I agree but women’s speech is currently being credited, right now in this website. Try writing how you don’t support trans rights or men in women’s sports. You will be in online jail.
So if you support the censorship of women’s speech, shame on you.
No. It doesn’t.
If you support the censoring of women’s speech then you are a hypocrite.
What’s all this “you” stuff anyway?! I don’t think you realize what the point of this post is and failed to read anything I wrote.
You’re just as preachy as any of the leftist virtue police out there if you want lecture me about something that you don’t know anything about. Because you didn’t take ten minutes to read what I am saying.
It’s a crime not when you say it, but when you write it. It is a crime when you are in a fight and call them a name. People are being arrested left and right where as prior to Biden, people were not so fragile and police had better things to do.
I am pretty sure we agree.
Yes!!! Exactly!! Thanks for taking the time to actually read what I wrote. Love your thoughts here.
This country has literally lost its balls and backbone, imho. Everyone is guilty even if their words are taken out of context. It’s a truly sad state of affairs here now. My hope is Trump fixes it all.
1 Like
It’s overt, arbitrary censorship. It should be prosecuted.
Thank you 
@Milly69 Do you actually have any interest in having a productive conversation?
The very title of this proposal is about designating words as hate speech.
What is the actual goal you are aiming for? Are you looking to establish an ‘even playing ground’, or are you just looking to get words labeled as hate speech?
If you are in fact looking to do something productive, why is it not viable to instead push for doing away with the concept of hate speech rather than trying to expand hate speech?
Nah. Go the opposite direction. Let people be free to say what they want. Sometimes people need to be called derogatory names. Especially if it’s the correct way of identifying them.
1 Like
Except you’re arbitrarily creating a category to make a crime where one doesn’t exist. Even if we were to assume that hate speech isn’t protected by the first amendment (and that amendment were to somehow be repealed), hate speech laws are still an immoral and anti-democratic framework to impose; for instance:
If person A commits murder and had X emotions motivating them (hate is an emotion), yes there is motive, but the motive itself isn’t an extra crime. The motive is how we understand that they did in fact commit the crime. But being motivated to commit a crime isn’t an augmentation of the crime. It’s a totally bizarre legal framework that 1. Has zero positive value and 2. Has many negative potentialities. There is no coherent argument for it.
If person A walks in on his wife cheating on him, he might then express a “hate crime against whoever is involved and then walk away. Or he could then commit a crime, which is the crime itself. The idea that he’s more guilty because he verbally berated them before action is only something that the mentally ill and functionally rationalism-incapable leftists are attached to, these days. No reason for it, and thousands of reasons against going down that arbitrary road of creating a crime category that criminalizes valid human emotions.
No. The problem with hate speech laws is that they violate constitutional rights of free speech and try to control personal values and freedom of expression of others. Freedom of expression isn’t free if you can only express positive feelings. Freedom of speech means you must be able to express love, hate, or indifference to anybody or any group you choose. It also means free speech (or censorship) of all groups must be treated alike. Blacks regularly spew hate speech against whites, arabs against Jews, Democrats against Republicans, and nobody says anything, even when they threaten them. But except in extreme attempts to incite murder or riots or insurrection, speech must be left alone…good speech, hate speech….all of it.
The answer to dealing with hate speech against you or groups you identify with is to grow stronger and deal with it individually…not try to silence people. We do not control others, we can’t demand they like us, we can’t insist on their approval of our lifestyles, and we can’t insist they use our preferred pronouns. Ignoring hate speech is a matter of personal maturity and security, not a matter of law.
I can see it happening too, I just want to make sure to stand on my hill of no censorship at all rather than some here and there that will open the door to more and more until we can no longer have open conversations about complicated situations. 
1 Like
I am a woman…not an emotional child…an adult female. People who call other people names is their problem. Learning how to respond to “words” is my problem. Being called a bad name isn’t pleasant, but in the big picture, it is a “so what.” Freedom of speech is fundamental for a free society, but it means you have to deal with unkindness. Words only hurt you if you let them. I would rather have freedom and learn to shrug off nonsense…because the same restraints you are asking on others are the same that will be applied to me…or you. You’re asking for tyranny. Better to learn coping skills.
2 Likes
I am all for getting rid of the intangible crime of hate speech. It is so open ended as to be dangerous. Who defines what “hate” is? I am not affected by words, having grown up in an era when children recited, “sticks and stones will break my bones but words can never hurt me” and “I’m rubber, you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” I recommend the wussy generation harden up, life is a bitch after all.
2 Likes
You rock, @KRambo - keep up the good work! 
I never said that categorizing a crime as a hate crime makes someone more guilty. What I said isn’t even my opinion; I am merely explaining what the clipped image says. Categorizing a crime as a hate crime is an identification and clarification of motive; it doesn’t make the crime automatically worse.
Still waiting for evidence of anyone being “arrested left and right” solely for hate speech, or even for hate writing, as you’ve now shifted the discussion to. And libel doesn’t count.
1 Like
Snitches and bitches you’re all the same in my book. There’s no such thing as hate speech in the United States of America, however there is, the freedom of speech. If you find certain speech, offensive or hateful, you also have the freedom to not listen to it. What one person may find as offensive, another person may find it humorous, what one person finds as hateful, another person may not. To suggest that everyone must fall in lock step with the beliefs of others is rather ridiculous.
2 Likes
Did you read what I wrote? I think not.
I do not want special groups that have special rights to speech that everyone, EVERY AMERICAN, does not have. That is the state of things now.
WAKE UP AND TAKE A REW MINUTES TO READ.
I’ve provided it. You’re just not appropriate.
I’ve given you the exact law that says if it written it is hate speech, not if it is said. Go get a brain, please.