0
All sorts of speech are outlawed besides so-called 'hate speech'. For example perjury, defamation, incitement to riot, incitement to crime, swearing on children's television and the like. If it is to be argued that passing laws against certain speech drives that speech underground and foments civil disobedience then we should not prosecute these either and it follows the we should thus allow citizens to lie in court, defame people, incite crime and so on.
Humour doesn't usually constitute hate speech and nor does robust criticism of certain behaviours, such as risk taking. If however, hate speech laws start to become trivialised through vexatious application and arbitrary prosecution then we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water thereby legalising the use of racist and homophobic invective, but should instead curtail frivolous, vexatious and arbitrary situations in the first place.
Unless you ar a gay person or a Jew, you don't know the full personal impact of hearing public speakers calling for the genocide of your kind, however wittily, and the drastic decisions that may connote in terms changing where you live and where to send your children to school.
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoIt depends entirely on how you define "effective".
If your goal is to stifle speech or force racist and discriminatory people to hide their views in public, then, sure, hate speech laws are effective. If your goal is to actually minimize racism and improve societal discourse, then these laws actually have the reverse effect. When people feel that they cannot express their opinions through legitimate avenues, they become more radical and adversarial in their beliefs. It creates greater societal disunity and friction between groups.
Additionally, hate speech is entirely up to the definition of the "persecuted". Given the incredibly extensive set of words and concepts that are viewed as hateful under the increasing ambit of political correctness, hate speech laws can serve to bar speech that is simply critical or questioning of the current left-wing worldview. It sets up the dangerous idea of using the law to bar the political opposition in a democracy.
Contrary to other forms of speech which are limited, such as incitement to riot and incitement to crime, hate speech is not a direct incitement to violence or felonious activity, but the airing of particularized grievances. Similarly, perjury and libel are barred because of the clear monetary effect and loss of reputation that can result to particularized individuals who are targeted by such speech. Hate speech has no particularized or clear monetary effect on the targeted, diffuse group. Additionally, these crimes have a much higher burden of proof in order to overcome freedom of speech protections, including "truth" being a complete defense. By contrast, many hate speech advocates would prefer to use those laws against people who simply report actual statistics or other "hurtful" facts. The laws that restrict speech in the case of incitement to crimes, perjury, and libel have particularized benefits.
The Community Answer is replete with faulty logic which is addressed in full in the Discussion Section.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Are there any governmental laws against hate speech?
Yes, hate speech laws are apart of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The amendment prohibits the regulation of speech even hate speech.
How effective are those Hate speech laws in countries like Canada and should The U.S. federal government adopt it to their First Amendment of the US Constitution?
There are two questions here:(1) How effective are Hate Speech Laws (such as those in Canada or some European Countries)?It depends entirely on how you define "effective".If your goal is to stifle speech or force racist and discriminatory people to hide their views in public, then, sure, hate speech laws are effective. If your goal is to actually minimize racism and improve societal discourse, then these laws actually have the reverse effect. When people feel that they cannot express their opinions through legitimate avenues, they become more radical and adversarial in their beliefs. It creates greater societal disunity and friction between groups.Additionally, hate speech is entirely up to the definition of the "persecuted". Given the incredibly extensive set of words and concepts that are viewed as hateful under the increasing ambit of political correctness, hate speech laws can serve to bar speech that is simply critical or questioning of the current left-wing worldview. It sets up the dangerous idea of using the law to bar the political opposition in a democracy.(2) Is it legally permissible to have Hate Speech Laws given the First Amendment to the US Constitution?No. The First Amendment, as currently understood, has extensive protections for free speech. The bans on speech only apply in cases where direct harm will result from the speech uttered, such as words that target a particular person for murder or words that will create pandemonium and result in deaths and injuries that way. Simply uttering hateful remarks with no intent to engender physical harm is protected. Additionally, words that anger a person to the point where they consider attacking the speaker (as opposed to a person listening to the speaker attacking a third party that the speaker argues should be attacked) is also protected speech.While it is illegal to ban hate speech, it is certainly legal to perform social acts of discrimination against those who say hateful and discriminatory things. Only the government is forbidden from restricting speech, not private individuals or corporations. For example, it is permissible to reprimand or fire an employee for hateful speech. Whether or not private censorship is desirable is a decision that each person needs to make on his own.
What are some purposes constitutes hate speech?
A speech, involving hate
What is hate speech?
It is speech that tries to spread hatred. Hate speech is especially used by bigots and racists and bullies.
What part of speech is hate?
A noun, verb, or adjective:Hate is a dangerous vice. (noun, subject of the sentence)I hate him. (verb)He was arrested for his hate speech. (adjective, describes the noun 'speech')
Is the term anchor baby hate speech?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Words are just words, they are neither hate nor are they benign. It is how they are used that makes them hateful. It would depend on how you used the phrase "Anchor Baby" that would determine if it is or is not hate speech. You would have to look at your local/state laws to see what, when, where, and how hate speech is defined.
How effective are Hate speech laws in countries like Canada at undermining Hate groups?
Anti-Hate Speech Laws generally winnow the field of critics from a mixed bag of those who are criticizing in good faith and happen to be coarse in their language or coarse by the perception of those ensconced in political correctness to those who are actually belligerent racists. However, the hate speech laws, like those in Canada, create a chilling effect for those people who are genuinely concerned about their reputation being tarnished. This goes directly at those in the first category, who now feel silenced and may feel pushed to either deny their feelings or to join the actual racists under the argument that if the law is not going to treat them any differently, then these are their allies. As a result, when hate speech manifests in Canada, it is usually more vitriolic than it otherwise would be.It is also inappropriate to compare a country like Canada, which has a very moderate and urbanized population (like Europe) with a country like the United States where religion and conservatism have created a much larger latent ground for belligerent activity.
What are the different kinds of speech that the Supreme Court has identified?
The Supreme Court has identified three types of speech: fully protected speech, which includes political or artistic expression and is protected by the First Amendment; partially protected speech, which includes commercial speech and is subject to certain restrictions; and unprotected speech, such as obscenity, defamation, and speech that incites violence, which is not protected by the First Amendment.
Why do you hate speech?
Well... first of all... some people don't hate speech, and people who hate speech doesn't really like school that much or your shy and don't wanna talk that much. Speech is just to help you pronounce your words a little better.
What are limitations on freedom of speech?
Hate speech criminalization is a major limitation on speech. Diversity people are granted special protection by big government so as to prevent their hurt feelings and prevent them from reacting with violence toward a hate speaker. If a Diversity person or a hate speaker react with any form of violence, only the hate speaker is necessarily subject to government prosecution for hate speech. The intent of hate speech criminalization is to chill criticism of Diversity people. Another limitation on speech is free speech zones designated by big government. Outside a free speech zone a speaker is subject to arrest and prosecution.
What do husbands hate to do?
Husbands traditionally hate to interact with their in-laws.
Which US states do not have hate speech laws?
There is no federal law in the US that directly prohibits hate speech; it is protected under the First Amendment. However, some states have laws pertaining to hate crimes, which address acts motivated by bias. States without specific hate speech laws include Delaware, Nebraska, and Wyoming.
