This is Scotland. And blue states have similar policies about speech.
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamatotalpieceofshit/comments/mayi4m/hate_crime_bill_in_scotland_passed_you_can_now_be/?rdt=47389
America is not Scotland. There is a huge difference between hate speach and speach that you hate. Maybe people just need to grow up and stop being offended by everything in life. Mind your own and stop caring about others. At the end of the day the only person that matters is you. We need to get back to the days of " sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."
12 Likes
Women’s speech is unfairly and unjustly being policed as if we are committing hate crimes everyday, whilst other groups get away with calling us derogatory names and even assaulting us. This is not acceptable.
1 Like
I am a woman that calls other women bitches and calls men bitches as well. If you do the crime pay the time. This is more about controlling people than it is about feelings getting butt hurt…just be happy its words rather than a punch in the face because if im gonna go to jail over words or a punch …you can guess what it will be.
8 Likes
Do me a favor, Mr. Gobin.
Please write “bitch” and see if your posts get delayed by this website’s monitor.
While the desire to protect women from misogynistic language is understandable and commendable, classifying specific words as official “hate speech” carries significant risks that warrant careful consideration. Below are reasons this proposal could be problematic:
-
Slippery Slope of Speech Regulation
Expanding hate speech categories creates a precedent for governments to regulate increasingly broader swaths of speech. This could lead to censorship of unpopular opinions or subjective interpretations of offensive language. Over time, this could undermine free speech, as the boundaries of “hate speech” become arbitrary and influenced by changing political or cultural climates. -
Difficulty in Defining Hate Speech
While some terms are universally offensive, language often depends on context, tone, and intent. For example, a term like “bitch” might be used disparagingly, but it is also reclaimed in some communities as a term of empowerment or endearment. Codifying specific words as “hate speech” removes these nuances, making enforcement both inconsistent and controversial. -
Unequal Protection and Group Classification
Creating special categories of speech protection based on identity risks fragmenting society into groups competing for recognition and privilege. This could alienate people rather than fostering inclusivity, as individuals not covered by such protections might feel neglected or treated unfairly. -
Existing Legal Protections
Misogynistic slurs and harassment are often already addressed under harassment or defamation laws. Broadening “hate speech” laws may not add meaningful protection for women but could instead duplicate or conflict with existing frameworks. -
Cultural Change vs. Legal Enforcement
Combatting misogyny and harmful language is better achieved through education, awareness, and cultural shifts rather than legal enforcement. Encouraging respect and promoting gender equality through campaigns and inclusive policies can lead to meaningful change without threatening free expression. -
Risk of Weaponization
New hate speech laws could be weaponized to silence dissent or target individuals unfairly. Such misuse of power has been observed in jurisdictions with broad hate speech laws, where governments or private parties use them to stifle criticism or unpopular ideas.
In conclusion, while the intent behind this proposal is valid and rooted in a desire to protect women, classifying words as official hate speech introduces significant risks. A more effective solution lies in fostering societal respect and addressing discrimination through education, advocacy, and existing legal mechanisms.
5 Likes
I am a female…absolutely none.
5 Likes
Just get out of new york. That place is commie central
7 Likes
Here is the real story: Two young sisters are exercising together, and one sister fails to perform some routine properly.
The second sister, who is 8 years old, laughs and calls her sister, who is 9 years old, “You are such a loser!” A mom, embarrassed for her youngest daughter’s rudeness, tries to stop it by saying, “We don’t use the word “loser” here.” The 8-year-old sister immediately responds: “OK, you are such a WINNER, Ha-Ha-Ha!”
The point of this story is that it’s impossible to protect people from being insulted or harassed by policing language. Every word can become “hate speech,” and the only solution is to learn how to deal with verbal insults without losing one’s dignity and self-esteem.
Some alphabet moron tried to insult you? So what? These are the only things these misogynistic losers can do to feel better about themselves. Next time, laugh at them and call them for who they are: “You are such a ‘WINNER,’ Ha-Ha-Ha!” 
6 Likes
I agree with where your heart is at, but my strong suspicion is that if you give these people the option of expanding the definitions of hate speech into exceedingly irrational domains OR abolishing it outright, they will choose to expand the definitions of hate speech until the laws make even less sense than they do now. Just look at where the UK is at. It’s nothing but devoid of any shred of intellect.
You underestimate the mental illness of a significant subset, so for that reason alone I would suggest that all laws against hate speech be unambiguously banned under the law that human emotions alone cannot be criminalized. What’s next after hate? Sadness? No. So, we have to make sure none of these “hate speech” laws exist. And if it’s a credible threat of violence, that’s potentially different, but we can’t risk an expansion of laws governing “hate speech.”
