Hate speech is not the same as free speech. Free speech was for reporters to keep them from being jailed so it’s not even applicable for what this guy thinks he’s defending with that phrase.
That’s not entirely accurate. The first amendment mentions both freedom of speech and freedom of press. Freedom of speech is for individuals sharing ideas, not just reporters. That applies both conceptually and legally. Hate speech is seen as a necessary exemption by many, because of the potential ramifications (see comic). That isn’t the same thing as saying free speech wouldn’t apply even without said exemption; even though it may lead you to the same conclusion.
Citizens have their own limitations when their response strays outside the realm of speech. Boycotts are fine—you have no obligation to buy what they’re selling. However, harassment is not okay, and bullying is not okay. These things are wrong (and coincidentally illegal) on their own merits, and not a justified response to someone else’s speech.
Germany has extremely harsh laws on language which promotes Nazis, but they clearly still have free speech. We can discourage hateful language and still maintain freedom of expression.
Yes it is possible. The problem is the amendment itself and the context in which it was written. Germany got to make their laws about it 150 years later, taking advantage of modern democratic experience. In 1792 it was extremely prevalent that governments would use any excuse to shut down political opposition. Thus the difference.
We should absolutely have evolved it by now instead of turning it into scripture.
And what is hate speech? When we start telling people what is and is not allowable to say, we set a highly dangerous precedent and move the game from black and white lines into shades of gray. Another shade darker is far easier to slip into than black from white.
Hmm… Can’t tell if you’re agreeing or sarcastically and incorrectly pointing out a logical fallacy. If you agree, cool. If not:
The Slippery Slope fallacy is only a fallacy if one posits that the future events MUST happen as a result, not that they are likely to. If I take a step further down a literal slippery slope, I am more likely to fall but not guaranteed. If you start using hardcore drugs, you are likely to get addicted and lose a lot of money but again, not guaranteed.
That this would set a dangerous precedent is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest. Courts frequently have to bear in mind the legal precedent of their actions because once you do something, its easier the next time. That is fact, not conjecture. It is easier to ratchet down on a freedom that is already jeopardized. No conjecture involved there. No slippery slopes involved. If we allow some speech to be censored, it becomes easier to censor other types of speech.
Hate speech is not the same as free speech. Free speech was for reporters to keep them from being jailed so it’s not even applicable for what this guy thinks he’s defending with that phrase.
That’s not entirely accurate. The first amendment mentions both freedom of speech and freedom of press. Freedom of speech is for individuals sharing ideas, not just reporters. That applies both conceptually and legally. Hate speech is seen as a necessary exemption by many, because of the potential ramifications (see comic). That isn’t the same thing as saying free speech wouldn’t apply even without said exemption; even though it may lead you to the same conclusion.
It’s also worth noting that the government can’t limit free speech. We as citizens can boycott, bully, and harass hateful speech and should
Citizens have their own limitations when their response strays outside the realm of speech. Boycotts are fine—you have no obligation to buy what they’re selling. However, harassment is not okay, and bullying is not okay. These things are wrong (and coincidentally illegal) on their own merits, and not a justified response to someone else’s speech.
“Free” is not a type of speech. It is the ability to speak. You can freely say all kinds of things. They could be hateful or not.
Germany has extremely harsh laws on language which promotes Nazis, but they clearly still have free speech. We can discourage hateful language and still maintain freedom of expression.
Yes it is possible. The problem is the amendment itself and the context in which it was written. Germany got to make their laws about it 150 years later, taking advantage of modern democratic experience. In 1792 it was extremely prevalent that governments would use any excuse to shut down political opposition. Thus the difference.
We should absolutely have evolved it by now instead of turning it into scripture.
Oh absolutely. It hasn’t changed well for the times.
And what is hate speech? When we start telling people what is and is not allowable to say, we set a highly dangerous precedent and move the game from black and white lines into shades of gray. Another shade darker is far easier to slip into than black from white.
That slope sounds so slippery
Hmm… Can’t tell if you’re agreeing or sarcastically and incorrectly pointing out a logical fallacy. If you agree, cool. If not:
The Slippery Slope fallacy is only a fallacy if one posits that the future events MUST happen as a result, not that they are likely to. If I take a step further down a literal slippery slope, I am more likely to fall but not guaranteed. If you start using hardcore drugs, you are likely to get addicted and lose a lot of money but again, not guaranteed.
That this would set a dangerous precedent is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest. Courts frequently have to bear in mind the legal precedent of their actions because once you do something, its easier the next time. That is fact, not conjecture. It is easier to ratchet down on a freedom that is already jeopardized. No conjecture involved there. No slippery slopes involved. If we allow some speech to be censored, it becomes easier to censor other types of speech.