Mon Oct 29, 2018, 07:09 AM

Should hate Speech be banned and criminalized?

Let us assume that there are some clearly defined parameters for identifying hate speech.

Even so, I have never been for such a draconian measure.. I've always hoped that loonies have been too few to be a problem.

But I think online forums that allow hate speech are the breeding grounds for dangerous individuals. Politicians are now routinely steering into previous NO GO zones.. And there is a multiplier effects of sorts taking place.

I am beginning to think that we need some strong measure to rein in these dark forces that are clearly on the rise.

103 replies, 8616 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

103 replies	Author	Time	Post
Should hate Speech be banned and criminalized? (Original post)	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	OP
Yes.	mia	Oct 2018	#1
yes	trueblue2007	Oct 2018	#97
Long ago it should have been stopped	Tumbulu	Oct 2018	#2
Republicans view the far left as a dark force	hack89	Oct 2018	#3
Hate speech should be linkble to violence/intimidation against the target	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#8
I think	MichMary	Oct 2018	#35
I truly hate messing with the 1st	Arger68	Oct 2018	#4
We should also require "truth" in the news.	Dustlawyer	Oct 2018	#41
Who gets to decide what is true?	MosheFeingold	Oct 2018	#68
The media must have some sources and facts they rely on before making a claim.	Dustlawyer	Oct 2018	#69
Definitely not	oberliner	Oct 2018	#5
With sufficient guard rails I think we can prevent abuse.	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#6
Bear in mind who would be writing the law	oberliner	Oct 2018	#11
This thread should be titled "Lets give Trump more power to militarize ideology"	grantcart	Oct 2018	#74
Trump isn't permanent	fescuerescue	Oct 2018	#83
Define "deplorables"	MichMary	Oct 2018	#36
You made my point.	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#40
Wait, what??	MichMary	Oct 2018	#42
Has there ever been a campaign of someone routinely intimidating or	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#43
How far back are we going?	Dr. Strange	Oct 2018	#45
You can stretch everything to its extremes .. And I think there is a resonable ground to be found.	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#47
I don't like it, but I hate it less.	Dr. Strange	Oct 2018	#55
Though I agree with you on dangers .. We should be good as long there is prosecutorial independence	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#58
Don't say "as long as..." Instead, think about the real world.	Jim Lane	Oct 2018	#78
absolutely.	Brainstormy	Oct 2018	#53
Has this happened in jurisdictions with such laws?	jberryhill	Oct 2018	#64
The Count Dankula thing was stupid as hell.	Dr. Strange	Oct 2018	#70
Trump isn't the PM of Canada and their legislature isn't controlled by right-wingers	oberliner	Oct 2018	#79
There have been right wing governments in Canada, the UK and other jurisdictions	jberryhill	Oct 2018	#80
I still am not comfortable with our Republican-controlled Congress writing hate crimes laws	oberliner	Oct 2018	#87
It would be a Pandora's Box	pintobean	Oct 2018	#7
Yes! A thousand times, yes!	jcmaine72	Oct 2018	#9
"The First Amendment does not protect acts of violence last I checked."	MichMary	Oct 2018	#39
Incitement	cilla4progress	Oct 2018	#52
Okay, since	MichMary	Oct 2018	#75
Then nothing needs changed. nt	Codeine	Oct 2018	#91
Yes	Thyla	Oct 2018	#10
No.	WhiskeyGrinder	Oct 2018	#12
No. Those tables can be turned far too quickly, as we've seen...	vi5	Oct 2018	#13
I agree, the potential for abuse is way way to high	Amishman	Oct 2018	#44
Hate speech	fescuerescue	Oct 2018	#86
No. Messing with the 1st is ill advised. NT	Dr Hobbitstein	Oct 2018	#14
Ok, you are now under arrest for:	Oneironaut	Oct 2018	#15
