pShould free speech laws cover hate speech?

Next>

Results

79 %

Yes

21 %

@Jun '12 c 88 comments V 243 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

243 Votes

u

u

14 hr
JumpRoundhouse endorsed num1capitalist

v Yes
u

15 hr
captbigtime endorsed Goebel

v Yes
u

15 hr
Brogan voted

v Yes
u

19 hr
DesignerLM voted

v No
Sat
tomtheterrible endorsed Goebel

v Yes
Sat
Smart3 voted

v Yes
Sat
tarakitten endorsed Goebel

v Yes
u

Sat
SamSpade voted

v Yes
u

Sat
bleakoutlook voted

v No
Sat
Bob72370 voted

v Yes
u

Sat

Buckfan4life2

v Yes

Yes and I wish the right would use it. The leftwing nutjobs pull no punches when it comes to hate speech or slandering a good person but the right never does and it pisses me off. Its time they to start slinging mud on all the slimeballs that the (commie) democrats are producing. Its time the right start playing hardball and stop being bullied by these freaks.

Post
Fri

NoAmnestyEVER

v Yes

Free speech should cover ALL speech for American citizens. However the Constitution should not apply in any way shape or form to illegal criminal invaders from Mexico.

Post
u

May 17
DrSilicon voted

v No
u

May 16
Bill2E endorsed num1capitalist

v Yes
u

May 16
Obsidion voted

v Yes
u

May 16
SlimElmo91 voted

v No
May 16
AndrewMC voted

v Yes
u

May 16
IMAQT voted

v Yes
u

May 16
sspphoto endorsed Goebel

v Yes
u

u

May 15
Bingo35 endorsed num1capitalist

v Yes
May 15
shihtzuman voted

v Yes
May 14
Mournwolf voted

v Yes
May 13
rbaker49 endorsed Bobolinsky

v Yes
May 13
LossforWRDS707 voted

v Yes
May 13

supertrucker

v Yes

Hate is every where . No matter the reason we all have the right to say what we want . But killing or hurting someone based on hate is wrong.

Post
u

May 13
LGRepublican endorsed num1capitalist

v Yes
May 13
Fyi1957 endorsed GhostRider

v No
May 12

DARSB

v Yes

Well, yeah, of course. And those people who use hate speech need to understand the 1st amendment works both ways.

Post
May 12
warwil630 voted

v No
May 12
PaulUK2901 endorsed Goebel

v Yes
u

May 12
Angry_man voted

v Yes
u

May 11

Gatnos

v Yes

The word "except" does not appear in the 1st Amendment.

Post
May 11

MarkJM

v Yes

Hate speech is not screaming fire in a crowded theater. Enough with this PC bullcrap. Don't like hate speech, don't listen to it, it's that simple...

Post
u

u

May 10
wildcard endorsed Stratton

v Yes
u

May 9
pezcore64 voted

v Yes
u

May 9
LilliB voted

v Yes
May 9
Koma voted

v Yes
u

May 9
oldtimer2 endorsed TeresaJ

v Yes
May 9

Russell797

v Yes

As despicable as hate speech may be, it's a blurred line as to what is and what isn't hate speech. Being prejudiced is not a crime. Voicing your opinion of others is not a crime. Acting on one's prejudice could be something those who are hated need to be protected from, including threatening language which is a form of assault.

Post
May 9
DanielZ endorsed Janniel

v No
May 8
DyingBreed voted

v Yes
u

u

May 8
sml11 endorsed Stratton

v Yes
May 8
AlexMIA voted

v Yes
u

May 8
DemonsAngel13 endorsed Goebel

v Yes
May 7
jeffreyknee voted

v Yes
u

May 7
RevJdubs316 endorsed num1capitalist

v Yes
u

May 7
BostonRob endorsed Janniel

v No
May 7
ZombieMedic voted

v Yes
u

May 6
gitrdone8383 voted

v Yes
u

May 6

URBS

v Yes

Hate speech is all in the eye of the beholder.

Post

u

Sat

Buckfan4life2

v Yes

Yes and I wish the right would use it. The leftwing nutjobs pull no punches when it comes to hate speech or slandering a good person but the right never does and it pisses me off. Its time they to start slinging mud on all the slimeballs that the (commie) democrats are producing. Its time the right start playing hardball and stop being bullied by these freaks.

