Dem Congressman to propose crackdown on campus 'hate speech'

Ok....this is an older issue that came up in late 2017, but I'm bringing it up against because of some recent discussion I was in.

There are some people that want to define what "Hate Speech" is....or, at the least, require others to provide THEIR definition of "hate speech".

https://anthonybrown.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=188

The problem I have with this is that, no matter what definition is created, it can be used to describe certain speech as being "hateful" depending on how that definition is interpreted. It could also be used to "ban" speech against certain Government policies or ideas.

For instance, I was told that being outspoken about "Obama Care" or against Illegal Immigrants could be considered as "Hate Speech", as most of the people that are without insurance without Obama Care, or Illegal Immigrants are minorities. To speak out against Obama Care or in favor of stemming the tide of illegal immigration is speaking out against minorities....and therefore is "Hate Speech".

Personally, I am against pretty much all censorship of speech....especially speech that some may find offensive. Some people say we need to have "discussions" on the issues people disagree about. How is a bill preventing certain speech in any way "discussing" the issue?

 

Can libs spell “sensorship?”

And do they know what it means?

 

Fascists

The Left has become Orwellian Fascist.

 

I just noticed that misspelled censorship

Oh my gosh

 

So the leftists in government wants to ban unacceptable speech you say.

Perhaps someone should let them know there's a document that says they can't do that.

 

They always have been.

 

They are just more bold about it now. It's concerning.

 

Even with that "document", certain speech has already been made illegal.

 

Like what?

 

Maybe the free health care is responsible for that.

 

When liberals talk about "hate" it means disagreement with them. It has nothing to do with actual hate, something they are very intimately aware of within themselves. All they see is government being used to stop folks from disagreeing with their stupid. Everything else then becomes "hate", and tyranny is fully established. There is no liberal (traditional liberalism) paradigm that justifies government sponsored limits on speech, and for that matter, thoughts.

 

fighting words....yelling "fire' in a crowded area.....inciting riots.....speech that incites a "hate crime".

And that is not even mentioning speech that is censored or punished because of public outrage.

 

The third example is a slippery slope that leads to government control of all speech

 

SO,... in your estimation then, anything that you then label as "hate" is something that you think government should be able to deny you your liberty for.... right? Do you suppose inciting malcontent by publishing articles about white guilt, or race tensions might fit your definition? I do.

 

"hate crime" is another thing that should not be a thing. Someone murdered because they are gay is no worse than someone murdered because they have $10. Dead is dead and one life isn't worth any more than another, except for the guy doing the killing. His life is worthless.

 

Even "acts of incitement" are hard to prosecute. You pretty much have to show an immediate response to something that results in a crime.

Most of your second example is intended to preclude minors from exposure to "adult" content. I.E "decency" laws.

"Hate speech", particularly in a college environment which is supposed to openly discuss such ideas (learning is the purported purpose of college), is ridiculous.

"Hate speech" itself is entirely subjective. One cannot have an honest discussion or examination of issues without the possibility of offending or being offended.

What this really is about are colleges defining what is, and what is not, acceptable to think. That's a far cry from "let's kill x person right now" and posting porno's on school web sites.

 

I'm not labeling anything as "hate" and do not think any Government should either. Whether something is "hate' or not is too subjective.

I agree. it should not matter is the crime was committed because of "hate" or for the purpose of "hate". The crime should be prosecuted based on the crime itself.

I'm not saying that some things, especially what I listed, should be allowed. However, I think we are in agreement that this is a very dangerous precedence for the Government to disallow some speech just because others might be offended.

 

Hate speech = disagreeing with liberals

 

Well said.

They are Orwellians who change the meaning of words to forward their ideology.

Hate = Disagreement
Nazi = Free Speech Advocate
Democratic Socialist = Communist
Antifa = Fascist
Social Media = Censorship
Mainstream Media = Propaganda
Public Education = Indoctrination

 

Should we do away with 1st degree murder and man slaughter? Just charge all killings the same?

 

Hate Crime is not necessary. If it is Manslaughter, then charge it as such. If it is Pre-Meditated, then make it First Degree.

 

So pretty much anything a conservative/libertarian/right winger would say.

Got it.

 

I hate ”hate speech” laws. Guess that makes me a criminal. How corrupt, a soul must be to want to control the thoughts of others. How intellectually parasitical. How intellectually depraved. How morally repugnant. Shame on those who believe they have the right to another’s mind. The thought police are here. How soon til the knocks on doors in the dark of night.

 

Does the facts that hate was a motivation change the degree of the crime?

 

It could be very simple. No incitement, libel, or slander. Use your voice to counter bad ideas and lies.