Should hate speech be included as a right into the Constitution?

Should people have the right to participate in hate speech under the Constitution?

 

u doubt its going to happen theres nothing illegal about that calling jews hook noses so what are u doubting

 

No, why should people who hate without a reason get a right like that?

What do you think?

 

No

I don't think their should be laws for or against it.

 

Yes, the right to free speach should include hate speech. We don't need to start limiting our free speech because someone considers it "hate speech". It is a very slippery slope. "Hate speech" might include calling a cop a pig for crying out loud. It would severely limit our ability to protest because the government could label just about anything "hate speech". We must take the good with the bad, IMO.

 

This is true. I was thinking that the hate speech talked about here would be more racist/prejudice type of bullshit.

 

I'm sure it is. But if we allow the government to decide that those thoughts are objectively wrong, to the point of writing it into law, we're conceding their right to pick and choose which thoughts are valid. This is wrong.

As to the main question, hate speech is covered under free speech. It doesn't need to be written into the Constitution specifically.

 

Yeah I guess. I think it sucks that something like "fuck blacks", "fuck whites", "fuck arabs", etc etc can't be outlawed without having to worry about the government and lawmakers going overboard and using it to their advantage. You know?

 

I took the question as whether or not hate speech ought to covered under free speech.
Some philosophers have argued that it shouldn't because hate speech is what they have termed "fighting words." When a person uses hate words, they are not trying to engage in a dialog or engage in a rational conversation, which is the point of free speech. A person using hate speech is typically trying to disarm the person the hate speech is directed at by making them feel inferior. Either that, or they are trying to incite a fight. Either way, the person using hate speech is not actually doing anything constructive.

This is a good topic by the way. There are a lot of really good philosophical articles out there on the subject.

 

It's also not the job of legislators to ensure that what we say is constructive. The majority of what everyone says is not really 'constructive' -- they still have the right to say it. And besides, we're not just talking about calling someone a ****** here, we're also talking about legitimate intellectual discussion about race. Saying that one race is inferior to another and providing an argument to support that thesis is still usually considered hate speech. In that case it's censorship of ideas, however wrong those ideas may be, and that's just crazy if we're still going to say we have freedom of speech/thought/expression.

 

I think that some of the difficulty arises from the fact that we haven't really done a conceptual analysis of what is meant by 'hate speech.' That problem aside, I think that the claim you have made about calling a certain race inferior and then presenting an argument for it is right on. That should not be censored, nor do I think most of the people who are for the restriction of hate speech would be against it. If such claims are hate speech, it definitely is a different sort of hate speech.

As for the more blatant type of hate speech, the kind using racial slurs, I think that you are right in claiming that there should not be legislation limiting our comments to only constructive comments. What those who are for the limitation of hate speech would claim is that racial slurs are meant to incite a negative reaction akin to yelling "fire" in a crowed theater when there is no fire. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is legislated against because such action could cause harm to many individuals. Similarly, racial slurs could hurt someone. In fact, they seemed to said with the intention of hurting the other party. Also, a person does not have the right to incite a fight, which is exactly what racial slurs seem to do. Of course, the question could be rightly asked, what about two racist individuals using racial slurs in private conversation? Is that "hate speech" or just discussion amongst people with similar views?

 

Not to mention that the phrase 'fuck you' is also aimed at starting a fight. I haven't heard anyone lobbying to have that one banned.

As to intellectual discussion not being considered hate speech, I think it really depends on the forum in which it's discussed. If it's very high profile it will claimed as 'inciting racial violence' or something like that. Canada has laws on the books about this kind of thing, which I think is absurd. Also, look at many European nations' laws about 'Holocaust denial' if you want to see some good examples of intellectual work being quashed for being 'racist.' People have actually been jailed for it, and the really sad thing is that a lot of them aren't even racist.

 

There are some U.S. states where profanity is banned, which would of course cover "fuck you" "shithead" maybe even "numb nuts." I am not sure whether or not the rational behind such laws is that it could start a fight. It is probably just anti-obscenity legislation, but a person could probably argue that such words should be banned on the "fighting words" ground.

I didn't know that about the intellectual discussion of such things being outlawed in Canada. That does seem absurd to me too.

When I was taking a human evolutionary genetics course, there was a study that came out about a gene for a larger brain size. It was found to be most prevalent in Caucasians and least prevalent in Africans. That was all the study really claimed. My professor said that the data looked pretty legitimate and that he knew the scientist. Several groups called the man a racist and several white supremacist used the study to justify their views. My professor said that he talked to the researcher and the researcher had no intention of any of that. He was just analyzing DNA. I wonder what such laws would have to say about that study.

 

i hate the fucking cops---you would deny me my well earned hate------cant stand to even look at the pricks--

 

The only type of speech that should not be allowed is "fighting words"

i.e: I am going to kill all of the Jews, lets all kill some Jews.
Bad.

 

I hate cold weather.

 

Hate speech is included in "free speech".

When you censor hate speeching, then you have to define what "hate speech" exactly is. That's like defining what a "terrorist" is or what it takes to "defend our country". You get the picture.

 

I didn't mean to imply that Canada has laws that specifically prohibit intellectual discussion of race. What I said was that, if it was in a public forum, it could be considered as inciting racial violence, which Canada has laws against. But I think it's pretty safe to say that, in Canada, if you get too vocal about your unorthodox racial views you will be the target of some of these laws.

 

Is this a fact!? Sounds unconstitutional to me... doubt it would hold up in court.

 

I believe that it has been held up more than once. I think Texas has such laws as do a couple other states.