Post
Fri

NoAmnestyEVER

v Yes

Free speech should cover ALL speech for American citizens. However the Constitution should not apply in any way shape or form to illegal criminal invaders from Mexico.

Post
May 13

supertrucker

v Yes

Hate is every where . No matter the reason we all have the right to say what we want . But killing or hurting someone based on hate is wrong.

Post
May 12

DARSB

v Yes

Well, yeah, of course. And those people who use hate speech need to understand the 1st amendment works both ways.

Post
u

May 11

Gatnos

v Yes

The word "except" does not appear in the 1st Amendment.

Post
May 11

MarkJM

v Yes

Hate speech is not screaming fire in a crowded theater. Enough with this PC bullcrap. Don't like hate speech, don't listen to it, it's that simple...

Post
May 9

Russell797

v Yes

As despicable as hate speech may be, it's a blurred line as to what is and what isn't hate speech. Being prejudiced is not a crime. Voicing your opinion of others is not a crime. Acting on one's prejudice could be something those who are hated need to be protected from, including threatening language which is a form of assault.

Post
u

May 6

URBS

v Yes

Hate speech is all in the eye of the beholder.

Post
o

May 6

GvtMule

v Yes

There is no solid definition of what hate speech

Post
May 6

Canoochee

v Yes

Post
May 6

jessejaymes

v Yes

This really is one that burns me up. If you call me a redneck cracker I'm going to know A.) That you're an idiot because I am clearly not a redneck cracker. b.) That a redneck cracker is someone you don't think very highly of so you think you're insulting me. You're not. Some people like being redneck crackers. C.) That you are exercising your right to free speech. Doesn't make you right about anything. Except you have the right to free speech. If you call me a gay swisher that tells me a.) You're an idiot because you're never been with me when I've had sex so how would you know? b.) You're an idiot because I don't swish. I'm far too old to swish. I don't swing my h...

Post
May 5

scotta

v No

I know you can't scream fire in a building full of people. But there is no hate speech. Wait I guess if you told some body or something you hated them or it. Oh well we can't afford it, Bush cut the spending to using " The Hate" word.

Post
u

May 5

S-N-A-F-U

v No

This is another Canard, unless of course, one is attacking an individuals character with defamation without proof. TOTOH, The first amendment doesn't guarantee that you won't be offended by FREE SPEECH either! Once you put limitations on speech, its no longer free, its speech according to the insipid sophistry of Political Correctness.....

Post
May 4

Thegrif

v Yes

As long as what you are saying is not an actual threat, or insighting a riot, or said to create mass panic, like "the building is on fire", when it is not, thus causing panic and hysteria. Then say what you want.

Post
May 4

BEKennedy

v No

There's a difference between freedom of speech & provoking others. Freedom of speech is about respectable & reasonable opinions/facts. Hate speech is mostly idiocy from disorderly conduct in an attempt to provoke physical confrontations.

Post
May 3

JoeJared

v No

Who defines what hate speech is? Is comments against the government hate speech? When we define the types of allowable speech because we don't agree with them, eventually, someone will come along and shut us up because they don't agree with us.

r2 replies

Post
May 3

890popbox

Ikr, you must have hit the wrong vote..

Post @890popbox
May 4

JoeJared

@890popbox No, I didn't. The government and media has already changed the meaning of hate speech, and will do it again. Before too much longer, hate speech will include protesting bad employment conditions, and eventually the mere mention of government tyranny. The more power and control we as a people give the government, the more they will take.

Post @JoeJared
u

May 3

tomincali

v Yes

heck our gov promotes hate speech by some groups yet go against others for the same thing.

Post
u

May 3

fraps

v No

The concept of hate speech is abhorrent. If you do not like what I say, argue against it. The specification of hate speech is ambiguous at best. If it were not the black people who use the word nigger should be charged with the crime. I do not think that happens to blacks, but does to whites. Virtually all speech laws violate the first amendment. Exceptions are like not being allowed to yell fire in a theater not on fire.

Post
May 1

Speedieg

v No

I voted no because its not clear what is meant by hate speech. If the speech is such that its sole purpose is to dehumanize, demoralize, and insite violence against a particular group then it should be banned.

