CDZ Hate speech leads to hate killings

[Coyote]

You end up creating special classes of people under the law. A news reporter on camera becomes responsible for content in a piece that later results in violence? This is usually where the Constitution says no.

It's a fuzzy line at what point it incites violence, but when a person is actively calling for or endorsing violence to a crowd, then that is going too far.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Agree, you don't need to legislate it, you just need to confront it.

Confronting hate speech can be dangerous, though. I have confronted those who have no problem with the mass murder of Jews only to have them target me in return.

With certain types of hate, it must be better to keep one's mouth shut, I guess.

 

[Coyote]

Agree, you don't need to legislate it, you just need to confront it.

Confronting hate speech can be dangerous, though. I have confronted those who have no problem with the mass murder of Jews only to have them target me in return.

With certain types of hate, it must be better to keep one's mouth shut, I guess.

I agree, look what happens when folks confront hate speech aimed at Muslims and then get targeted. My personal feeling is - hate speech is hate speech, and it needs to be out in the open, not made illegal.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I agree, look what happens when folks confront hate speech aimed at Muslims and then get targeted. My personal feeling is - hate speech is hate speech, and it needs to be out in the open, not made illegal.

Well, the issue here is that not only have Muslims never experienced a Holocaust, but are actually the chief proponents of the modern-day antisemitism in question.

It is true that vile hatreds need to have the light of day shone on them, but those who engage in the most hateful opinions possible actually think they are being virtuous by doing so, and if they are in the position of limiting the expression of free speech by another, then such hatred ends up being buried.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

 

[Coyote]

I agree, look what happens when folks confront hate speech aimed at Muslims and then get targeted. My personal feeling is - hate speech is hate speech, and it needs to be out in the open, not made illegal.

Well, the issue here is that not only have Muslims never experienced a Holocaust, but are actually the chief proponents of the modern-day antisemitism in question.

It is true that vile hatreds need to have the light of day shone on them, but those who engage in the most hateful opinions possible actually think they are being virtuous by doing so, and if they are in the position of limiting the expression of free speech by another, then such hatred ends up being buried.

One of the reason's hate speech can be such an effective means of inflamming a crowd is that it broad brushes entire groups of people. No longer are they individuals, they are labels. If people become labels, then they cease to be human.

Think about it. Whether it's anti-semitism, racism, or anti-islamism. The people engaging in hate speech aren't hating particular actions, they are hating the all-encompassing label.

Muslims have experienced discrimmination, just like any other group (one current example, the Rohinga). They are no different then many other groups around the world who are a minority somewhere. It's easy to scapegoat minorities, whether it's black people upset over an excess of police brutality, Jews upset over the anti-semitic canards that continue to be spewed, or Muslims upset over the out of control rhetoric of our elected officials.

People who indulge in hate speech lose sight of humanity.

 

[Coyote]

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

 

[Elvis Obama]

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

"In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not."

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

If someone is being criticized openly and honestly then that cannot be called hate speech, by definition. What, precisely, qualifies as open and honest criticism is always debatable, but certainly a lot of the currently vogue anti-Muslim rhetoric is both ill informed and ill-intentioned, and therefore meets my criterion for hate speech. Mr. Trump's non-stop barrage of hate is the most loathsome thing I've seen, in my lifetime, from an American public figure.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

"In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not."

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

If someone is being criticized openly and honestly then that cannot be called hate speech, by definition. What, precisely, qualifies as open and honest criticism is always debatable, but certainly a lot of the currently vogue anti-Muslim rhetoric is both ill informed and ill-intentioned, and therefore meets my criterion for hate speech. Mr. Trump's non-stop barrage of hate is the most loathsome thing I've seen, in my lifetime, from an American public figure.

Its the difference between saying that the Paris bombers were savages and that all Muslims are savages.
The first statement would be generally agreed to be true but the second is obviously an idiocy.

Anything which dehumanises people to such an extent is hate speech. And there is already a body count on this.

 

[mudwhistle]

all MURDERS are done in HATE. we just didn't know we had " special" classes of citizens in the country. you people need to wake up to what is being done to you

Some classes deserve special treatment in the law. So says the left.

 

[mudwhistle]

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

"In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not."

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

If someone is being criticized openly and honestly then that cannot be called hate speech, by definition. What, precisely, qualifies as open and honest criticism is always debatable, but certainly a lot of the currently vogue anti-Muslim rhetoric is both ill informed and ill-intentioned, and therefore meets my criterion for hate speech. Mr. Trump's non-stop barrage of hate is the most loathsome thing I've seen, in my lifetime, from an American public figure.

