Do you think the idea of "hate speech" and legislation against it are a good idea?

Question

I think it's a good way for the government to silence people with opinions and individual tastes, but I would like to see what others think.

Answer 1

To protect against social stagnation it must be allowed regardless of how wrong or offensive it may be. Even if the person deserves to die for saying it they must be allowed to say it. Throughout history it was what was most offensive that led to greater progress. If they start determining whats allowed to be said and whats not than social and political progress will inevitably hault.

Answer 2

You're correct.

But it doesn't stop there. When most regular people hear the phrase "hate speech" they think it means the KKK - speech bordering on but not quite reaching the level of inciting violence against minorities, speech designed to threaten and intimidate people.

But that's not where the Left will draw the line. Between "hate speech" and "fairness doctrine" what they intend to do is muzzle Howie Carr.

It's bad enough without Jerry Callahan.

Answer 3

I am against any law that stifles free speech. Nowhere in the documents that formed this country do I see "you have the right to not be insulted." I believe common sense still prevails (you cant' yell "fire" in a crowded theater for instance, even though that's free speech) but stifling the spoken opinion is a Bad Thing.

Answer 4

I believe in freedom of speech. Government banning speech is a bad idea.

Answer 5

I don't think there should be a class of speech called "hate speech". The definition of what is considered "hate speech" could change and then we're in for trouble.

Answer 6

No.

It's just government censorship. Whether you think of it as the narrow end of a wedge, or as one side abusing government power to stop debate, or even as a well-intentioned but foolish attempt to control thoughts by controlling expression, it's a bad idea.

Answer 7

further example of the eradication of freedoms and civil rights