Is hate speech considered free speech? (Debate)

[Xero_Daxter]

Yes or no?

Disclaimer: I don't hate anyone. I love everyone.

[76561198356019466]

Yes BUT...

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

[Defenestration]

Hate speech is a bit of a subjective term, but even if it was objective it would still be free speech. As long as you're not threatening to kill anyone then you're free to say whatever you want.

[Chaosolous]

Yes. Doesn't mean you won't have your day ruined for being antagonistic though.

The government should not arrest you for saying things people don't like, even if it's hate speech.

Your job should be able to fire you though.

[Dom]

Depends on where you live. Some countries don't allow hatred. Because hate speech can function as a pathway to violence. Also misinformation and disinformation that tries to create negative perception of groups can also be considered hate speech. So it isn't just someone on the forums saying "I hate X people".

[G 80]

Depends I think, if you just yap some racist slurs, it's fine, but if you start sending death threats or talking about messed up things, maybe it's taking it too far.

[BunnieBealla]

the Daxster is back
also eh you'd have to ask the law, regardless it doesn't mean freedom of consequences
play stupid games win stupid prizes and all that uwu

[Xero_Daxter]

引用自 G 80：

Depends I think, if you just yap some racist slurs, it's fine, but if you start sending death threats or talking about messed up things, maybe it's taking it too far.

I'm not talking about threatening anyone. I'm just talking about "having an opinion". Most likely the "wrong opinion".

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

Most people think they support free speech but they don't. Steam doesn't believe in free speech. Nor do they believe in objective hate speech but does anyone besides maybe the public forum? Twitter is MUCH better then it used to be. I can say things on it that would get me banned here, but there's still limits on it.

And one just has to see Elon Musk being sued by various world governments to see many other countries don't value free speech either.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

引用自 tiny E：

Yes BUT...

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

That is a ridiculous, meaningless "catch-all" statement. What does that even mean?

[G 80]

引用自 Xero_Daxter：

引用自 G 80：

Depends I think, if you just yap some racist slurs, it's fine, but if you start sending death threats or talking about messed up things, maybe it's taking it too far.

I'm not talking about threatening anyone. I'm just talking about "having an opinion". Most likely the "wrong opinion".

Oh in that case it depends on what platform you interact at, at free platforms like twitter and rumble, you can have any opinion you want, nobody will ban or shadow ban you, on matrix-controlled platforms like steam itself, free speech doesn't exist.

Punishment is inevitable if you aren't a leftie.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

引用自 loerepoot：

引用自 tiny E：

Yes BUT...

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

That is a ridiculous, meaningless "catch-all" statement. What does that even mean?

You're probably going to get the often misunderstood example of yelling "fire" in a movie theater.

Problem with that idea is it's not actually illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater, it's illegal to start a panic or trying to incite a panic. One can actually say fire in the movie theater, especially if there's a fire. in which case yelling "fire" in a movie theater is a moral obligation.

[Triple G]

Depends who You ask. If You ask certain American courts: yes. If You ask most other courts and the U.N.: no.

If You ask me: free speech in the public should have limits.

Problem: whether something is considered free or hate speech or not doesn´t matter too much, as certain institutions usually set the limits wrong, and then these limits aren´t really enforced, because these also aren´t clear. It was of course less of a problem before the web, but certain people think that any progress made, does not need to also have a change in the rules. So it goes downhill. I find it funny.

[Chaosolous]

引用自 Chunk Norris ☯：

Most people think they support free speech but they don't. Steam doesn't believe in free speech. Nor do they believe in objective hate speech but does anyone besides maybe the public forum? Twitter is MUCH better then it used to be. I can say things on it that would get me banned here, but there's still limits on it.

And one just has to see Elon Musk being sued by various world governments to see many other countries don't value free speech either.

The issue with this kind of thinking for me though is the definition of free speech at that point.

The way I look at it, free speech is exclusively and only the government. If you can go outside and say the words you want to while standing on your property (even if people ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ hate you for it) and not get arrested, then you have free speech.

Steam, Twitter, etc, are not the government. They have every right to kick you off their platform and set rules for what they allow. Just like I can kick you out of my house if you're there and speak in a way I wouldn't condone.

Also, to Gumball's point earlier, death threats and stuff of that ilk are not protected under free speech. That argument in the U.S. was settled a long time ago.

[Xero_Daxter]

引用自 Chunk Norris ☯：

引用自 loerepoot：

That is a ridiculous, meaningless "catch-all" statement. What does that even mean?

You're probably going to get the often misunderstood example of yelling "fire" in a movie theater.

Problem with that idea is it's not actually illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater, it's illegal to start a panic or trying to incite a panic. One can actually say fire in the movie theater, especially if there's a fire. in which case yelling "fire" in a movie theater is a moral obligation.

It's also stated that you cannot attack someone who provoked you. Because it's still considered battery even if that person instigated it.

I'm just reading the laws. Haha.

[Kapitein Gnapmans]

引用自 Chunk Norris ☯：

引用自 loerepoot：

That is a ridiculous, meaningless "catch-all" statement. What does that even mean?

You're probably going to get the often misunderstood example of yelling "fire" in a movie theater.

Problem with that idea is it's not actually illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater, it's illegal to start a panic or trying to incite a panic. One can actually say fire in the movie theater, especially if there's a fire. in which case yelling "fire" in a movie theater is a moral obligation.

Yeah that isn't about free speech. That is more like an act.