The USA is already doing it, so please catch up.
No I am not. Either is fine. Please stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
Free speech is being thwarted now in the USA. Try writing anything deemed “transphobic.”
Also, I am getting unfairly targeted right now simply for raising this subject. People here are supporting free speech, but they aren’t understanding that it is currently being thwarted online, and aimed at women in the name of “kindness” to trans people.
1 Like
Free Speech covers speech you do not want to hear too. There cannot be a persons viewpoint restricting another. America was built on the premise of free speech and you are going to let the minority of people take that away from us? I can pretty much guarantee that half to more than half our citizens are for free speech as the Constitution reads.
1 Like
As a woman, I vehemently disagree with banning any “hate speech”. Banning of speech (other than a threat of violence, or yelling “fire” in a crowded building) is simply an infringement on our First Amendment rights. You have to think ahead to the day that someone deems something you want to say as “hate speech” like “girl power” or something like that, because it demeans boys or men. It’s a slippery slope that we are better served to not step on.
As for speech that makes you uncomfortable, consider it a favor that that person showed you their true colors. Put your big girl pants on & realize that they are just words & they cannot offend you without your permission. Don’t give permission, move on, & steer clear of the people you don’t like.
4 Likes
Does nobody understand this thing we have called the first amendment? There is no such animal as “hate speech” under the 1st Am. Why do you think that speech is protected? If you have delicate sensibilities, get counseling. Or quit listening to idiots.
No. I am much much younger. Keep looking though.
You do understand that private organizations have the right to censor what ever they feel? There is nothing here to stop them and shouldn’t be. Don’t like the platforms rules, abide or leave it behind. As for here it’s not about “hate speech” it’s about keeping the forums “clean” and “respectful”. No different than a homeowner/parent setting rules and boundaries in their home, don’t like the rules you are welcome to leave.
1 Like
And just like you embrace the notion that the emotion, which is triggered AFTER speech is generated, can somehow become fused with the action itself, others reject the notion that speech can be catagorized (and subsequently justifiably controled by the state) simply because of that catagorization which they invented (in this case: by emotion).
I stand by the logic and the Constitution, regarding this matter, and refuse to cooporate with those who wish to have me succomb to the idea that speech can be catagorized into: hate speech, love speech, angry speech, sad speech, etc.
Where we might eventually loose our 1st Amendment God-given rights to have words simply fall out of our mouth when we desire it – this loss will come as a direct result from those in our society who bend to the will of tyrants, and ACCEPTthe slicing and dicing of free speech ino emotional speech, and go so far as to normalize it by preaching this nonsense to others. It is ashame to see so many embracing the idea that speech can be catagorized (so that it can eventually be censored). When you have a God-given right, one does not step 2.5 steps back from the line in the sand, because he/she might feel that he/she should allow room for self-doubt, or ‘wiggle room’. One stands firm on that line. It appears as though you have stepped backwards a bit and are now telling others that they should also provide some wiggle room for a fantastical invented thing as “hate speech”. As stated two centuries ago…“we will loose our Republic when good men do nothing”. Please stand firm on 1A and disregard the entire notion of “Hate Speech”.
2 Likes
Yes, it’s rather arbitrary. It’s interesting that both “faggot” and “fascist” come from an identical Latin root: fasces (“facus” in Vulgar Latin). They both go back to a bundle of sticks.
“Fag” has meant various things throughout the years, but it didn’t relate at all to homosexuality until the 1900s. It can still refer to a cigarette as well. It’s a myth that it refers to burning or some sort of historic treatment of homosexuals. So there is no bad thing about the word at all except that it’s taken and intended negatively. It’s like if I decided to start calling people “cattywampus” or something as a substitute for something objectively offensive.
I find it unjust that people must be censored for some new and contrived connotation of a word, which can happen without consensus of definition. I agree with you that “fag” and “bitch” are treated differently, specifically in the U.S., and it probably has to do with the fact that the federal government, in violation of the Constitution, adopted LGBTQP as a sort of state religion, so the word is a more sacred transgression.
I think people are getting tired of this sort of Kindergarten treatment. An adult American can say “faggot.”
3 Likes
It appears that you are responding to me, but I never said anything about wiggle room, or that speech should be categorized. I generally agree with you.