How would you define hate speech and how would you prevent abuse of this law?	Calista241	Oct 2018	#16
Again.. Restrict hate speech against whom there is a credible threat of	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#19
Wouldn't you agree Fox News is an enemy of the (majority) of people?	ThirdEye	Oct 2018	#62
It can't be	get the red out	Oct 2018	#17
It should have civil penalties rather than criminal	ck4829	Oct 2018	#18
Absolutely Not	RobinA	Oct 2018	#20
I don't know if this	bdamomma	Oct 2018	#21
Yes, under on condition.	Captain Stern	Oct 2018	#22
Just think about this, please. Would you trust the majority of politicians which are Republicans	BeckyDem	Oct 2018	#23
Absolutely NOT!	bakpakr	Oct 2018	#24
There are lots of forms of speech which are banned	jberryhill	Oct 2018	#65
Wow.	Petosky Stone	Oct 2018	#25
That was very insightful. Thank you very much.	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#28
No. It is the 1st amendment for a reason.	33taw	Oct 2018	#26
No, it will make things worse	marylandblue	Oct 2018	#27
unfortunately not. 1st amendment is most important	AlexSFCA	Oct 2018	#29
Does anybody read the constitution any more?	grantcart	Oct 2018	#30
Yes .. But hate speech is a precursor to crime ..and every right has to have bounds	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#31
Hate speech is protected	grantcart	Oct 2018	#49
Sometimes people here	Codeine	Oct 2018	#92
Trump would be criminalized?	dawg day	Oct 2018	#32
I dont know about president .. But Steve King calling Mexicans Animals should be.	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#34
Or he would be in a position to criminalize CNN and the NYT.	Crunchy Frog	Oct 2018	#94
Yes	lancelyons	Oct 2018	#33
The right says the same thing about CNN and MSNBC. This won't turn out like you want.	33taw	Oct 2018	#46
Ya but there is something called facts or the truth	lancelyons	Nov 2018	#102
No, but legalize dueling...	RichardRay	Oct 2018	#37
It already is	Baltimike	Oct 2018	#38
any president who engages in it	bigtree	Oct 2018	#48
Here's a test of your theory	Dreamer Tatum	Oct 2018	#50
Maybe it should apply just to politicians.	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#51
The race to the bottom is endless...	LanternWaste	Nov 2018	#103
Your premise is flawed right from the start.	Kaleva	Oct 2018	#54
Indeed, it's a DOA concept	ThirdEye	Oct 2018	#60
Incitement to violence is illegal.	cilla4progress	Oct 2018	#56
Bans don't work...	Thomas Hurt	Oct 2018	#57
The remedy is more speech.	The Velveteen Ocelot	Oct 2018	#59
Unfortunately, that is based on a flawed model of human behavior	jberryhill	Oct 2018	#66
Maybe so, but what is the remedy?	The Velveteen Ocelot	Oct 2018	#67
No	Loki Liesmith	Oct 2018	#61
Absolutely not.	MicaelS	Oct 2018	#63
No!	Separation	Oct 2018	#71
Nope. Imagine what this country would look like if Trump and the GOP had the power to ban	Azathoth	Oct 2018	#72
No	sarisataka	Oct 2018	#73
It should be obvious by now	saidsimplesimon	Oct 2018	#76
The problem is 'Let us assume that there are some clearly defined parameters.'	elleng	Oct 2018	#77
The 1st and 2nd amendment need to be modified	fescuerescue	Oct 2018	#81
Germany seems to be doing just fine with that.	fescuerescue	Oct 2018	#82
Thank you , Thank you , Thank you.	Le Gaucher	Oct 2018	#85
No.	trackfan	Oct 2018	#84
No.	geardaddy	Oct 2018	#88
This OP starts with a very large, very flawed assumption.	onenote	Oct 2018	#89
Not just no, but hell fucking no!	NutmegYankee	Oct 2018	#90
Worse idea ever.	GulfCoast66	Oct 2018	#93
I hate Trump and want to continue to express it, thank you.	Buckeye_Democrat	Oct 2018	#95
No	Celerity	Oct 2018	#96
Absolutely NO! nt	Raine	Oct 2018	#98
Nope	DeminPennswoods	Oct 2018	#99
let them post 'free speech' on their own social media platforms-get them off twitter, facebook	Sunlei	Oct 2018	#100
yes [nt]	GetRidOfThem	Oct 2018	#101

