Bitcoin Forum

I don't like it when someone calls me something mean but I believe in their right to do so. I believe it is their free speech. I am not going to boycott his business or anything of that sort.

Of course, it is wrong, when someone makes racist statements, but what they are, are just words.

If you ask me, if anything should be banned, it is the thuggery of businesses interfering in domestic issues. There should be a separation of business and state.

Even pornography and video games are protected as free-speech.

Hate is one of the emotions of human beings like love.

Repressing it through legislative actions are just trying to repress one of the basic human emotions.

Words don't physically hurt people.

I tend to believe that hate speech is a part of free speech.

Now, the definition of hate speech is very broad, after a few years, it might be offensive to even say "He' or "She"

i dont agree with you .. some hate speech bring light evil plans to evil mind.. it can be dangerous..

i dont agree with you .. some hate speech bring light evil plans to evil mind.. it can be dangerous..

Free speech is only dangerous to tyrants.

Well well well...

Complicated debate. If I'm not wrong, free speech is the first amendment of USA constitution no?
Well free speech is hella less important in Europe in general.
Historical explanation here. They're afraid of another Third Reich. Question is: will it be bale to protect us from it? Not so sure...

It was sort of a hate speech to say anything against Hitler.

i dont agree with you .. some hate speech bring light evil plans to evil mind.. it can be dangerous..

you are right it can be usually dangerous speaking on the behalf of racism, rape , murder etc.. some speech topics must be restricted for the societies sake..

I don't like it when someone calls me something mean but I believe in their right to do so. I believe it is their free speech. I am not going to boycott his business or anything of that sort.

Of course, it is wrong, when someone makes racist statements, but what they are, are just words.

If you ask me, if anything should be banned, it is the thuggery of businesses interfering in domestic issues. There should be a separation of business and state.

Even pornography and video games are protected as free-speech.

Hate is one of the emotions of human beings like love.

Repressing it through legislative actions are just trying to repress one of the basic human emotions.

Words don't physically hurt people.

I tend to believe that hate speech is a part of free speech.

Now, the definition of hate speech is very broad, after a few years, it might be offensive to even say "He' or "She"

Free speech is only dangerous to tyrants.

I don't agree that hate speech shoul be allowed. It can only lead to more hatred and violence. Have you forgotten how the WW II started?

Im all for hate speech but the problem why it doesnt work and is illegal in most countries is quite easy:

The average iq of a human being is 90-95.
By definition it means half of mankind has a iq less of that - how long do you think it will just stay at words?  :D

( hate speech for me free speech for you :D)

It seems your IQ isn't so high then ;)

It doesn't mean that half humans have less than that.

For example if 33% of pop is at 70 and 67% is at 100, result will be average 90. Even though it's not half half ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve ^^

I don't like it when someone calls me something mean but I believe in their right to do so. I believe it is their free speech. I am not going to boycott his business or anything of that sort.

Of course, it is wrong, when someone makes racist statements, but what they are, are just words.

If you ask me, if anything should be banned, it is the thuggery of businesses interfering in domestic issues. There should be a separation of business and state.

Even pornography and video games are protected as free-speech.

Hate is one of the emotions of human beings like love.

Repressing it through legislative actions are just trying to repress one of the basic human emotions.

Words don't physically hurt people.

I tend to believe that hate speech is a part of free speech.

Now, the definition of hate speech is very broad, after a few years, it might be offensive to even say "He' or "She"

"

Sounds to me like you are burning out from political correctness and not hate speech freedom. :D

Words are words like you state in a following post but they become something else once acted on. The step in between is very quick and when you are dealing with a uneducated or less than full brain,you will easily manipulate with the energy you bring to the discussion. Might have misheard it today on the news but Trump thanked dumb people for helping him win.
Since most people are unable to act in a civil way we need guidelines like this to protect us from group thinking that may cause a unpleasant side effect.

A classic example is what is going on in the Middle East as we type away. We have a hijacked religion that is spouting hatred for everything that is not in the Koran. Problem being that when you look at the highest area in the world for illiteracy its right there. Iran being a exception to the rules but for the most part reading is not like other areas. So we have people following a book they can not read and killing anything in opposition.
Manipulation of uneducated people is through words,not through the pen. Pen is the next step on the pyramid.. ;)

So I do disagree with this angle and I have found it to be one used by white power movements a lot on the net. Its really a tactic to confuse and murk the waters.

I don't like it when someone calls me something mean but I believe in their right to do so. I believe it is their free speech. I am not going to boycott his business or anything of that sort.

Of course, it is wrong, when someone makes racist statements, but what they are, are just words.

If you ask me, if anything should be banned, it is the thuggery of businesses interfering in domestic issues. There should be a separation of business and state.

