If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Germany has strict laws against hate speech, and has begun enforcing them online. It will fine Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube up to $60 million if they fail to comply. If you want a Nazi-free Twitter feed, you can tell them you've moved there   ( wired.com) divider line
    More: Cool, social networks, Nazism, hate speech, Nazi Germany, canny Twitter user, hardened Twitter street, German anti-hate-speech laws, New York  
•       •       •

718 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Feb 2018 at 3:15 AM (22 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-02-06 12:51:40 AM  
It's interesting.

Americans worship the ideals of the First  and Second Amendments as if Holy Writ.

Yet what seemed sensible 200 years ago has been overtaken by modern technology.. You cd argue that tolerance of hate speech has made America a nastier place than it needs to be, and that has concrete consequences IRL
 
2018-02-06 12:55:35 AM  
I'm torn. Restricting hate speech seems like a good idea when good people define "hate speech." But someone like Trump, a man who calls not clapping for him treason, defining hate speech? Very bad idea. Of course unfettered hate speech and smears helped put Trump in office, so...torn.
 
2018-02-06 02:24:29 AM  
Yeah but posting Scheiße porn still earns a ban, so take that, Germans
 
2018-02-06 03:31:45 AM  
I'm quite fine with the European limits on hate speech . Wouldn't mind it applied here, but it won't happen .
 
2018-02-06 03:46:17 AM  
But in June 2017, the complete Volksverhetzung laws fully pivoted to digital with sweeping new regulations for social networks. These are called the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz.  An​d, man, what a Netzwerk reform do those durchsetzungsgesetz-enforcemen​t laws-represent.

Holy shiat balls.
 
2018-02-06 04:34:38 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz


This is now the name of my speed metal Kraftwerk cover band.
 
2018-02-06 05:30:40 AM  

DeaH: I'm torn. Restricting hate speech seems like a good idea when good people define "hate speech." But someone like Trump, a man who calls not clapping for him treason, defining hate speech? Very bad idea. Of course unfettered hate speech and smears helped put Trump in office, so...torn.


That's the though circle that the rest of the modern countries took a risk with and have now since avoided.  Its social engineering, blatant social engineering to make nazism and general xenophobia less common in an attempt to shuffle it out of the psyche of the average citizen, looks like its working though.  If that last damned country would finally join us with that goal then maybe we wouldn't have to be talking about nazis openly marching in your streets in 2017.
 
2018-02-06 06:12:28 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: But in June 2017, the complete Volksverhetzung laws fully pivoted to digital with sweeping new regulations for social networks. These are called the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz.  And, man, what a Netzwerk reform do those durchsetzungsgesetz-enforcement laws-represent.

Holy shiat balls.


The German word for speed limit is my favorite: Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung
Perhaps that is why the autobahn does not have one
 
2018-02-06 06:13:57 AM  

DeaH: I'm torn. Restricting hate speech seems like a good idea when good people define "hate speech." But someone like Trump, a man who calls not clapping for him treason, defining hate speech? Very bad idea. Of course unfettered hate speech and smears helped put Trump in office, so...torn.


Hate speech laws are specifically designed to prevent someone like Trump from gaining power.
 
2018-02-06 07:36:12 AM  
Theodor Heuss, Germany's Boobieswar president, said it best: "The instruments of democracy shall not be available to those who seek its destruction". 

OTOH, maybe the anonymous author of this, Polandball's absolute high point and reason for existing, said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v​=bvlhU0​WjQbg https://polandball.cc/comic/th​e-greate​st-enemy/

I know what I am. We all know what we are. The Hakenkreuz will never come here again.
 
2018-02-06 07:50:04 AM  
Trump, a man who calls not clapping for him treason

Unholy shiat balls.
 
2018-02-06 08:51:48 AM  
Just goes to show you, if you really want to get away from the Nazis, you just have to go to Germany.
 
2018-02-06 08:58:19 AM  
Germany
Youtube P_LA_Pt7pKs
 
2018-02-06 09:00:47 AM  

mjjt: It's interesting.

Americans worship the ideals of the First  and Second Amendments as if Holy Writ.

Yet what seemed sensible 200 years ago has been overtaken by modern technology.. You cd argue that tolerance of hate speech has made America a nastier place than it needs to be, and that has concrete consequences IRL


Wrong.

