03-31-2012, 09:23 AM
(03-30-2012, 07:41 PM)Tal Wrote:(03-30-2012, 07:18 PM)eppie Wrote:
(03-30-2012, 05:44 PM)Tal Wrote:(03-30-2012, 09:59 AM)AngryCommie Wrote: While I am generally in favor of free speech (especially against government and political institutions or corporations), certain types of hate speech, in particular those of a racist, sexist, religious, or discriminatory nature toward gays/lesbians or disabled individuals should NOT be protected under any circumstances.
What a slippery slope. Who gets to determine exactly what is hate speech in that context?
Well it isn't really. If a constitution says all people are equal independent of their skin colour, sexual preference or religion it is not a stretch to not allow people to make hateful remarks about this.
So if I say "I don't like Catholics" - is that hate speech? Or a comedian makes the tired joke about Catholic Priests and little boys that upsets someone - should the comedian be beaten as AngryCommie contends?
You can't take the Potter Stewart Rule of Pornography (I know it when I see it) and use it for outlawing hate speech. It goes against the intentions of the First Amendment.
You can find definitions about hate speech everywhere. It is obvious that the examples you give here are not hate speech.