Limiting Hate Speech In America Is A Valid Debate

[DonCoquixote]

52. Your quote

"The first category includes those strongly idealistic individuals who support civil rights and just causes, and feel that any infringement on free speech will put us on a "slippery slope" as regards our free speech rights, the idea being that if we give up the right to hate speech, then inevitably there will be more erosions of free speech rights to follow.

The second category, and by far the largest and most vocal, includes those individuals who support hate speech because they, or the groups that they support or are involved in, are the primary ones benefiting from the right to spread the messages of hate, either financially or for other reasons. It goes without saying that some individuals in this category pretend to defend against hate speech limits for the same reason as those in the first category, but their real reasons are not nearly as idealistic. "

First off, I do not think you have made a wise choice by using claiming the second category is "by far the largest." As you know, the logic you set up willmean that anyone who opposes your view is assumed to be of group two, the more odious and dangerous group, unless otherwise proven. When you carved your opponent into two groups, what basis did you decied to make one the majority? For someone who hates bigotry, you should know very well that the old "there are two types of" line is a method they have used.

Second, I put myself in group one, because while I find hate speech hateful, I find that putting any of these well meant "limits" will only ensure that some groups figures out a way to abuse them, and that said group will probably be the well organized and funded types (religion being a contender.) If you do not think that peoplelike Sanger and MLk were considered hateful bigots, a trip down in Dixie will have you hear many impassioned people who sincerely feel and think that they were made second class citizens byt those two. Of course that is BS, but the magic words "I am offended" will win.

Let's make this even more clear. To some, any criticism of Israel is hate speech. Anyone who says Israel should not be supported is lumped right in with the Nazis, as if the very mention of the word "palestine" was a code for someone who wanted to finish what the Nazis started. Come right here on DU, you will see it. On the OTHER hand, there are those that consider any critique of the PLO as Hate speech, anytime you imply that the PLO is one millimeter in the wrong, you are labeled an islamophobic racist who is probably a secret republican. Now, there are people on both sides that have points, but one can also see organized, well funded politics, where people in one group get the numbers together to bully whoever they can hold to the ground.

It boild down to this, do you want a mob to know that any time they want to silence dissent, they can cry "offensive?" Furthermore, if you even propose to judge this, how?

You will not do it by saying "most people who disagree with me are liars." which of course, is exactly what you know your words do.