The first and second amendments are indeed holy writ in the American conscience and are just as alive and relevant today as they were 200 years ago.

trying to suppress an idea by force, or attacking the people who espouse it through violence or other means, is becoming the thing that you hate.  After all, spreading communist propaganda was a serious criminal offense in Nazi Germany - is this really so different?
 
2018-02-06 09:31:36 AM  

8tReAsUrEz: Theodor Heuss, Germany's Boobieswar president, said it best: "The instruments of democracy shall not be available to those who seek its destruction". 

OTOH, maybe the anonymous author of this, Polandball's absolute high point and reason for existing, said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=​bvlhU0WjQbg https://polandball.cc/comi​c/the-greatest-enemy/

I know what I am. We all know what we are. The Hakenkreuz will never come here again.


I want a boobies war president
 
2018-02-06 09:36:29 AM  

Animatronik: mjjt: It's interesting.

Americans worship the ideals of the First  and Second Amendments as if Holy Writ.

Yet what seemed sensible 200 years ago has been overtaken by modern technology.. You cd argue that tolerance of hate speech has made America a nastier place than it needs to be, and that has concrete consequences IRL

Wrong.

The first and second amendments are indeed holy writ in the American conscience and are just as alive and relevant today as they were 200 years ago.

trying to suppress an idea by force, or attacking the people who espouse it through violence or other means, is becoming the thing that you hate.  After all, spreading communist propaganda was a serious criminal offense in Nazi Germany - is this really so different?


When you grow up in an era of the Soviet Union suppressing rights to advance an agenda, the first and second amendments are like a holy writ.  The Soviet newspaper was called Pravda (Truth), it should have been called Truth, as we see it.  It appears we are back in struggle between suppression and freedom.  The cycle continues.
 
2018-02-06 09:40:39 AM  
Germans certainly are fond of burning books with ideologies they don't agree with. The more things change the more they stay the same.
 
2018-02-06 09:43:25 AM  

mjjt: Americans worship the ideals of the First and Second Amendments as if Holy Writ.

They don't even understand what they worship.  The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the government from banning any peaceable assembly it might find dangerous to its retention of power.  This interpretation has been consistently and repeatedly established in court cases.  You can call the President an orange imbecile and there's nothing he can do about it, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre to incite a stampede.  Speech that causes deliberate harm to fellow citizens is not protected.  Which means hate speech isn't protected, either, though our laws against them aren't nearly as strong as they need to be.

Animatronik: trying to suppress an idea by force, or attacking the people who espouse it through violence or other means, is becoming the thing that you hate.

No, it's not.  The first whiny defense of the neo-Confeds and neo-Nazis was, "Where does it stop?"  Oh, that's easy you dimfuks, we stop at the sworn enemies of Americans.  You know, the factions that explicitly declared war on America?  This isn't hard.

Animatronik: After all, spreading communist propaganda was a serious criminal offense in Nazi Germany - is this really so different?

Yeah, there's quite the difference in banning ideas (Nazis), and the criminalization/objectification of entire races (the Confeds), versus banning speech explicitly design to harm a nation and/or its citizens by definition.
 
2018-02-06 10:30:32 AM  

dragonchild: This interpretation has been consistently and repeatedly established in court cases.  You can call the President an orange imbecile and there's nothing he can do about it, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre to incite a stampede.  Speech that causes deliberate harm to fellow citizens is not protected.  Which means hate speech isn't protected, either, though our laws against them aren't nearly as strong as they need to be.


You are demonstrably wrong.  The exception is not nearly as vague as you claim, but is in fact much more specific.  The standard, as set in Brandenburg v. Ohio, is imminent lawless action.  "Speech that causes deliberate harm to fellow citizens" is extremely vague, not a legal standard, and can apply to a number of scenarios including protesting a Nazi rally.

In the US hate speech is in fact protected speech as long as it doesn't fall under the few very narrowly defined exceptions.
 
2018-02-06 10:33:23 AM  
Holy crap, Animatronik, you're actually defending Nazi law!?

Dude. Seriously?

You have the right to speak as a fellow American, certainly but that's no ethos at all to be defending, man.

Stickin' people of several different specific "Other/us pure normies don't believe They are even humans" categories in prison camps and gassin' em to death was also the law for the Nazis as well.
 
2018-02-06 10:35:23 AM  

mjjt: Americans worship the ideals of the First and Second Amendments as if Holy Writ.


Unless, of course, you write "Coca Cola" with a Sharpie on a bottle of sugar water. You won't believe how quickly government will support a company in regulating speech.
 
