The Power of Freedom vs. Hate Speech Laws

[Mechaghostman2]

I feel that the 1st amendment gives us all the tools that we need to fight against hate speech. Everything from countering their arguments to getting bigots fired. Plus it's a method that doesn't create martyrs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXFrBTK4...e=youtu.be

[The Valkyrie]

I'm all for freedom of speech.

What some people fail to realise when they're caught in hate speech and detrimental things start happening to them is that freedom of speech does not make you immune to the CONSEQUENCES of that speech.

So, if you make public racist, sexist, or generally hateful speech, don't bitch when people respond negatively to you.

[Jackalope]

Where's the line drawn?

Let's say I make a credible threat on your life. It's just free speech, yes? Does it only become actionable when I actually show up to kill you?

[WinterHold]

Suppress people's write to speak their mind freely, and you'll just create a series of silent explosions that would end eventually in a big big big blow.
Let people speak their mind freely except when somebody starts to cause physical harm to others through speech (like threats with murder).

[FatAndFaithless]

Er..pretty sure the courts have already ruled on threats and inciting violence.

[The Valkyrie]

Where's the line drawn?

Let's say I make a credible threat on your life. It's just free speech, yes? Does it only become actionable when I actually show up to kill you?

Good point.

In those instances I think the kaw should become involved immediately. And, in most places, laws are already in place to cover threats like this.

Though I also believe that, in many cases, those laws are enforced far too weakly.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The problem is that SJW's equate hurt feelings and disturbing ideas with actual physical violence.

[Minimalist]

Where's the line drawn?

In the US the case is Brandenburg v Ohio.

What is the significance of the Brandenburg v Ohio case?

Decision: The Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction as unconstitutional. Significance: After Brandenburg, the First Amendment protects speech unless it encourages immediate violence or other unlawful action.

Thus:  "We should kill those motherfuckers" is protected speech whereas "Let's go kill THAT motherfucker right now" is not.

On such nuances are laws made.

[chimp3]

Just don't make fun of Huckabee's eyeshadow. The Neo-Con Snowflakes will get pissy.

[Jackalope]

Where's the line drawn?

Let's say I make a credible threat on your life.  It's just free speech, yes?  Does it only become actionable when I actually show up to kill you?

Good point.

In those instances I think the kaw should become involved immediately.  And, in most places, laws are already in place to cover threats like this.

Though I also believe that, in many cases, those laws are enforced far too weakly.

The bolded text is the real question. The rest is just rhetorical cruft to get people thinking of why the first question is important, and why free speech is not without limits.