At least 40% millennials are for it. Overall, 28% Americans 23% US men 33% US women 35% US Democrats 18% US Republicans 49% Europeans support censoring offensive speech.
It should be protected. It is the speech most offensive that should be protected the most. Some day the powers that be may decide what you think is "offensive" and ban it from being spoken.
Not only no, HELL NO. When you censor offensive speech you censor truth. Millennials are the most pampered, most coddled, most sheltered generation yet. Im not surprised the are ill equipped to handle truth, they are never exposed to it.
Only hate speech against white males, should be banned. They need their energy to build nations. So whether they are homeless, poor, divorced, bachelor, drug addicted, unemployed, transsexual woman, disabled...etc. they are best left to work without the harassment because they harass each other enough. This competition makes them build nations. Further, massive funding should go into researching female and transman pedophilia. The results of which, I'm sure we'd find are catastrophic in their instances.
any calls to destroy public property or harm a person should be a crime as it can incite violence, just like yelling fire in a theater or bomb on a plane .
Censored by whom? If you mean censored by the forum mods, for instance, then that is entirely up to the owners of the forum. If you mean by government's force of law, then absolutely, positively not.
Then, 40% of millenials are idiots, imho. They have not yet cultivated a healthy skepticism of their government's motives. They probably believe government does things with their best interests in mind. They do not have any understanding of or respect for our Constitution.
Yelling fire in a theater or yelling you have a bomb on a plane is an immediate threat. Calling to destroy public property....well there were a lot of people who wanted to destroy the Confederate Flag flying over South Carolina. I guess those protesters should have been put in jail for opposing the Confederate Flag? Be careful what you wish for, it's probably not what you wanted. My take, if it's not an immediate threat it should be allowed. This country has become way overboard on political correctness. (*)(*)(*)(*) anyone who disagrees with that.
if they specifically threatening violence to a specific person or persons place, yes I can get a ticket for not using my turn signal, jaywalking, ect... why not for inciting violence? opposing the flag is not the same as as threatening violence of a specific owner of the flag, saying your gonna kill or harm a flag owner should be the same as yelling fire in a theater .
I think current constitutional standards have it right. From Wiki: ""Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.
Do you often speak in circles? "if they specifically threatening violence to a specific person or persons place, yes"........"person's place". IE.....their belongings. Right? "opposing the flag is not the same as as threatening violence of a specific owner of the flag".......that flag BELONGS to a person. It is a BELONGING! Threatening destruction (or actually destruction) of a person's property (ie.....place) s/b a crime! I know you'll next say you were talking about a state's flag, but, many who opposed that flag also threatened destruction of personal property flag owners! UNLESS.......you believe it's alright to threaten/destroy someones personal property if you don't agree with that property. In that case, there are many who don't like a "person's place" because they painted it a certain color.....BECAUSE, isn't a flag just certain colors?
Neither term is clearly defined but in general hate speech isnt the same thing as offensive speech. As I see it, hate is determined by the motives of the speaker (even if the target didnt even hear it) while offence is determined by the listener (even if the speaker didnt intend it). Clearly these different things should be treated differently to some extent, if only socially. Thats the problem with this kind of survey, especially across wide geographic areas and types of people who may have different interpretations of the terms used. Ive seen plenty of examples on forums like this were two people might start on opposite sides based on a simple binary like this but after discussion (and maybe argument), discover that they have a lot more in common that they first thought and the differences were as much down to interpretation as anything else.
opposing the flag is a general thing, saying I am going to come to your house and destroy your flag crosses the line one is threatening violence against a person or their property.. now what the charge is, depends on the circumstances, it my be a ticket with a fine (civil), may be criminal, such as a death threat .
I don't think even that should be illegal. Even if you think it's wrong we don't want to suppress violent speech. When we suppress speech it still gets said just secretly and we no longer know who is saying it. I want a potential threat to say so, then I can address it. Even so, speech calling for violence is a basic human right. Ever read the Declaration of Independence, it is speech calling for violence.
if it's not illegal, how can you address it, you can't, cause it's legal it's like slander laws, we could do the same for violent speech threatening a person or their property .