2018-02-06 10:40:55 AM  

DeaH: I'm torn. Restricting hate speech seems like a good idea when good people define "hate speech." But someone like Trump, a man who calls not clapping for him treason, defining hate speech? Very bad idea. Of course unfettered hate speech and smears helped put Trump in office, so...torn.


Nah, this will result in Twitter and Facebook censoring the crap out of factual information and honest discussion because that stuff might potentially be considered to be a semi-valid reason for a court case by some people.
 
2018-02-06 10:42:33 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-06 10:45:17 AM  
Christopher Hitchens - Free Speech
Youtube 4Z2uzEM0ugY
 
2018-02-06 10:49:34 AM  

Beta Tested: The exception is not nearly as vague as you claim, but is in fact much more specific. The standard, as set in Brandenburg v. Ohio, is imminent lawless action. "Speech that causes deliberate harm to fellow citizens" is extremely vague, not a legal standard, and can apply to a number of scenarios including protesting a Nazi rally.

 In the US hate speech is in fact protected speech as long as it doesn't fall under the few very narrowly defined exceptions.
You're conflating the scope of existing laws, which are narrowly defined by design lest they get struck down, and interpretation of the 1st Amendment.  Doxxing is illegal.  Harassment is illegal.  Assault (not to be confused with battery) is illegal.  Death threats are illegal.  If you express intent to harm someone, your speech is not protected.  The individual laws are specific, but the amendment's interpretation is consistent with a very broad category of speech it does NOT cover.


It's difficult to prosecute hate speech in particular because in large part the laws aren't there.  But a ban on hate speech would not necessarily be struck down as unconstitutional.  It's not criminalized, but it's not the 1st Amendment that's protecting it.
 
2018-02-06 10:56:02 AM  

DeaH: I'm torn. Restricting hate speech seems like a good idea when good people define "hate speech." But someone like Trump, a man who calls not clapping for him treason


Ummm...yeah. And there are a great many that say clapping for Trump is hate speech. The First Amendment wasn't created to protect anyone from mean things. What good is an Amendment that just protects Love Speech?
 
2018-02-06 11:01:05 AM  
"Speech that causes deliberate harm to fellow citizens" is extremely vague, not a legal standard, and can apply to a number of scenarios including protesting a Nazi rally

does not compute
 
2018-02-06 11:03:14 AM  

limboslam: DeaH: I'm torn. Restricting hate speech seems like a good idea when good people define "hate speech." But someone like Trump, a man who calls not clapping for him treason

Ummm...yeah. And there are a great many that say clapping for Trump is hate speech. The First Amendment wasn't created to protect anyone from mean things. What good is an Amendment that just protects Love Speech?


What?
 
2018-02-06 11:06:32 AM  
What is hate speech?
And who decides what qualifies?

/it is fun to watch the lefties campaign for more authoritarian government over site, while comparing Trump to a dictator
 
2018-02-06 11:08:49 AM  

dragonchild: Beta Tested: The exception is not nearly as vague as you claim, but is in fact much more specific. The standard, as set in Brandenburg v. Ohio, is imminent lawless action. "Speech that causes deliberate harm to fellow citizens" is extremely vague, not a legal standard, and can apply to a number of scenarios including protesting a Nazi rally.
 In the US hate speech is in fact protected speech as long as it doesn't fall under the few very narrowly defined exceptions.
You're conflating the scope of existing laws, which are narrowly defined by design lest they get struck down, and interpretation of the 1st Amendment.  Doxxing is illegal.  Harassment is illegal.  Assault (not to be confused with battery) is illegal.  Death threats are illegal.  If you express intent to harm someone, your speech is not protected.  The individual laws are specific, but the amendment's interpretation is consistent with a very broad category of speech it does NOT cover.


It's difficult to prosecute hate speech in particular because in large part the laws aren't there.  But a ban on hate speech would not necessarily be struck down as unconstitutional.  It's not criminalized, but it's not the 1st Amendment that's protecting it.


Can you come up with a model hate speech law that you don't think would be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment? I'm genuinely curious to see how you'd narrowly tailor it to achieve a compelling government interest in the least restrictive way possible as it would probably be reviewed by that standard.
 