But I would like to add that this business about hate speech categorization is about the motive of a crime, and that’s it. A crime with or without speech must first be part of the incident. Then, and only then, if hate speech accompanies the crime, the MOTIVE (partial or full) for the original crime becomes more clear. That is the only purpose of this categorization; to better identify motive of an associated crime. “Hate speech”, however you choose to define that, is not a crime by itself.
1 Like
Understood, however, you are still justifying the existance of the foolish term as a justifiable “catagory” of speech, regardless of there being a crime commited or not. You are normalizing the term to everyone here when it should not be normalized – it should be avoided. I am sure you can come up with inventive new ways to discuss the motives behind a crime without normalizing the anti-First Amendment term of “Hate Speech”.
There is no reason to catagorize speech, unless it is for the reason of “division and conquering”. We didnt walk around as police detectives for the last 100 years, accusing someone of having a motive via the expression of “Hate Speech”, did we? How did THEY deal with it? Perhaps you might do the same, so that we dont standardize the notion that speech can be sliced and diced and catagorized and eventually censored (which is the real goal here) if it has a perceived underlying motive. I hope you understand the objection to the term, and the damage it does to our society as a whole, regarding our God-given right to free speech (irrespective of discussions of motives and crimes).
And as long as you are talking about “motives”, you may attempt to consider why the phrase was recently coined in the first place…it certainly wasn’t created so that you can better express yourself on crimes and motives, I promise you. Don’t get played…don’t use the term and you won’t be serving as their mouthpiece for the rest of us, – a mouthpiece that assists with setting up the cyber-landscape for reaching the inevitable tyrannical conclusion of “Necessary censorship, based on arbitrary hate-speech.” I hope you look inward and ask yourself why you willingly embraced, and eagerly use the term in normal conversation after it was so recently invented by the most radical elements of our society. Think about it. I hope that helps with further clarification on my end, and perhaps productive introspection on your end. Thanks.
1 Like
Free speech is incredibly important to a free society. Absolutely no exceptions. I’ve been called all of it just like everyone else. It is not a viable or reasonable personal right to not be offended.
Freedom is already a complex topic and there is no “true” freedom. There will always be rules and regulations to maintain safety and comfort among the population. A right to speak up about something that upsets one is fundamental to remaining free in the most reasonable sense of the word, and this opens the door to taking that away. I can say any word without the fear of prosecution by the government, and for much of the world, that is not the case, and I am thankful I was born in this country for that reason above all.
For the places within this country where people are subjected to arrest for speech, this is unconstitutional and I hope we have plenty of lawyers willing to fight to keep it that way.
Body autonomy is already a problem that needs attention. Attacking free speech helps set the body autonomy problem back further, ultimately creating real problems that really will “undermine the respect and rights for dignity of women” and everyone else who might get caught up in the legal details that would build a law like this.
We can offer options of ways people can choose to think, but people can NOT tell other people what they must think. Full stop. And that is next up right after we give our government the power to tell the population what it can and cannot say.
2 Likes
But, i KNOW im the worlds biggest bitch, i own that title! It has Never hurt my feeling to be called that, i just say Thats right! And Own it…
1 Like
I wouldnt support this. Writting btch and c**t off as hate speach would mean we’d also have to make bstard and d*ck hate speach as well.
Plus the c word is used COMMON place in the UK and does not have the same weight we’ve asigned it in the USA. Are we planning on locking up or fining foreign tourists, exchange students, and immigrants for saying b*tch? I say no.
1 Like
Irrelevant. We cannot and should not be able to control other people’s thoughts, speech, and values. Dealing with someone else’s bad manners is what adults do. We don’t need a nanny state, we need more personal maturity and emotional security.
omg
It is already happening which is why I made this post.
Almost everyone commenting here has no idea that if they start talking about trans rights and they disagree with any aspect of it, they will be censored and are currently being censored by this very website in the guise of “kindness.” So either all bad names are hate speech or nothing is hate speech. We cannot keep having special speech for special groups.
People here are going off the rails and it’s too funny that they don’t know it is happening right now.
I’m not normalizing anything.
It’s a fact that women’s speech is being censured unconstitutionally.
If you support that then shame on you.