Its the difference between saying that the Paris bombers were savages and that all Muslims are savages.
The first statement would be generally agreed to be true but the second is obviously an idiocy.

Anything which dehumanises people to such an extent is hate speech. And there is already a body count on this.

Yep......so lay off of Trump you hate filled buggerer.

 

[Correll]

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

"In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not."

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

If someone is being criticized openly and honestly then that cannot be called hate speech, by definition. What, precisely, qualifies as open and honest criticism is always debatable, but certainly a lot of the currently vogue anti-Muslim rhetoric is both ill informed and ill-intentioned, and therefore meets my criterion for hate speech. Mr. Trump's non-stop barrage of hate is the most loathsome thing I've seen, in my lifetime, from an American public figure.

Its the difference between saying that the Paris bombers were savages and that all Muslims are savages.
The first statement would be generally agreed to be true but the second is obviously an idiocy.


Would it be hate speech to point out the honest point that a restrictive immigration and travel policy would have prevented the Paris Bombings? And that thus the dead and injured people would not have been killed and hurt?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

"In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not."

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

If someone is being criticized openly and honestly then that cannot be called hate speech, by definition. What, precisely, qualifies as open and honest criticism is always debatable, but certainly a lot of the currently vogue anti-Muslim rhetoric is both ill informed and ill-intentioned, and therefore meets my criterion for hate speech. Mr. Trump's non-stop barrage of hate is the most loathsome thing I've seen, in my lifetime, from an American public figure.

Its the difference between saying that the Paris bombers were savages and that all Muslims are savages.
The first statement would be generally agreed to be true but the second is obviously an idiocy.


Would it be hate speech to point out the honest point that a restrictive immigration and travel policy would have prevented the Paris Bombings? And that thus the dead and injured people would not have been killed and hurt?

It would be inaccurate. The bombers,in the main, came from neighbouring Belgium. In the UK the atrocities have been done by British citizens.
I am pretty comfortable with saying that calling for a ban on 1.6bn people is hate speech. It fails to recognise that a small minority of them are terrorists and stirs up hate in the hearts of people who are probably not that bright.
Its also pretty dumb as well. If the world is going to sort out ISis and the ALQuaedas then it can only do so with the help of the vast majority of moderate muslims all over the world.That isnt going to happen when you start classifying them all as potential terrorists. It hasnt been thought through, its a simplistic policy for simple people.

 

[Correll]

What is hate speech? Can hate speech be an overused term? Can there be debate about what qualifies as hate speech? Clearly the answer to these questions is yes. We're way beyond that, though. The events in Chicago were over the top, and truly dangerous. Anyone who fails to see the relation between Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and the mob mentality of his supporters is turning a willfully blind eye to the truth.

The tragedy of our current political dynamic is that the anger people are feeling is so justified and so completely misapplied. Our political representatives are wholly co-opted and offer no real representation. So punch another citizen who is also angry. Blame people who disagree with you. Don't blame the system which offers no real choices. Don't recognize divide and conquer tactics. Allow the true strength of the country to be diluted. What a tragic waste.

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

"In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not."

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

If someone is being criticized openly and honestly then that cannot be called hate speech, by definition. What, precisely, qualifies as open and honest criticism is always debatable, but certainly a lot of the currently vogue anti-Muslim rhetoric is both ill informed and ill-intentioned, and therefore meets my criterion for hate speech. Mr. Trump's non-stop barrage of hate is the most loathsome thing I've seen, in my lifetime, from an American public figure.

Its the difference between saying that the Paris bombers were savages and that all Muslims are savages.
The first statement would be generally agreed to be true but the second is obviously an idiocy.


Would it be hate speech to point out the honest point that a restrictive immigration and travel policy would have prevented the Paris Bombings? And that thus the dead and injured people would not have been killed and hurt?

It would be inaccurate. The bombers,in the main, came from neighbouring Belgium. In the UK the atrocities have been done by British citizens.
I am pretty comfortable with saying that calling for a ban on 1.6bn people is hate speech. It fails to recognise that a small minority of them are terrorists and stirs up hate in the hearts of people who are probably not that bright.
Its also pretty dumb as well. If the world is going to sort out ISis and the ALQuaedas then it can only do so with the help of the vast majority of moderate muslims all over the world.That isnt going to happen when you start classifying them all as potential terrorists. It hasnt been thought through, its a simplistic policy for simple people.