2018-02-06 11:23:27 AM  

dragonchild: mjjt: Americans worship the ideals of the First and Second Amendments as if Holy Writ.
They don't even understand what they worship. The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the government from banning any peaceable assembly it might find dangerous to its retention of power. This interpretation has been consistently and repeatedly established in court cases. You can call the President an orange imbecile and there's nothing he can do about it, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre to incite a stampede. Speech that causes deliberate harm to fellow citizens is not protected. Which means hate speech isn't protected, either, though our laws against them aren't nearly as strong as they need to be


I understand it well enough to know that you have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

No, the 1st Amendment doesn't just protect dissident political speech; no, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment; and no; having a hateful opinion doesn't meet the standard for incitement. Beyond that, maybe go look up the historical context for that quote you allude to, about yelling fire in a theater. Then let us know if that the sort of juridical reasoning you'd like to see more of.

(Spoiler alert: right-wing speech wasn't the subject of that case.)
 
kab
2018-02-06 11:41:36 AM  

mrsleep: What is hate speech?
And who decides what qualifies?

/it is fun to watch the lefties campaign for more authoritarian government over site, while comparing Trump to a dictator


  I tend to agree.    I'd much rather see people care less about what's said, and instead stomp the fark out of whatever action might occur based on what was said.   You know, the stuff that actually matters.

  Deciding that a statement falls into a category as vague as hate speech is how you very quickly arrive at a place where people feel that they can't express any opinions at all.

  And for the love of god, as someone who's political tendencies lean very much towards the left, this "If I don't like something, then no one else should be able to do enjoy it" approach to all things, regardless of severity, is exactly how you manufacture your own opposition.  Stop doing that.
 
2018-02-06 11:46:15 AM  

mrsleep: What is hate speech?
And who decides what qualifies?

/it is fun to watch the lefties campaign for more authoritarian government over site, while comparing Trump to a dictator


Yes, that amuses me too. Well, amuses and horrifies. How about this: I get to decide. Here's what really chaps my tender butthole and hurts my fee-fees - all of this bullcrap talk about "white privilege" and all of the other anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian propaganda being spewed by leftist professors in their gender studies classes. I say we start tossing those un-American bastards in the gulag. Hell, we could just build a fence/wall around Berkley and turn that whole place into the first California Reeducation Camp.

Do you still think that letting the government decide what speech to allow is "cool", subby, or does that only apply if leftists get to make the rules? You want Donald Trump and Mike Pence deciding which speech is okay and which is criminal? Be careful what you wish for. Just because everyone in your little bubble thinks the same way that you do does NOT mean that everyone does.
 
2018-02-06 12:07:16 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Its social engineering, blatant social engineering to make nazism and general xenophobia less common in an attempt to shuffle it out of the psyche of the average citizen, looks like its working though.


Where exactly? The far-right recently captured its first seats in the German parliament in 60 years; Austria's governing coalition now includes a party founded by former Nazis. (Literal Nazis; no metaphorical association or rhetorical excess required. Literal-actual-historical Nazis. Nazi-Nazis.)

We can go country by country, from England to France to the Netherlands from there. But even where you find the resurgent far-right being pushed back, it's at the polls, not in the courts -- as it should be.

Even in an autocratic state like North Korea, there are political dissidents. The idea that a liberal society can just criminalize away unpopular opinions -- and do so effectively while remaining anything close to a liberal society -- is absurd.
 
2018-02-06 12:28:28 PM  

this looks interesting everything's ok: Can you come up with a model hate speech law that you don't think would be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment?

That would be a great question to ask an experienced policymaker, because there's no question the details would matter.  A bunch of Nazis getting together, by itself, wouldn't be enough to criminalize, nor would them going "yay Nazis!".  At some point the language gets specific, and it's the specific language that would be targeted.  It woudn't dissolve a Nazi party per se; it would remove the incentive for one to exist, and that's where there'd be a courtroom showdown.

I'm not saying it'd be easy, but the idea I'm trying to kill is the notion that if a particular law doesn't exist it's because the Constitution wouldn't allow it.  There's an absurdly incomplete understanding of civics being thrown around here.
 
