Hate speech laws would limit freedom of speech to certain groups as the kkk and others that preach hate.
what do you think would be the consequeces if we had such laws in america ?
2006-11-10 08:21:48 · 11 answers · asked by IRunWithScissors 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Have you ever heard of yin and yang. According to traditional Chinese philosophy, yin and yang are the two primal cosmic principles of the universe. Yin is the passive, female principle. Yang is the active, masculine principle. You could say good and evil as well.
1. Yin and Yang are not opposites.
2. Yin and Yang are interdependent.
3. Yin and Yang can be further subdivided into Yin and Yang.
4. Yin and Yang consume and support each other.
5. Yin and Yang can transform into one another.
6. Part of Yin is in Yang and part of Yang is in Yin.
In short If you make hate a crime you can not have good. Hate is a feeling and to make a feeling criminal would take away from it`s yin.
What is hate speech what is good speech? Who gets to pick?
2006-11-10 08:43:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I pray that we never get hate speech laws. The consequences of that law would destroy the very foundation that our country is built on. We would become like the middle eastern nations with every group deciding that every other group is a late group and that everything they say is a :hate speech. Although, I very often do not like what some group says, I would prefer that they have the right to say it, so that I will have the right to say what I want to.
2006-11-10 16:29:12 · answer #2 · answered by bettyswestbrook 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We already do. You can be arrested for hate speech if you're advocating or threatening violence against your target group or individuals, or (and this one is tricky to enforce) if your words constitute libel or slander, which is intended to destroy the reputation or character of its target.
Example:
I hate George W. Bush! (legal)
I'm going to kill the President! (illegal - it's advocating violence)
I don't like Dick Cheney's business ethics. (legal - it's my opinion)
Dick Cheney is a traitor. (illegal, unless there is proof that he has committed treason - treason charges will destroy your personal and professional life, and can get someone executed)
However, you can still burn a flag (it's registering a strong protest against the government, but it's NOT advocating armed uprising or inciting a riot) say that you think that all African-Americans are nothing but jumped up gorillas (racist garbage, but not a threat) and preach on the street corners as long as you aren't blocking traffic or creating a public nuisance (annoying, but again not threatening... well, unless you believe they have any say in your soul's final destination, and I think the Divine can make its own decisions.)
2006-11-10 16:40:54 · answer #3 · answered by triviatm 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bad all the way around but it depends on how strict they are. Canada's are so strict that a preacher in church, during a sermon, who claims that the Bible says homosexual behavior is wrong is guilty of a hate crime. Besides, the first amendment should be protecting all speech even if it is "hateful". It equally protects those who call a certain type of speech hateful.
2006-11-10 16:28:31 · answer #4 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The consequence would simply be that it hinders free speech. We can't rightly implement a law that dictates what is hate and what isn't. People are allowed in this country to dislike what they want. Personally groups like KKK disgust me but that's their view and I just don't pay attention to them.
2006-11-10 16:25:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would be horrible. Not that I'm favor of hate, of course, that would be ridiculous.....but I wouldn't want my freedom of speech limited.
You know, they have laws like this in Europe. In several countries it's actually a crime to refer to the holocaust as anything less than genocide.
P.S. and before anyone slams me, I don't hate, I don't like hate, and of course the holocaust was genocide....I just don't think people's freedom of speech should be infringed upon.
2006-11-10 16:23:36 · answer #6 · answered by Sheik Yerbouti 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It would never happen. The Supreme Court has ruled against the limitation of free speech for over 200 years.
2006-11-10 16:24:49 · answer #7 · answered by dundalk1 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It would open a giagantic can of worms.
Then the arguments will be over what constitutes "hate speech".
2006-11-10 16:26:27 · answer #8 · answered by Manny 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh would all be in jail.
2006-11-10 16:34:19 · answer #9 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The consequences would be that free speech would no longer exist.
2006-11-10 16:23:21 · answer #10 · answered by Sara 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