forum Debate. Debate. Debate.
Started by Deleted user
tune
Edit topic

people_alt 109 followers

@Althalosian-is-the-father book

I think that it's a real pity -though a time of break I agree with- but understand that many people have too hard a time with such an issue and get too emotional. Says the psychopath. At least I think that's the reason.

Deleted user

Yeah

My opinion on it is extremely unusual lmao that's why I was wondering if we'd discussed it yet

@Jay-Marae-is-in-an-emotional-maze

OK possible debate topic or this will just be shut down because it's a little stupid
Should homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, racism, etc be illegal in the USA?
I know that it's in our 1st Amendment rights that we can say whatever we want as long as it doesn't endanger others or interfere with their pursuit of happiness, but I mean, it technically does.
Hear me out, homophobia, racism, etc is like a personal attack to the party it's against, which should count as an interference with their pursuit of happiness because constant homophobia, for example, can lead to depression which can lead to suicide, etc.
I know I'm probably just being dumb and there's a reason why this isn't a thing but idk I just thought of it and my dumb self thought it was somewhat reasonable. Maybe someone wiser than me has some thoughts/input?

@Pickles group

Oh! I think I actually have an answer. So the only speech that's not protected by the first amendment is… Heck, I think slander and some other stuff, which homophobia doesn't fall under. And there's a clear and present danger test, which is if it's intended to cause panic or prompt lawless action, actually results in lawless action, and something else I don't remember, it's not protected. There was a Supreme Court case about a KKK member trying to prompt people to overthrow the government. It was determined that it was protected because he was so ridiculous that no one was actually going to do it. So saying homophobic things is under none of that. *Maybe. I don't really know we did this so long ago

Plus a lot of our government is old cis white men that are already racist and homophobic, so it's unlikely they'd rule it illegal.

That was not the most eloquently put, but I did my best
wow I totally forgot you said misogynistic and xenophobic, but those apply as well

@Pickles group

"obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct." This is what Chicago Tribune says aren't protected, which is what I'm seeing elsewhere too. I saw something about hate crimes, but hate speech is legal, just widely regarded (including by the Supreme Court) really shitty
"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation" Cambridge Dictionary's definition. So it meets one of the criteria, but the supreme court has to be really careful about restricting speech

@Knick

I believe in freedom of speech. You can say what you want.

I just believe in freedom of speech with consequences. You can say what you want, but expect some sort of repercussion depending on what it is. Like for example if you deny the Armenian genocide here you have to face trial for it. Am I saying that everyone who says ‘hate speech’ should face trial? No, I’m just saying there’s different consequences for everything.

I can’t speak for everyone here, considering I’m Swiss, not American, but that’s how I feel about it.

@Althalosian-is-the-father book

"obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct." This is what Chicago Tribune says aren't protected, which is what I'm seeing elsewhere too. I saw something about hate crimes, but hate speech is legal, just widely regarded (including by the Supreme Court) really shitty
"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation" Cambridge Dictionary's definition. So it meets one of the criteria, but the supreme court has to be really careful about restricting speech

That should be illegal. Nothing else. But it has to really be inciting violence. "Kill the whoever" and stuff.

@Althalosian-is-the-father book

I believe in freedom of speech. You can say what you want.

I just believe in freedom of speech with consequences. You can say what you want, but expect some sort of repercussion depending on what it is. Like for example if you deny the Armenian genocide here you have to face trial for it. Am I saying that everyone who says ‘hate speech’ should face trial? No, I’m just saying there’s different consequences for everything.

I can’t speak for everyone here, considering I’m Swiss, not American, but that’s how I feel about it.

Nah. I support the right to be hella stupid with only natural consequences. I think people should be able to proclaim whatever they believe, no matter how whack.

@Pickles group

Okay, I looked up what the other part to the clear and present danger test is, and apparently it's been replaced with the "imminent lawless action test" which is if it incites lawless action before the police get there or something
So I guess that means hate speech is only illegal if it does actually produce lawless action. But in the way most people think of it (just being or generally hateful, like racism or homophobia), it isn't. Which is I think basically what Dom is saying?
I'm more confused now then I was when we were actually talking about it in government. But I guess this is what happens when I try to do my own research

Deleted user

I think you should have the right to say anything you want shrug