British citizens because of immigration policies in the past.

From Belgium because of Belgium's immigration and travel policies.

If immigration and travel policies had been more restrictive in the past, then those people would be alive today.

Your claim that "it is inaccurate" is actually what is inaccurate.

Thus there is a fine reason for wanting to "ban" 1.6 billion people. Our lives and the lives of our people.

A reason that is not hate.

Your assumption that the world will "Sort out" the terrorists is unsupported. A more likely scenario at this point is that terrorism becomes part of the new normal.

Part of the price we pay for Globalism and Diversity. Which is anyone questions, they are a bigot.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

.

You missunderstood.

I am talking about the target of the speech rather than the speech. People being targeted for factors beyond their control is an entirely different matter than their being targeted for their own decisions.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not.

Being born with a certain skin color or gender is not a choice. Religion, on the other hand, very much is a choice and so is we cannot differentiate between that which is immutable and that which isn't, we only end up sanctioning much that IS harmful in our zeal to avoid the very hatred we think we are fighting.

Being gay is not a choice, and gay people do not harm others as a bi-product of their being gay. As such, the prejudice against them is unwarranted and when speech rises to a level where it threatens them with harm, it is hate speech. Those who follow a religion, however, should be able to be criticized openly and honestly because they have chosen to hold certain opinions. If those opinions harm others when acted upon as is the case with so many Islamic beliefs, for instance, then calling the reaction to them "hate speech" not only misses the mark by an enormous degree, it actually serves the purpose of the hatreds, themselves.

"In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not."

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

If someone is being criticized openly and honestly then that cannot be called hate speech, by definition. What, precisely, qualifies as open and honest criticism is always debatable, but certainly a lot of the currently vogue anti-Muslim rhetoric is both ill informed and ill-intentioned, and therefore meets my criterion for hate speech. Mr. Trump's non-stop barrage of hate is the most loathsome thing I've seen, in my lifetime, from an American public figure.

Its the difference between saying that the Paris bombers were savages and that all Muslims are savages.
The first statement would be generally agreed to be true but the second is obviously an idiocy.


Would it be hate speech to point out the honest point that a restrictive immigration and travel policy would have prevented the Paris Bombings? And that thus the dead and injured people would not have been killed and hurt?

It would be inaccurate. The bombers,in the main, came from neighbouring Belgium. In the UK the atrocities have been done by British citizens.
I am pretty comfortable with saying that calling for a ban on 1.6bn people is hate speech. It fails to recognise that a small minority of them are terrorists and stirs up hate in the hearts of people who are probably not that bright.
Its also pretty dumb as well. If the world is going to sort out ISis and the ALQuaedas then it can only do so with the help of the vast majority of moderate muslims all over the world.That isnt going to happen when you start classifying them all as potential terrorists. It hasnt been thought through, its a simplistic policy for simple people.

British citizens because of immigration policies in the past.

From Belgium because of Belgium's immigration and travel policies.

If immigration and travel policies had been more restrictive in the past, then those people would be alive today.

Your claim that "it is inaccurate" is actually what is inaccurate.

Thus there is a fine reason for wanting to "ban" 1.6 billion people. Our lives and the lives of our people.

A reason that is not hate.

Your assumption that the world will "Sort out" the terrorists is unsupported. A more likely scenario at this point is that terrorism becomes part of the new normal.

Part of the price we pay for Globalism and Diversity. Which is anyone questions, they are a bigot.

You make a raft of assumptions, none of which relate to the subject being discussed.
Try and think of it like this. If the rest of the world decided that white power terrorists were a threat to their internal security and decided to ban all white americans from visiting their country. Any Black Americans would be welcome or those of Asian descent., I am sure that you would find that offensive and inciteful.You would probably feel that was discriminatory. You may feel that you had some sot of redress against those people.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The Global Divide on Homosexuality


Since this thread began with notions that hate speech leads to violence, and hate speech against gays leads to violence against gay people, to be put in the proper perspective, it is necessary to examine which societies do and do not support rights for gay people. Since I support such rights, and others only CLAIM to support them, let's take a look at this, folks, shall we?

As anybody can see as plainly as day, Muslims are the very LEAST likely people in the world to support gay rights, as hatred of homosexuals is near universal. Heck, the support for actually killing gay people is alarmingly high, so you can't have it both ways, people. If you want to support gay rights, then support gay rights. If you want to promote a hateful ideology called Islam, then promote a hateful ideology called Islam.

