Ok, I am stealing the general premise of this from one of the people I follow on youtube.  I might make this a regular thing.  Do a different subject a week.  Engage in a friendly conversation about a subject and hear from the other side and see if anyone can open my eyes to a different perspective.  I am game.

So, I taking right from the source and saying that hate speech essentially doesn't exist in America and that it is just free speech as is protected by the constitution.  And that what is generally considered hate speech should be protected in America.  We should have skinhead speakers and punk bands feel free to speak of racism and intolerance in this land.  

Disagree?  Let's talk.

If thats how you feel, accept the consequences of your words, as well. Firings, banishment from certain businesses and etc. it comes with the territory.

Except the NFL where you can do what your boss doesn't want and get away with it.

Nov 6, 2017 19:11:14 GMT KING KID said:

Except the NFL where you can do what your boss doesn't want and get away with it.

Any of those owners are perfectly capable of cutting any player that they feel don't fall in line with their views on speech. Except that those owners are greedy and aren't going to go that route because of the negative publicity it would cause and because now actually relevant players are speaking up. 

At the end of the day though they can do whatever they want. 

Jerry Jones threatened such a thing , not over his woman abusing running back mind you ... but DA FLAG. 

And "DA FLAG" should be respected in this country.

Hate speech exists. It is protected though and should be because the hate aspect depends on how speech is constructed in a listener. "It's ok to be white" is being treated as hate speech on some campuses, and I am absolutely certain this was a Russian started thing given it originated on 4chan and strictly destabilizes current systems.

I did work on a free speech case that went to the supreme court, on whether video games should be profanity. Profanity, for those not familiar, is unprotected speech. It falls into two categories, legal - which consists of things like BDSM videos, pornography and gore videos, and illegal, child porn, hurtcore, crush. Some speech needs to be illegal. Animals being crushed to death, 12 year olds beaten to death, red room torture, these are dangerous items of speech. Calling someone a bad name is nowhere on the same level of these forbidden speech types.

Nov 7, 2017 1:17:12 GMT KING KID said:

And "DA FLAG" should be respected in this country.

And women shouldn't. Inferior beings.

What does that even mean? That's a pathetic diversion attempt.

Yeah because I'm the one who diverted from other things said in a post and only focused on a single thing.

There's hate speech, then there's hate speech. If something is advertently racist, sexist, derogatory, etc. then it's hate speech, simple. 

But what the snowflakes of the world need to understand is for example, a conservative, traditional view isn't hate speech. A differing opinion, isn't hate speech. Challenging a movement like Black Lives Matter, or anything in regards to this genderfluid, non-binary crap isn't hate speech. It's opinion. 

A guy like Ben Shapiro isn't spewing hate speech. He may be a cocky, smug, arrogant instigator and shit-stirrer, but it ain't hate speech. What he's doing is stating fact, to support his conservative agenda. How he does it, in his matter of fact sort of way, is designed to get a snowflake triggered real quick. 

There's a problem right now, if you don't agree with something, you scream ' racist ' or ' sexist ' , etc and accuse your opposition of all sorts of things like ' hate speech ' because words like that shut down debate. 

NATH45, do you feel your italicized hate speech should continue to be defended by the supreme court and the constitution?

Speech that incites or promotes violence against a group isn’t free speech anymore than shouting fire in a crowded theater. But that’s the only kind of speech that isn’t protected as far as I know.

Otherwise if you say you hate black people you’re free to do so and I doubt many people think otherwise.

And when you express an opinion that has a basis in racism, sexism, etc. then you shouldn’t be a snowflake and whine about being called on it or about being fired for it.

Nov 7, 2017 14:19:54 GMT theend said:

NATH45 , do you feel your italicized hate speech should continue to be defended by the supreme court and the constitution?

I think you firstly need to clearly define ' hate speech ' - if something said, attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. It's hates speech and should never be able to be protected by any constitution under any notion of ' free speech ' 

Currently, there's a plebiscite in Australia to determine whether Aussie's will have Same-Sex Marriage. So, those supporting the 'YES' vote have accused many people voting 'NO' of hate speech. A large percentage of people opposing Same-Sex Marriage are doing so, because they come from conservative, working-class demographics. Or very religious or traditional families. 

They don't believe in Same-Sex Marriage. Simple. We're having this debate, presenting both sides of the argument, because it's fair. Saying you oppose Same-Sex Marriage, due to deeply religious beliefs or based on pov, isn't hate speech, no one is attacking anyone based on sexual orientation or gender, the 'NO' vote is largely protecting what is traditionally, historically, specifically a union between a man and a woman.

Just because you're offended by something, doesn't mean something is wrong. And this also needs to be clearly explained to many people. 

Nov 8, 2017 8:32:44 GMT NATH45 said:

Nov 7, 2017 14:19:54 GMT theend said:

NATH45 , do you feel your italicized hate speech should continue to be defended by the supreme court and the constitution?

I think you firstly need to clearly define ' hate speech ' - if something said, attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. It's hates speech and should never be able to be protected by any constitution under any notion of ' free speech ' 

Currently, there's a plebiscite in Australia to determine whether Aussie's will have Same-Sex Marriage. So, those supporting the 'YES' vote have accused many people voting 'NO' of hate speech. A large percentage of people opposing Same-Sex Marriage are doing so, because they come from conservative, working-class demographics. Or very religious or traditional families. 

They don't believe in Same-Sex Marriage. Simple. We're having this debate, presenting both sides of the argument, because it's fair. Saying you oppose Same-Sex Marriage, due to deeply religious beliefs or based on pov, isn't hate speech, no one is attacking anyone based on sexual orientation or gender, the 'NO' vote is largely protecting what is traditionally, historically, specifically a union between a man and a woman.

Just because you're offended by something, doesn't mean something is wrong. And this also needs to be clearly explained to many people. 

I think the problem with what you're saying is how do you clearly define hate speech. When Obama ran for President he didn't support same-sex marriage. Ten years later many people believe that not supporting SSM is hate speech. Public opinion changes quickly and what was a normal, mainstream political opinion a decade ago is increasingly less acceptable. 

I think speech that incites actual violence is dangerous and should be limited. 'Hate speech' however implies a dangerous level of group think that I wouldn't support. Racism is an abhorrent evil - but I do not believe a racist should be jailed or punished by the state for their racism.  

I think of the Westboro Baptist Church. Those lovable tykes who sit out with signs that say "God Hates Fags". They are protected and allowed to do so. They don't have a sign that says "Kill that fag right there, now". One directly incites violence. Getting pissed because they have signs that make you angry enough to be violent isn't the same.

Nov 8, 2017 20:59:33 GMT theend said:

I think of the Westboro Baptist Church. Those lovable tykes who sit out with signs that say "God Hates Fags". They are protected and allowed to do so. They don't have a sign that says "Kill that fag right there, now". One directly incites violence. Getting pissed because they have signs that make you angry enough to be violent isn't the same.

This all seems true.