How would the First Amendment even BEGIN to be interpreted as allowing hate speech laws?

Is politics not part of the "real world?" Are politics not "reality?"

Okay, I was able to view the article. You seem to have totally missed all of this:

"In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation. I think it’s time to consider these statutes. Let the debate begin.
Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination. Isn’t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law? Why shouldn’t the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation? All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate. It undermines the very values of a fair marketplace of ideas that the First Amendment is designed to protect." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/

 

The Constitution doesn't apply to Assange does it?

 

It does not. He is essentially a spy. Oddly that is the least of his character flaws. He is a worthless piece of human trash. Also a predator it seems.

 

Then I wonder why you mentioned him in reference to the First Amendment, along with Snowden.

 

It was more of a juxtaposition.
Also a test of the boundaries of the first amendment.

 

I didn't miss anything. They're talking about speech that incites hate, not just speech that someone finds offensive. Deciding and agreeing on how that incitement is measured is the difficult questions of course but that's a different issue to the one you're raising.

 

Any speech even speech that insists that the most qualified candidate should get the job can be classified as speech that invites hatred. Inciting hatred is too subjective to be a meaningful term.

 

The problem with hate speech laws is that "hate speech" can be loosely defined. Some people think books like The Bell Curve are hate speech.

 

Let me narrow it down even further for you Joe:
"In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and INSULTS PEOPLE on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/

 

Unless you can narrow it down to them promoting criminalisation of all speech that anyone finds offensive, it's irrelevant to the point you thought the link was supporting.

 

Did I say that the article is "promoting criminalisation of all speech that anyone finds offensive?"

 

You defined what you were talking about like this;

You also earlier asked;

I asked you for examples of anyone proposing laws against that and you then presented that article (or initially just the headline!). My position remains that the writer of the article is not proposing a law against "saying hateful things about people" or "offensive speech" generically.

 

A ridiculous position to hold, considering that he said, "In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation. I think it’s time to consider these statutes." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/

 

It is not a ridiculous position to take on a reading of the entire article and the actual stated conclusion of the author.

And lets not forget that you didn't read the article in the first place and presented it as an example of your claim on the basis of the headline alone. Maybe you should stop digging this hole?

 

Yes, I didn't initially read the article, which is why I was quite worried when you told me that you did, and saying that it doesn't say what I thought it was saying. However, I was quite relieved when the guy made his position quite clear, by saying that "hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation." As for his "actual stated conclusion", I assume that you're referring to, "I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate." Well, if you can't put two and two together and realise that he thinks that "speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation" IS "speech that incites hate", well Joe, I really can't help you pal.

 

Potentially, but it isn't any and all "hateful" or "offensive" speech. The argument here isn't about the type of speech that should be banned, it is about the type of consequences that should be reduced. "Hate" isn't the key, "incitement" is.

 

As in the incitement of hate?

 

Obviously. Damn you drag these things out don't you!

 

Well then how the hell do you define incitement of hate? I assume that you know the definition of incitement. Also, we've already discussed the fact that this type of speech is illegal in the US, so why the hell would this author be proposing a law which already exists? Sorry Joe, but you're all over the place on this. To use you're words, "maybe you should stop digging this hole?

 

I certainly don't define it as "any speech someone finds offensive or hateful" which is what you suggested the article was calling to be made illegal. There are open questions of the exact definition, of how and where the line is drawn but if those questions are covering a range of 1 to 10, you're suggesting we're talking about a 100.

No it doesn't. One core aspect is that US law currently only criminalises speech that presets immediate risks of harm but there are open questions about potential future harm and also where the balance of risk and immediacy should actually fall. And that is ultimately what the whole debate is about, including the article you quoted. It doesn't come close to calling for or requiring the First Amendment to be overturned or abolished.[/I]

 

Are you quoting me directly? You may want to check that. Also, I asked you how you define incitement of hate, not how you DO NOT define it. I know that you are capable of better than that.

Yes, of which includes incitement! For example, in the US, people cannot use their speech to call for violence.

Well that's good, because I didn't say that the article DID call for/require that.

 

I quoted you directly in post #112, though you do have a bad habit of shifting your wording when you position is challenged. You're already a world away from your talk of radical leftists on the Supreme Court and references to Ben Shapiro and it's already becoming highly unclear what you're actually trying to say (or if you're just creating arguments for your own entertainment).

It varies based on context but generally words or actions encouraging people to hate groups on people on the basis of a (variable) list of defined characteristics in a manner that could lead to discrimination, social division or violence.

"Incitement" and "Incitement to hatred" are two separate concepts that shouldn't be conflated just because they share a word.

I wasn't asking what you DID NOT say.

 

Actually, the term incitement of hate doesn't even exist according to Google, but to be fair to you, I was the first one who mentioned it - after I invented it - when I earlier asked if it's what you meant by something, so you may have been confused by that. Perhaps you took it to mean "incitement to hatred" which you go on to use.

"Incitement to hatred" - interesting - that's a term that I've never heard of before, nor have I heard of the forementioned incitement of hate. Anyway, a quick Google returns this top result from 'Galop', a UK based charity which refers to itself as "the LGBT+ anti-violence charity." According to Galop, "Incitement to hatred can occur when an individual or group threatens to harass a person or a group of people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity." Do you agree with that?

 

I'm not playing that game. I gave you my definition, take it or leave it.

This is all because you linked an article you thought would support your position based on the headline alone and you're trying to avoid accepting that was a foolish mistake. I don't see any point in continuing with that aspect any more.

 

Sorry Joe, but the word incitement has a very precise definition, and it is already illegal in the US. So this author isn't promoting something which is already illegal. He - just like you - is making his own definition, and that is that "speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation" IS "speech that incites hate." And you've already at least admitted that I am "potentially" correct.