I know it already is but should it be?
The problem is you hand government and courts the right to decide what is hate speech.
In the UK the government is already trying to classify anti-zionist speech as banned hate speech.
Laws are weapons, your enemies can use them against you.
Imagine living in Queensland rn. Where the phrase “from the river to the sea” is banned…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-05/qld-hate-speech-laws-passed-parliament/106420306
“Hey Bob, want to kayak from the river to the sea tomorrow”
Government seething intensifies
I’d rather know someone is a nazi then not know
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. A lot of extremists like to be heard. I like to know when they’re coming.
Charlie Kirk would still be a piece of shit today if he wasn’t out and loud about being a piece of shit.
Without a platform, he would likely have had a much smaller impact, and likely also not even be as extreme in his views.
This is what the paradox of tolerance is all about. Extending tolerance to those who are intolerant of others only serves to enable the rise and eventual dominance of intolerance, thus undermining the original principle. The only way to combat this is (ironically) to be intolerant of such behaviour on both a cultural and systemic level.
There is no paradox once you realize that it is not a law, but a social contract.
Those that are intolerant remove themselves from the social contract, and are no longer protected by it. This then allows them to be no longer tolerated by the tolerant, preserving that contract for those who obey it.
Yeah, honestly when viewed this (the correct) way it becomes ridiculous to call it a paradox at all.
Tolerate everything except intolerance.
Yes because otherwise you can shut down speech you dislike by labeling it “hate speech”
Canada restricts hate speech, as does most of Europe.
Yet its the US with the speech suppression issues going on right now.
You shouldn’t base a law on “The current government is okay” simply because the next one might not be.
That implies the bad government will care about following the laws, or won’t change the law or its enforcement
You shouldn’t base a law on “The current government is okay”
The definition of hate speech doesn’t change each time we get a new prime minister.
Even with everything going on in America right now, it definitely doesn’t suppress free speech more than Germany or Britain. I mean the Palestine Action thing is still happening (while Reform gets to yap all day long, mind you).
And that’s why you need a democratic process and not a dictatorship that decides unilaterally what is fine.
On the other hand, if you protect the nazis, you are one of them and you are letting them oppress whoever they want.
Personally, I know what side I prefer.
you want dictatorship of the majority? That just means minority groups (which may be the more moral group, eg anti slavery in the past, women’s rights in the past, lgbt+ rights now, vegans now) will be oppressed instead. To protect minorities you need absolute free speech, not just democracy
I said a democratic process, not a majority vote. To protect minorities you need laws that protect minorities and individual rights, freedom of speech is secondary, and actually often contradicting with the first part of my sentence.
It’s no mystery why the ones throwing “freedom of speech” all day long in all conversations are the nazis. If freedom of speech is king, then hate speech is tolerated. What needs to be of the utmost importance is the respect of individuals, and freedom of speech becomes a consequence of that.
How can minorities exist if they don’t have the freedom to express their minority opinions even if they’re 'hateful" to others? It sounds like only sanctioned minorities would be protected under your system, which makes no sense.
What about hating billionaires, I expect you would think that 'hate speech " is fine?
If individuals are respected, then their minority opinions will be fine as long as they are not breaking the rule of not blocking other’s freedoms.
Billionaires are in many way hostile to society as a whole, and destroy the freedom of most people, by choice. Nothing forces them to do it, they aren’t born that way or whatever else, and they are breaking the rule of respecting other’s freedom; as such hating on billionaires is not hate speech, because they broke the rule first and are doing it willingly and with complete choice over the matter.
But you’re right, there shouldn’t be hate speech against billionaires, because they shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
Hahaha, oh, yes, compare an ideal system to reality.
Sheesh
Clearly you’ve never heard of plurality
hate speech isnt, because it just promotes violence, discrimination against minorities, and it further perpetuates the bigotry.
I think that if something is made illegal, it should be very clearly defined. “Hate speech” is wide open to interpretation and can easily be used to silence all kinds of speech. The issue isn’t the obvious cases but where exactly we draw the line. If that line can’t be made crystal clear, it’s a slippery slope toward tyranny. Being offensive is okay - spreading hate and inciting violence isn’t.
Yes - not because I particularly like the idea of bigoted speech, but because like most Governments have already started to demonstrate over age verification, any tool of censorship you allow to be used against your enemy will eventually be turned back against you
It really depends on who defines what hate speech is.
Is questioning the Zionist genocide hate speech? Is being an outspoken socialist hate speech against capitalists? Is stating you want to separate church and state hateful against Christians? Is supporting Palestine hate speech in the UK?
I’m a fan of free speech. Unless it is literally inciting violence or panic.
It’s fucked up innocent people holding Palestine action signs are being arrested in the UK. Attacking free speech is what leads to situations like that.
I feel like this is the only right answer and even then who decides what “inciting violence” is. As disgusting as it gets the only free speech in my mind is 100% free speech. Anything less is just free attack surface for those looking to oppress.
deleted by creator
When is freedom of speech ever not equivalent to freedom of consequences from said speech?
Consequences as in the government punishing someone, and consequences as in people mocking and ostracizing someone aren’t the same thing. Just as the person who said something has the right to say that thing, other people have the right to for example not watch that person’s show anymore.
deleted by creator
Stochastic terrorism should be a crime. As it is, only if it’s from the left. The right wing media as well as the current occupant of the executive branch, get away with it regularly.
they fear anything that is “left” of far right, it threatens thier grip on power.
If it were not, it would just be inviting the government take a massive dump all over it.
Despite the crapshow that is the current US government, you can’t be arrested for standing in front of the Whitehouse shouting your support for whatever idea or group you beleive in (granted you are a Citizen of the USA).
Compare that to something like the UK where people have been charged and thrown in jail for wearing a t shirt or holding a sign, even outside of a protest because the government can just designate whatever it wants to be “hate speech”.
Private spaces like social media are not bound by this which is fine, but social media is so ridiculously controlled and filtered as a result, that you’re better off sticking to a non mainstream platform (like lemmy) where your comments won’t get banned and deleted for stepping out of line.
You have to be a citizen for the constitution to apply?
just so it’s clear - a lot of the constitution, especially the 1st amendment, applies to everyone in the country. citizen or not.
No, its just that the current administration has been going around and depoting visa and greencard holders.
Honestly, I’m kind of split. Here in France hate speech is actually isn’t allowed which sounds good but the problem becomes that the government decides what is hate speech
Yes it should. “your freedom ends when you start to hurt my feelings” is just plain censorship, as anything you don’t like can be labeled as hate speech
This is exceptionally bad in my homeland (Ukraine) So much so that if I explain the situation here, I’ll just get banned here because it can be labeled as hate speech
as anything you don’t like can be labeled as hate speech
That’s not actually how it happens. Countries can define what is and isn’t allowed, and I don’t think “hurt feelings” are the definition for hate speech anywhere in the world.
I really wonder how many people in this thread have ever had hate speech directed at themselves.
Theyre also ignoring that the government is ultimately who will decide what hate speech is, not common sense. They could very easily decide “anti christian ideology,” such as lgbtq people existing, is hate speech.
If it already is, because it had already been decided. People once again misunderstand what exactly the 1st Amendment even covers. It protects you from the government silencing your voice and expression, which is what someone like Trump has been working hard to do.
It does not and should not protect you outside from that. You do not have a case on your hands when you’re banned from an online forum for using hate speech. Because that forum, is not the government. Facebook, is not the government. Reddit, is not the government. So on and so forth.
Can you think of a useful purpose it serves?