1 Like
There is no such thing as Hate Speech!! Its just SPEECH!! FREEDOM TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT!
11 Likes
Absolutely not. The days of labeling speech you don’t like as hate speech are over. If you allow this you will certainly not like it when it’s used against you for something you say that someone else doesn’t like. Free speech is free speech and you have the right to ignore it.
9 Likes
No.
2 Likes
Is this a crime?
" Wow. I Didn’t Know That. You’re Telling Me Now for the First Time "
Daniel Penny is a hero. He saved lives that day.
3 Likes
Freedom of Speech is well codified in Constitutional law and has worked for the American people for 250 years. It doesnt include “Hate Speech” as part of its definition. In the 70’s the Nazis marched through Skokie Illinois, a predominantly Jewish city near Chicago, their “hate speech” was protected by the Constitutional law as it should be. Free Speech should not be subject to the fashions of the day. People can choose what the dont want to listen too and can tell others about their preferences, but it shouldnt be subject to legal sanctions unless it violates Freedom of Speech as defined under the Constitution.
4 Likes
No words should be classified as Hate Speech. Especially when some words are used in different ways by different cultures.
If we were to outlaw words regarding women, I find being called “CIS” or “Birthing Person” far more offensive than the word bitch. Bitch can be used in an endearing way… just like Black Americans sometimes use the N word in such a way.
Outlaw NO WORDS. Instead, let’s encourage people to toughen up, or stand up for themselves.
9 Likes
I can see where you are coming from. I was a truck driver for many years so I’ve heard it all. I was told early on to get thick skinned fast. We may not like what some people say but they have the same freedom of speech that we do. My town has profanity laws,vsime words can’t be used in public. That’s probably the best we can hope for
2 Likes
I must have missed when saying the word “nigger” can throw you in jail. When did that happen?
The only restrictions I can think of when it comes to freedom of speech are not yelling fire in a crowded theater and direct calls for violent action.
Also there’s these new silly antisemitism laws that are 100% against the first amendment.
But outside of that where is it illegal to call someone a “nigger”?
2 Likes
Absolutely repugnant to the First Amendment of the Constitution and any sort of pigeon-holing, classifications of, politicization of, restricting of, legislating against, monitoring of OPEN AND FREE SPEECH (of ANY words in the English Language).
We should be creating policy suggestions that BAN the very concept of addressing limitations and categories of FREE SPEECH. The only apparent reason to confuse “emotion” with “freedom of speech” is to set up the apparatus of controlling free speech. As such, there is no such thing as hate speech, love speech, angry speech, sad speech, just like there is no such thing as a dangerous weapon or a need to ban weapons because “guns kill” (see: second amendment). Using such arguments are childish in general and lack fundamental logic. If speech could hate, then pencils can cry and emails could laugh, and pigs can fly.
One should NEVER acknowledge even the very existence of “hate speech”, or even give it justification or credence simply because unAmerican tyrants purposely invented the term in order for them to establish control/censorship on one’s God-given right to open one’s mouth and let words fall out of it (no matter who feels bad about it). You are playing into their hands when you give credence to it. It should be laughed at and cast aside as a stupid childish term. We should be going the opposite way, and removing their power to control speech by confusing it with an emotion. The term should be abolished by the American People, en mass. It is a dangerous ploy to censor the public.
And for those who have a problem with what others might be saying, their options are clearly to act in a grown-up fashion, take a deep breath, and consider the source – instead of screaming for BANS, speech modifications, expanded categories of speech controls, etc. Emotions are emotions; speech is speech, and never will the two become a fused and unique entity of its own.
No offense to you Michelle – I simply “hate” the term “hate speech” because I know it is a form of censorship control being pushed on me and the rest of the American People. Thanks.
5 Likes
As I said, the right to privacy in a gym locker room, the right to privacy in bathrooms, the right to privacy in my own doctor exam room. A guy nurse can literally say (without proof) he’s a woman and watch a woman get an OBGYN exam in Blue states.
This also goes for speech. A woman can be called a “fucking stupid cunt” in NYC and if responds by calling an angry, physically abusive trans activist a “fucking fag” she is arrested for committing a hate crime.
Why don’t you read the community guidelines here on this site? If I were to call you a “fag” I’d be violating their arbitrary laws about “kindness.” Only certain groups of people now are allowed “free speech “ whilst others are over-policed and accused of oppression and bigotry. This is the problem. At least here in NYC.