Response to Le Gaucher (Original post)

Mon Oct 29, 2018, 07:15 AM

mia (8,197 posts)

1. Yes.

:large

Should hate Speech be banned and criminalized?

1. Yes.

97. yes

2. Long ago it should have been stopped

3. Republicans view the far left as a dark force

8. Hate speech should be linkble to violence/intimidation against the target

35. I think

4. I truly hate messing with the 1st

41. We should also require "truth" in the news.

68. Who gets to decide what is true?

69. The media must have some sources and facts they rely on before making a claim.

5. Definitely not

6. With sufficient guard rails I think we can prevent abuse.

11. Bear in mind who would be writing the law

74. This thread should be titled "Lets give Trump more power to militarize ideology"

83. Trump isn't permanent

36. Define "deplorables"

40. You made my point.

42. Wait, what??

43. Has there ever been a campaign of someone routinely intimidating or

45. How far back are we going?

47. You can stretch everything to its extremes .. And I think there is a resonable ground to be found.

55. I don't like it, but I hate it less.

58. Though I agree with you on dangers .. We should be good as long there is prosecutorial independence

78. Don't say "as long as..." Instead, think about the real world.

53. absolutely.

64. Has this happened in jurisdictions with such laws?

70. The Count Dankula thing was stupid as hell.

79. Trump isn't the PM of Canada and their legislature isn't controlled by right-wingers

80. There have been right wing governments in Canada, the UK and other jurisdictions

87. I still am not comfortable with our Republican-controlled Congress writing hate crimes laws

7. It would be a Pandora's Box

9. Yes! A thousand times, yes!

39. "The First Amendment does not protect acts of violence last I checked."

52. Incitement

75. Okay, since

91. Then nothing needs changed. nt

10. Yes

12. No.

13. No. Those tables can be turned far too quickly, as we've seen...

44. I agree, the potential for abuse is way way to high

86. Hate speech

14. No. Messing with the 1st is ill advised. NT

15. Ok, you are now under arrest for:

16. How would you define hate speech and how would you prevent abuse of this law?

19. Again.. Restrict hate speech against whom there is a credible threat of

62. Wouldn't you agree Fox News is an enemy of the (majority) of people?

17. It can't be

18. It should have civil penalties rather than criminal

20. Absolutely Not

21. I don't know if this

22. Yes, under on condition.

23. Just think about this, please. Would you trust the majority of politicians which are Republicans

24. Absolutely NOT!

65. There are lots of forms of speech which are banned

25. Wow.

28. That was very insightful. Thank you very much.

26. No. It is the 1st amendment for a reason.

27. No, it will make things worse

29. unfortunately not. 1st amendment is most important

30. Does anybody read the constitution any more?

31. Yes .. But hate speech is a precursor to crime ..and every right has to have bounds

49. Hate speech is protected

92. Sometimes people here

32. Trump would be criminalized?

34. I dont know about president .. But Steve King calling Mexicans Animals should be.

94. Or he would be in a position to criminalize CNN and the NYT.

33. Yes

46. The right says the same thing about CNN and MSNBC. This won't turn out like you want.

102. Ya but there is something called facts or the truth

37. No, but legalize dueling...

38. It already is

48. any president who engages in it

50. Here's a test of your theory

51. Maybe it should apply just to politicians.

103. The race to the bottom is endless...

54. Your premise is flawed right from the start.

60. Indeed, it's a DOA concept

56. Incitement to violence is illegal.

57. Bans don't work...