2018-02-06 01:10:16 PM  

dragonchild: mjjt: Americans worship the ideals of the First and Second Amendments as if Holy Writ.
They don't even understand what they worship.  The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the government from banning any peaceable assembly it might find dangerous to its retention of power.  This interpretation has been consistently and repeatedly established in court cases.  You can call the President an orange imbecile and there's nothing he can do about it, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre to incite a stampede.  Speech that causes deliberate harm to fellow citizens is not protected.  Which means hate speech isn't protected, either, though our laws against them aren't nearly as strong as they need to be.
Animatronik: trying to suppress an idea by force, or attacking the people who espouse it through violence or other means, is becoming the thing that you hate.
No, it's not.  The first whiny defense of the neo-Confeds and neo-Nazis was, "Where does it stop?"  Oh, that's easy you dimfuks, we stop at the sworn enemies of Americans.  You know, the factions that explicitly declared war on America?  This isn't hard.
Animatronik: After all, spreading communist propaganda was a serious criminal offense in Nazi Germany - is this really so different?
Yeah, there's quite the difference in banning ideas (Nazis), and the criminalization/objectification of entire races (the Confeds), versus banning speech explicitly design to harm a nation and/or its citizens by definition.


You and at least four other people reading this thread have a poor to no understanding of why we have a first amendment. Or for that matter, what constitutes open rebellion or treason vs. something that is merely labeled as such by someone who finds it objectionable.

There's a reason why this amendment was #1: it's the first freedom that people attack before they go after the others.   Because as soon as you give someone the power to decide what you are and are not allowed to say, the list of prohibited words and speech becomes infinitely malleable.  And then it becomes a simpler matter to control what people are allowed to do and who is allowed to govern.  So don't even start going down that road.
 
2018-02-06 01:37:37 PM  

dragonchild: mjjt: Americans worship the ideals of the First and Second Amendments as if Holy Writ.
They don't even understand what they worship.  The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the government from banning any peaceable assembly it might find dangerous to its retention of power.  This interpretation has been consistently and repeatedly established in court cases.  You can call the President an orange imbecile and there's nothing he can do about it, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre to incite a stampede.  Speech that causes deliberate harm to fellow citizens is not protected.  Which means hate speech isn't protected, either, though our laws against them aren't nearly as strong as they need to be.
Animatronik: trying to suppress an idea by force, or attacking the people who espouse it through violence or other means, is becoming the thing that you hate.
No, it's not.  The first whiny defense of the neo-Confeds and neo-Nazis was, "Where does it stop?"  Oh, that's easy you dimfuks, we stop at the sworn enemies of Americans.  You know, the factions that explicitly declared war on America?  This isn't hard.
Animatronik: After all, spreading communist propaganda was a serious criminal offense in Nazi Germany - is this really so different?
Yeah, there's quite the difference in banning ideas (Nazis), and the criminalization/objectification of entire races (the Confeds), versus banning speech explicitly design to harm a nation and/or its citizens by definition.


Hate speech is absolutely protected speech. NHPR's Civics 101 podcast ad has been reaffirming that for weeks.
 
2018-02-06 06:18:44 PM  
Where is the irony tag?

Former Nazi state restricts speech.  Color me shocked.
 
2018-02-06 07:35:03 PM  
First they came for the neo-Nazis, and I said nothing, for I was not a neo-Nazi.
Then they came for the alt-right, and I said nothing, for I was not an alt-right.
Then they came for the Republicans, and I said nothing, for I was not a Republican.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.
 
2018-02-06 08:50:57 PM  

dragonchild: At some point the language gets specific, and it's the specific language that would be targeted.


That's the opposite of how it works. The more specific the law gets about what can't be said, the more likely it runs afoul of viewpoint-neutrality, and therefore the more obviously unconstitutional it is.

After all, if it were really just a matter of narrowing the restriction to something more concrete and overtly hateful than "yay Nazis!", you'd have to think a law against Klan-style cross burnings would suffice. It doesn't, and it didn't, because that's obviously a content-based restriction aimed at suppressing the speech of a certain ideological viewpoint.

You can have laws that outlaw burning crosses, but only to the extent the offense is defined in the familiar terms of an otherwise-criminal threat (i.e., there's a specific, identifiable target; there is intent to intimidate, as an element apart from the speech itself; the burden falls on the state to prove such intent; there is a reasonable belief the threat is true, etc.). But, all you've really accomplished in that case is to give a specific criminal definition to behavior that was never going to be considered protected speech in the first place, and was probably already several kinds of illegal anyway (e.g., setting fire to a cross in your neighbor's yard to force them to sell their house).

So, yes, our system allows for "hate speech laws" if we define that down to mean "laws which criminalize shiatty behavior that's also expressive of shiatty opinions" (e.g., see: hate crimes). But, that's not what hate speech laws are. Hate speech laws criminalize speech, as such; they say some viewpoints are impermissible, under penalty of law. And that is completely incompatible with 1st Amendment law, the whole premise of which is that the government doesn't get to decide what opinions you're allowed to have.