B1

Post
May 1

harold_lloyd

v No

No, but... Not until I see a definition of 'hate speech' that I can understand and agree to.

Post
R Load more comments...

May '12

Goebel

v Yes

While hate speech is a problem, allowing the government to regulate speech is not a very good solution. For one, the individuals given control over speech regulation will undoubtedly favour their own interests when classifying speech as legal or illegal. Those who suffer more at the hands of hate speech are those who are oppressed. Laws are created by law-makers whom are members of a privileged class. Accordingly, you would expect these laws to work against the interests of the oppressed and in favour of those in a small privileged minority of law-makers. In my view, a better solution to hate speech is to stand in solidarity with those being oppressed. We don't need ...

B1

e23 endorsed

Post
May '12

ir0nw0lfe

v Yes

I love these made up concepts that suddenly we all should be concerned about. When the left uses rough language or calls Michelle Bachman a slut, its all satire, or just one of Maher's rants, or just kidding we didn't mean it but what the heck its free speech. When the right smarts off or says just about anything that can be twisted or taken out of context then they are evil and engaging in hate speech and they must be censored. Look there are plenty of classless acts on both sides of the aisle slinging enough mud to drown a herd of swine. They are big boys and girls who need to grow a thicker skin and not cry foul when their rivals score a zinger. It's called politics...

B6

e7 endorsed

Post
u

Jun '12

num1capitalist

v Yes

Freedom of speech is free therefore nothing is restricted.

B1

e9 endorsed

Post
May '12

Janniel

v No

I vote no on this question, as it is worded. Free speech is essential, but to think that we actually have it is to be living under a delusion. Example: hecklers, exercising their right to free speech by disrupting an event in such a way that others are not able to participate, are removed from the area so that others may speak. Hate speech needs to be strictly defined. It is one thing to say you have had some bad experiences with *** people, and another to say that *** people should be killed because they are the scum of the earth. Common sense needs to be applied. If we are honest about it we will see that free speech is in the grey area of the spectrum.

r1 reply

e10 endorsed

Post
u

May '12

sylehrman

v Yes

Hate speech is too hard to define and thus has no specific form that can be legally sanctioned. If it is legal to hate someone then it must surely be legal to say so but if one has to resort of complicated circumlocutions to avoid statements that might be illegal under a hate speech law you only confuse things further and heaven knows things are already confused enough.

B5

e4 endorsed

Post
o

Jun '12

Stratton

v Yes

It's illegal to make threats, harrass someone or incite a riot. Other than that we are free to air what ever repugnant views we may happen to hold. I'm sure that in the 1770s the British would have happily classified the American colonists' dissatisfaction with the rule of King George III and Parliament as "hate speech" if they'd thought of it.

B2

r1 reply

e3 endorsed

Post
Jun '12

GhostRider

v No

Absolutely not. Hate speech is not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is "peaceful" assembly to be heard. Not to incite hatred and riots to harm to others.

r1 reply

e4 endorsed

Post
o

May '12

ComeToJESUS777

v No

It shouldn't. BUT let's define what hate speech is, since many liberals think that ANYTHING that doesn't agree with THEM is hate speech.. IE: Telling a homosexual that they're an abomination unto God and worthy of death is NOT hate speech (as most would call it) it is simply stating a fact that God (JESUS) already established. If I told that same homosexual "you're an idiot cuz of your sin", that is "hate speech" since "idiot" is subjective, in other words; it's attacking the person and not confronting the sin. Telling someone that they're committing premeditated murder for aborting their child is NOT hate speech, it is simply stating a fact that God almighty already e...

B3

r2 replies

e1 endorsed

Post
May '12

nqdenise

v Yes

hate speech is such a subjective term. You've got to define it really well. A lot of what people consider hate speech is already covered under libel, death threats, and etc. You don't want to end up in a state where hate is redefined as political correctness, and anyone on the wrong side of whoever just got elected is doomed for trouble.

e3 endorsed

Post
u

Jun '12

RealHonesTruth

v No

There have to be lines drawn somewhere. But free speech laws should not cover all levels of hate speech. For example, If someone is talking about eliminated a minority race, that goes way too far.

B1

e2 endorsed

Post

Politix

pShould free speech laws cover hate speech?

Results