Even pornography and video games are protected as free-speech.

Hate is one of the emotions of human beings like love.

Repressing it through legislative actions are just trying to repress one of the basic human emotions.

Words don't physically hurt people.

I tend to believe that hate speech is a part of free speech.

Now, the definition of hate speech is very broad, after a few years, it might be offensive to even say "He' or "She"

Pooping is one of the basic human rights. It doesn't mean I want to see people pooping in the street.

Keep your hate speech -- and your pooping -- to yourself.

Of course, it is free speech, but free speech is a lost cause in most of Europe. The US is the last big country where free speech is allowed. In France, some people have been sent to jail for spreading terrorist ideas. In the UK, supposedly a free country, one guy has been sent to jail for offensive tweets. Same thing in Germany for glorifying the third Reich.

Two entirely different things. There are places were people can poop that they don't have to in the street unless they have diarrhea or something.

Two entirely different things. There are places were people can poop that they don't have to in the street unless they have diarrhea or something.

Then people should only be speak hate in toilets then? If they did, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Actually, the thought of someone in a public toilet telling me that all INSERT MINORITY NAME HERE should die Is a bit creepy.

So let me rephrase: I'm fine with people being bigots and racists as long as they only involve the same audience that they have for their poops.

Then people should only be speak hate in toilets then? If they did, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Actually, the thought of someone in a public toilet telling me that all INSERT MINORITY NAME HERE should die is a bit creepy.

So let me rephrase: I'm fine with people being bigots and racists as long as they only involve the same audience that they have for their poops.

If that is true, then you are just a self-conceited little fascist who is pretending for be for human rights and defending the minorities but your objective is to classify everything you disagree with as hate speech and shut down the conversation, basically a control freak.

Maybe there should be more 'safe-spaces' in public.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/01/college-president-tells-students-to-grow-up-because-campus-not-meant-to-be-safe-space/

No, I only classify "hate speech" as the sort of speech that is designed to incite violence against minorities. If you think that's ok -- if that's the sort of conversation you have -- then calling me a fascist is the pot calling the kettle black.

Question arises, who is the arbiter of what is hate speech and what is not. If it is the government via legislative actions, they will eventually widen the term and add a lot of things as hate speech.

People are entitled to their opinions even if it something which is disagreeable. Throughout history, from Galileo, it was a hate speech to say something that contradicted the views of those times and shook the majority of views.

What if it was flipped around and it was your opinions that was hate speech and not the other way around?

Hate speech is just orwellian code name to control opposite views.

I can never be the pot or the kettle, I believe in your free speech.

I'm for free speech. I want to know what people I interact with think. Who to call friend and who to stay away from.
If a shop owner want to exclude people minority's from his shop I want to know about it so I can avoid doing my shopping there

Interesting how people only agree with free speech, not because the people have a right to it but because they want to know what other people think.

The difference between "opinion" and "inciting people to murder" is vast. If you like I'll only refer to "hate speech" as "murder speech".

Not so vast. We had some problem with a humorist who was clearly on the grey area here...
If I say "gays should be killed" it's easy to classify.
But if I'm a humorist, and I take a character who says "but gays should be killed, after all it's like a disease, and the horrible thing is that the more they are, the more they spread the disease" then what do you do?
It can be considered as humour yeah... But if the said humorist has some relationships with far right religious movements... And you know he's against gays... What do you do?

I'm not sure how that's humorous. It still sounds like it's someone trying to get someone else to kill members of another group.

Change "gays" to "americans". You still ok with that? Should ISIS be allowed to peddle their propaganda in your streets?

Edit: TBH I don't care about the legality of the thing, more the morality.

It's pretty difficult to define what "hate speech" really is, it also depends on the circumstances. So in these days it's just a rubber category, used to keep certain taboos untouched, and suppress any uncomfortable truths.

If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness,  slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim.

Of course there is always a problem!
Again, what can be said under humourous speeches?
I mena even myself sometimes I say things like "yeah we should kill all the blacks it would make more work". It's a joke nothing else. I don't mean it, it's just that in the conversation it was rather funny to say it. Should I go to jail?

If hate speech was legally defined as "incitement to murder" would you have a problem with that? It's clearly defined, no chance of rubberyness,  slippery slope or being changed to suit governmental whim.

Let's see what Wikipedia said about hate speech:

"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics."

Is this something clearly defined? Well, I think according to the above definition with a little creativeness I can try to sue almost anybody for almost anything. If it would be defined as "incitement to murder" that's a clear thing, that's fine. I have no issue with the first part of this "definition". Problems starting here: "or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group".

It's impossible to define precisely such a complex notion :/

That's why the "law" aspect is extremely complicated!!!