Should calling someone a "rasist" qualify as hate speach?

I seems to me if we are going to have lists of names which qualify for "hate speach" and infringe on the 1st Amendment by punishing the use of them in the penal system, then the word rasist definatly needs to be added to that list. I have seen no greater examples of hate than when this word is used. It is used commonly to smear people and to defame them and causes great harm. Therefore I believe we should insist that it be procecuted as hate speach.

 

Racist is a label, not a Plantiffs claim of violation, it is just like any other derogitory label. It should definatly be considered hate speach.

 

Persuading the public that someone is racist can damage their career. If the accusation can be proven or they admit it(being a racist is not a crime), then the accusation shouldn't be a crime. If there is no basis for the accusation, then it's an intentional attempt to slander someone. I don't know if it's a hate crime, but the penalty for it should be comparable to the pain inflicted on the person being wrongly accused of racism.

 

Hate speach punishment is usually associated with someone using a slur while in the act of comiting a harmful act against another person. So if someone is harmed while being accused or labeled racist, should that not also be considered motivated by hate?

 

I think falsely accusing someone of a hate crime should be a hate crime. I don't think calling them a racist rises to that level unless they make a specific false allegation.

 

Well you don’t so that’s OK. Hate speech is about intent, context and effect, not simply the use of specific words.

 

Hate speech is PROTECTED under the 1st Amendment so calling someone who is a racist a racist is protected free speech.

It would ONLY be defamatory when used against someone who is NOT a racist. Not aware of that happening but I suppose there might be some instances of it.

 

No, calling someone a racist should not qualify as "hate speech" because the special category "hate speech" should be done away with entirely together with any laws, codes, rules anywhere that penalize it.

Speech crimes and civil offenses should be limited entirely to defamation, inciting others to break the law, certain types of fraud and workplace or other harassment, terroristic or other threats, otherwise the 1A should have free reign.

OTOH, accusations of racism should be added to the categories of defamation per se, and in light of the excessive frequency of this type of defamation, states should start to codify it into preexisting defamation law. Moreover, it should be excepted from press protections requiring malice, and other protections against defamation of public persons. It is time for casual race-baiting to come to a definitive END in this country.

Mere name calling of any type should never be penalized other than via community scorn/reaction in a just society, and it never justifies a violent response under any circumstances.

 

EYERONE's a RACIST. Time to move on

 

I agree with your sentiment 110% but adding one more log on the fire of crapola doesn't seem to help. BTW, derogatory speech does not have to cause harm. You can be fined in NYC for instance by just making someone feel bad.

 

Too early in the morning to post - LOL

EVERYONES a RACIST, time to move on.

 

If I call pre-CR Byrd a racist, that is hate speech. If say post-CR Byrd had supported racism, that is not hate speech.

 

All hate speach? So increased prison sentences for using hate speach are unconstitutional?

 

My intent was not to add another log, but to point out the hypocrisy of the original laws.

 

No, it should just be ignored.

 

There are no prison sentences for hate speech because if there were your BLOTUS would be guilty of them.

Hate CRIMES are prosecuted more seriously than the equivalent crime WITHOUT the element of hate.

INCITEMENT to commit a Hate Crime is no different than incitement to commit any other violent crime in that there is NO 1st Amendment right protecting speech that incites violence.

Saying that a racist is a racist is no different to saying that a white or black person is white or black appropriate to their actual skin tone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Hate CRIMES are identified as those crimes that are MOTIVATED by hatred.

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-hate-crime-laws-explained

Important to know the DIFFERENCE between hate speech and hate crimes.

 

It depends on context. When used to demonize a legitimate concern (ie, calling someone a racist for non-racist views against a member of the mainority), yes that meets the definition of hate speech. However, if someone's behavior is genuinely racist, then I would not call it hate speech to call it such.

 

Almost all violent crime is hate based you don't generally assault or murder people you like.

 

So a liberal protester who injures someone while sluring them a racist has not committed a hate crime?

 

How did you come to that erroneous conclusion after being provided with the actual Law of the Land?

 

Somebody called him out and he's salty. lol

 

I voted no because hate speech shouldn't be a thing.

Though I agree in principle- in this atmosphere of red flag laws targetting 'hate groups', there needs to be penalties for false claims and false accusations. It should be just as risky to accuse 'hate' as it is to be 'hateful', lest false accusations become a common tool for unjust persecution.

But ideally, hate in and of itself would remain lawful. I don't think anyone is going to appreciate the true consequences of criminalizing beliefs.

 

I agree that it should not be a thing, but it is on the books as of right now. The question is why it is not being fairly applied. To slur someone a racist is just as offensive, and implies as much hate as a racial or sexual slur.

 

Such subjective 'laws' are designed to be used unfairly.