This notion that gay rights only matter in our liberal, western societies while any criticism of the political-religious ideology that persecutes gay people is "hate speech" is complete bunk. It is just feel-good double talk that has nothing to do with the values involved, but everything to do with saying the politically correct things everybody else is saying.

 

[Correll]

"In defining hate speech, IMO, it is imperative to differentiate between something that is innate and something that is a choice. Further, if it is a choice, the differentiation needs to be made between choices that are harmful to others and those that are not."

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Innate or a choice? How can hate speech be innate? You choose to say something hateful. Hate speech that is not harmful to others? You mean like stuff you whisper into your pillow? I guess it makes sense to differentiate between speech that causes emotional pain and that which instigates millions of people being stuffed into ovens, but it's all designed to cause harm.

If someone is being criticized openly and honestly then that cannot be called hate speech, by definition. What, precisely, qualifies as open and honest criticism is always debatable, but certainly a lot of the currently vogue anti-Muslim rhetoric is both ill informed and ill-intentioned, and therefore meets my criterion for hate speech. Mr. Trump's non-stop barrage of hate is the most loathsome thing I've seen, in my lifetime, from an American public figure.

Its the difference between saying that the Paris bombers were savages and that all Muslims are savages.
The first statement would be generally agreed to be true but the second is obviously an idiocy.


Would it be hate speech to point out the honest point that a restrictive immigration and travel policy would have prevented the Paris Bombings? And that thus the dead and injured people would not have been killed and hurt?

It would be inaccurate. The bombers,in the main, came from neighbouring Belgium. In the UK the atrocities have been done by British citizens.
I am pretty comfortable with saying that calling for a ban on 1.6bn people is hate speech. It fails to recognise that a small minority of them are terrorists and stirs up hate in the hearts of people who are probably not that bright.
Its also pretty dumb as well. If the world is going to sort out ISis and the ALQuaedas then it can only do so with the help of the vast majority of moderate muslims all over the world.That isnt going to happen when you start classifying them all as potential terrorists. It hasnt been thought through, its a simplistic policy for simple people.

British citizens because of immigration policies in the past.

From Belgium because of Belgium's immigration and travel policies.

If immigration and travel policies had been more restrictive in the past, then those people would be alive today.

Your claim that "it is inaccurate" is actually what is inaccurate.

Thus there is a fine reason for wanting to "ban" 1.6 billion people. Our lives and the lives of our people.

A reason that is not hate.

Your assumption that the world will "Sort out" the terrorists is unsupported. A more likely scenario at this point is that terrorism becomes part of the new normal.

Part of the price we pay for Globalism and Diversity. Which is anyone questions, they are a bigot.

You make a raft of assumptions, none of which relate to the subject being discussed.
Try and think of it like this. If the rest of the world decided that white power terrorists were a threat to their internal security and decided to ban all white americans from visiting their country. Any Black Americans would be welcome or those of Asian descent., I am sure that you would find that offensive and inciteful.You would probably feel that was discriminatory. You may feel that you had some sot of redress against those people.

I have no right to travel to foreign nations that don't want me there.

IF "white power terrorists" were killing people in, say the UK and they put a ban on all whites traveling to the UK to protect themselves, I would NOT have any right to any sort of redress against the Brits.

The people I would blame would be the asshole terrorists that created the problem.

 

[Coyote]

Are you saying that hate speech directed against Muslims is legitimized?

Calling the criticism of their homophobia, their misogyny, and their lack of humanist values "hate speech" only clouds the issue of what is and what is not hate speech, as you are protecting hatred rather than opposing it, especially inasmuch as it is their choice to hold these hateful beliefs.

What makes something "hate speech" is broadbrushing an entire group as opposed to criticizing specific actions. But again - I do not support legislating hate speech, since it is to some degree subjective, and free speech is an important right. For example, criticizing Islamic intolerance for homosexuality would not be hate speech imo. Calling Islam a pedophilic religion and it's followers pedophiles or a religion of rapists (hide your women and children!) would be hate speech that should be countered with facts, but attacking the issue of child marriages, forced marriages within certain Islamic countries would not be. The other aspect that I think marks hate speech is the willingness to uncritically accept and unspread unverified claims like conspiracy theories in order to tar an entire group. So are you attacking behavior or

Examples would be rape statistics and Muslims, where those that are critical of claims are labeled rape supporters - it's another way of protecting hatred is it not?