Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Dont Believe In Free Speech For Hate Groups

edit to be more specific .. its more about combatting the hate speech which in fact hacks and suppresses love speech online and elsewhere all sorts of brainwashing for some blatantly empty purpose

their is such thing as hate for hate... which is not hate
if you have an opinion to try and limit the dreams anyone lives for,
it is personal
if someone wishes to reach for the kind of love they live for and you wish to limit this it is personal

my main concern is women being supported in their decisions within whats left of this earth free space for free love and free love does not mean take a persons freedom in exchange for ur umph achievement moment

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

DarkMoon · 22-25, M

I've noticed "free speech" has become a go to phrase for conservatives, often ultra-conservatives.
They believe their free speech is under threat, even though many of the largest and most powerful news sources are owned by people who think like them and their views are actually over-represented, if anything.
I feel they use it as a way of trying to evade any serious examination of their thoughts and, as you say, free speech entitles the other side a right to reply and challenge, always.

bijouxbroussard · F

@DarkMoon They also seem to believe that "free speech" is "consequence free" speech; and so they're shocked when they lose jobs or business as a result of speaking freely.
The First Amendment simply keeps the government from incarcerating you because of what you have to say (and [b]that's[/b] not absolute).

DarkMoon · 22-25, M

@bijouxbroussard Yes, totally. And I think direct action is a really good thing. If someone in the public eye posts something hateful or aggressive, its fair game to alert their employers or sponsors to it, imo.

lasergraph · 70-79, M

If you are only going to support freedom of speech if it is speech you agree with, then that amendment becomes worthless. Having said that, it is not without some limits anyway. You can't make libelous statements without possible repercussions. You can make threats against the president, congressmen or officers of the court. I have a cousin who spent 8 years for threatening a judge. The court takes a dim view of that. So hate speech that becomes a threat already has some limits. We have the freedom not only of speech but also of assembly. There are some laws against bullying and I expect more, some there are some restrictions on speech.

fazer1k · 56-60, M

I think hate speech is too generalised a description to be meaningful. Incitement to violence might be a better term. It's one thing saying how one feels without personal insult and another to use insulting and threatening speech thus inciting violence. The latter is what should be banned in my view. It would still be very difficult to determine where the boundaries lie, though.

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

So, you believe in selective censorship?

Clumzydebbie · 31-35, F

@MarkPaul im going to edit it to be more specific .. its more about combatting the hate speech which in fact hacks and suppresses love speech

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

@Clumzydebbie In theory I agree with you. The problem, of course, is determining what hate speech is and who gets to determine it.

I'm not necessarily arguing for a free-for-all where people should be able to say insulting or violent things about a person or group. But, what looks good on "paper" is not always easy to implement in practice when the realities of human nature intersect with real-world issues.

Clumzydebbie · 31-35, F

im sure from experience that regardless of even the cracks in laws protecting criminally insane people just for the fact of that being their nature.. its just individuals following their whim in the moment of crucial decisions affecting others

KeanuChrist · 26-30, M

Add a comment...