybe if you had specific examples instead of general ideas. The US current acts against Iran are sanctions, as far as I know, not violence.
.

I see the view of Iranis in this part,why consider it USA as enemy.

I do believe if a country sanctions USA in main economy source(to Iran is oil),next day will start a war.

 

[Godobeyer]

Oh, threatening people with violence is against the law here in the U.S.A.

But as long as you don't threaten with physical violence, you can say almost anything.

You see, there is a difference between "hate speech" and threatening people.

I see where you came from .
It's like freedom of speech content hate of speech ,and hate of speech content threatening people.

My point since there is atmosphere of hate,so don't worry if it's turn to violence. I mean to be practice in reality.

 

[pearl]

Unless someone says: "there's a bomb in the hospital that's set to detonate in 2 minutes". And in running out of the building, people in ICU die, and patients fall off gurneys as staff races to save their lives. Women in labor are left abandoned, a doctor in heart surgery excuses himself from the procedure.

...I would want the caller to be prosecuted in that case.

I am reminded of the phrase, 'you can't yell fire in a crowded theater'. However;
The First Amendment case before Holmes wasn’t about a fire. It wasn’t about physical danger of any kind. Oliver Wendell Holmes used that analogy to justify the government jailing someone for speaking out against the draft.
The shout of fire Oliver Wendell Holmes was talking about was opposition to the military draft and his theater was America’s entry into World War I. The Great War, a war to end all wars, began in August 1914, but America didn’t get into it until April 1917. It was an unpopular war with many Americans.

https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

 

[wellwisher]

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.

 

[Cooky]

Plan of great Isreal from Iraq to Egypt is also promised goal,it's not secrect
For sure there is idealogy in Isreal ,wipe Arabs from map,that's on practice don't you see ?

Just let them have it. Join them! They're better.

 

[David1967]

Commun sense , and put them on UN laws, to vote.

The point I'm trying to make is that Hate speech would be determined by who happened to be in power, and sometimes those in power are quite 'hateful' themselves, so those kinds of laws can very quickly be used as political or religious means to oppress the free exchange of ideas. Imagine if you will, living in a world where Nazis or Isis had the power to enforce on an international level what they determined was hate speech. We saw that on a national level in Germany during the '30s and '40s, and today in Isis-controlled parts of Syria and Iraq. I'm sure that is very different from what you or I would consider "hate speech".

 

[Audie]

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 !!

Not really. We do have laws about such things as
saying "HIJACK" at the airport. Free speech
always has limits.

 

[Nakosis]

I see the view of Iranis in this part,why consider it USA as enemy.

I do believe if a country sanctions USA in main economy source(to Iran is oil),next day will start a war.

World politics.

I suspect most of what motivates world governments, the public is not privy to.

The US sees Israel as an ally. If Iran came out in support of Israel I'm sure that would help with world peace. Israel and Iran at one time were allies.

 

[Godobeyer]

Not really. We do have laws about such things as
saying "HIJACK" at the airport. Free speech
always has limits.

You mean it's depend the consquences and effect on others.

Yes that's would terrify the passengers

 

[Godobeyer]

The point I'm trying to make is that Hate speech would be determined by who happened to be in power, and sometimes those in power are quite 'hateful' themselves, so those kinds of laws can very quickly be used as political or religious means to oppress the free exchange of ideas. Imagine if you will, living in a world where Nazis or Isis had the power to enforce on an international level what they determined was hate speech. We saw that on a national level in Germany during the '30s and '40s, and today in Isis-controlled parts of Syria and Iraq. I'm sure that is very different from what you or I would consider "hate speech".

I know there is always extremists take control, last few weeks an Australian terrorist killed 50 Muslims because what he learnt by hate of speech.

I heard about white gangs in USA ,for sure they will make crimes because of their racist motivation.
I mean teaching extremism/racism always leading to crimes in end.

Just in civil war or wars brighten more,and more fatal consquences.