Thank god...

/tl;dr -- Euro-style hate speech laws, notgoingtohappen.jpg
//and if the left was actually dumb enough to try, it would make their 2nd Amendment politics look brilliant by comparison
 
2018-02-07 03:59:36 AM  

meatofmystery: I'm quite fine with the European limits on hate speech . Wouldn't mind it applied here, but it won't happen .


We are apparently too stupid to be trusted with anything but absolutes.
 
2018-02-07 04:04:16 AM  

Animatronik: mjjt: It's interesting.

Americans worship the ideals of the First  and Second Amendments as if Holy Writ.

Yet what seemed sensible 200 years ago has been overtaken by modern technology.. You cd argue that tolerance of hate speech has made America a nastier place than it needs to be, and that has concrete consequences IRL

Wrong.

The first and second amendments are indeed holy writ in the American conscience and are just as alive and relevant today as they were 200 years ago.

trying to suppress an idea by force, or attacking the people who espouse it through violence or other means, is becoming the thing that you hate.  After all, spreading communist propaganda was a serious criminal offense in Nazi Germany - is this really so different?


Yes.  Advocating the mass murder of Jews and other minorities is different than communism.  It's different.
 
2018-02-07 04:45:47 AM  

mod3072: mrsleep: What is hate speech?
And who decides what qualifies?

/it is fun to watch the lefties campaign for more authoritarian government over site, while comparing Trump to a dictator

Yes, that amuses me too. Well, amuses and horrifies. How about this: I get to decide. Here's what really chaps my tender butthole and hurts my fee-fees - all of this bullcrap talk about "white privilege" and all of the other anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian propaganda being spewed by leftist professors in their gender studies classes. I say we start tossing those un-American bastards in the gulag. Hell, we could just build a fence/wall around Berkley and turn that whole place into the first California Reeducation Camp.

Do you still think that letting the government decide what speech to allow is "cool", subby, or does that only apply if leftists get to make the rules? You want Donald Trump and Mike Pence deciding which speech is okay and which is criminal? Be careful what you wish for. Just because everyone in your little bubble thinks the same way that you do does NOT mean that everyone does.


Are you that dumb that you can't tell the difference between "white privilege" and "kill all the jews"?
 
2018-02-07 10:36:11 AM  

rga184: mod3072: mrsleep: What is hate speech?
And who decides what qualifies?

/it is fun to watch the lefties campaign for more authoritarian government over site, while comparing Trump to a dictator

Yes, that amuses me too. Well, amuses and horrifies. How about this: I get to decide. Here's what really chaps my tender butthole and hurts my fee-fees - all of this bullcrap talk about "white privilege" and all of the other anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian propaganda being spewed by leftist professors in their gender studies classes. I say we start tossing those un-American bastards in the gulag. Hell, we could just build a fence/wall around Berkley and turn that whole place into the first California Reeducation Camp.

Do you still think that letting the government decide what speech to allow is "cool", subby, or does that only apply if leftists get to make the rules? You want Donald Trump and Mike Pence deciding which speech is okay and which is criminal? Be careful what you wish for. Just because everyone in your little bubble thinks the same way that you do does NOT mean that everyone does.

Are you that dumb that you can't tell the difference between "white privilege" and "kill all the jews"?


My, aren't you an angry little fascist? If you start putting limits on speech, then someone has to decide what those limits are. That someone may not always be someone you agree with. It's a dangerous notion, and one step down the path towards silencing political dissent.

The real world isn't your gender studies classroom. It's not the responsibility of the government to shelter you from viewpoints that you may find disagreeable. In grown-up land, it's better to expose that kind of hateful rhetoric and let people see it for what it is than to drive it underground and pretend that it doesn't exist. We should confront hateful and bigoted ideology in the open like responsible and mature adults, not cry to the government to censor things that we don't like. Many ideas that are pretty mainstream today, such as gay rights, would have been considered radical not that long ago. Without absolute and concrete protections on speech, all it would take is for someone to decide that advocating for gay rights is a dangerous attack on societal norms, and suddenly supporting same-sex marriage is against the law. I can't believe how short sighted and naive some of you are. The first amendment exists for a VERY good reason, and we should absolutely not start chipping away at it no matter how reprehensible you may find someone else's speech to be.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report