Why Does The U.S. Allow Hate Speech? Its Americans Civil Right To Hate?

Most other nations do not allow 'hate speech'. Why would we? We are civillized people are we not? Why would we want the right to spew hate speech?

Americans have been told that they have 'Freedom of speech' and that this is an important thing. You should not be free to incite hate. Why would you want to?

In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[55] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.

en.wikipedia.org...

Americans think they have 'Free Speech' but if they bother to look at the fine print they will see that their right to spew hate is far from absolute.

Why do Americans want the right to 'hate speech'? Why is America so backward when compared to the rest of the advanced world?

reply to post by freemarketsocialist


Very simple. The right to "civilize" us was not allowed to our government. It's none of their business....

reply to post by Ex_CT2


I guess. But laws make a society. If people were allowed to spew hate whenever then it would cause conflict.

There is also no need for it. I can say that I am against Affirmative Action and explain my opinion without being racist. If I was racist then my point would be lost. So how is 'hate speech' constructive? You only discredit yourself when you use 'hate speech'. There is no worth in it.

reply to post by freemarketsocialist


Its simple, we have the right to say anything about whomever or whatever we want.

While we have the right to "speak hate", we also have the right to speak out against it. That is how things work in the US, we have set a forum where different ideologies and points of view can be debated in the public sphere.

Suppressing any form of speech just creates discontent and an atmosphere of anger which in turn fuels more hate rhetoric.

reply to post by freemarketsocialist


Because the concept of "hate speech" is very subjective and ambiguous. If "hate speech" were outlawed, how many steps would it take to eventually consider speech critical to the US as hate speech? Since there is no clear place to draw the line, a line should never be drawn.

reply to post by freemarketsocialist


Everyone should have the right to have their own opinion an things and voice that opinion it they want to. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone physically then what's wrong with that? I am sure not everyone agrees with some of the things you talk about......you shouldn't be silenced for it should you? Really, if you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen, if you don't like what's on TV change the channel.......too easy. It's kind of hard for me to believe that some one that takes the time out to sign up on ATS and posts as much as you would in anyway promote censorship. That's kind of what we do here, voice our opinions and ideas no matter how wacked out and crazy they are.

We have the right to say what we wish.. opinion.. defamation is the only loophole I see in the post.. defamation would be blatant lies..

That is something you can get in trouble for .. I can say I think you're stupid, I don't like your hair cut.. or your polcies.. I think you're a moron and blah blah blah.. those are all protected..

But if I said you raped a cow back in 1992 and that I saw you slap a homeless child because it asked for a nickel.. that's defamation .. and you just can't do that...

Many people don't understand the definitions .. or the fine line..

Bear with me here, because it's about to get crazy.

I'm about to blow your mind.

Here it goes.

Don't Listen!

I guess you guys have a point. Andrew Bolt is an opinion guy that writes conservative blogs and opinion. He wrote about Aboriginal Affirmative Action and he ended up in court for 'hate speech'. What he said wasnt that bad and he also had some points. The Aboriginal community and do-gooders do not want to debate certain topics so they just shut them down by calling everyone racist.

But still, the guy was a bit offensive. And on purpose. He could have made is points in a more respectable manner.

Originally posted by watchitburn
Bear with me here, because it's about to get crazy.

I'm about to blow your mind.

Here it goes.

Don't Listen!

clap clap.

Who defines what hate speech is? I think it isn't so much that people are against not allowing hate speech, but we are against more government control and we don't trust those who would be making said rule/law. I think people feel removed from what the government is allowed to do these days and this is no different. It's viewed as the government trying to extend more control, but this isn't a government that most people trust entirely. No one likes to be controlled, especially by some unseen political force.

popular speech doesnt need to be protected

It's sad this has to be explained to people.....

If you make hate speech illegal, then you loose 100% of your freedom of speech.

Say a law gets passed outlawing hate speech. I'm a DA, and I issue a warrant for YOUR arrest because you made this thread. In MY opinion YOUR OP is hate speech. You are now in jail.

Don't agree? You don't think questioning the law or the government is considered hate speech? Too bad. I do, and I have the power to press charges against you. Argue about it anymore and I'll get you for hate speech AGAIN.

The president does something you don't like, so you say "I don't agree with him, I think he is wrong, and a bad president"

There you go AGAIN with your hate speech! Cut it out! I'm going to press MORE charges against you for hate speech.

See how that little role playing exercise worked there? You make "hate speech" illegal and all speech is illegal, because they could claim whatever you are saying, whether truly hateful or not, qualifies as hate speech.

So no more questioning your government, no more questioning Monsanto or questioning any large corporations. No more questioning anything, or voicing your opinion about anything, because WHATEVER you say the government could ALWAYS say it's hate speech, even if it's not.

THAT'S why we don't make hate speech illegal. Go move to the UK if you want to live in such a place.

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist
But laws make a society. If people were allowed to spew hate whenever then it would cause conflict.

Laws don't make society, laws make government. Society is defined by its culture, ethics and morality.

Actually, we do have some rules against hate speech.

There are certain words you just can't say on TV, or you'll get fined, because it's wrong to offensive and people have a right to not be offended.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Actually, we do have some rules against hate speech.

There are certain words you just can't say on TV, or you'll get fined, because it's wrong to offensive and people have a right to not be offended.

edit on 17-9-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)

That ONLY applies to non-cable network channels, like NBC, CBS, etc And that's more about obscenity than hate speech. But cable can say, and show anything they want. They just choose not to, most of the time, to avoid loosing advertising revenue.

In the old days people took responsibility for their own reactions to offensive speech. This made them stronger individuals. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but worlds will never hurt me." Now there has been a shift to a victim mentality where people rely on the government to stop people from "offending" them. It makes them weaker, whinier, more dependent people. Whenever you give up doing something for yourself and rely on others to do it for you, you get softer and weaker. Muscle runs to fat, as it were.

Developing and maintaining a thick skin in the face of ignorant speech is like developing and maintaining strong muscles. Use it or lose it. Tougher-skinned individuals are stronger, more confident, and mentally healthier than people who see themselves as passive victims. Every time.

The Indian sage and philosopher Nagarajuna said its easier to avoid hurting your feet by cutting two strips of leather and covering your feet (i.e., shoes), than it is to try to carpet the whole forest in leather and walk barefoot. He meant its easier to master your own inner world tha it is to demand that the whole world change to avoid hurting you. The latter is impossible and attempts along these lines only serve to create weaker individuals. Think about it.

reply to post by James1982


Yeah, but it's kind of schizo to say you can't say offensive words to people because they might be offended but allowing the KKK to burn crosses and call black people the n-word and Fred Phelps to say things likes like GOD HATES FAGS and junk like that.

They're both just as bad as one another. If the words should be censored then so should the racist and bigoted speech be censored.

reply to post by Cuervo

Good point. You know how the government circumvents that? They arrest people not for freedom of speech, but what they call Anti-American sentiment.