There are those who wish to ban certain parts of speech....AKA Hate Speech. My question is who defines what hate speech is...?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 4 weeks ago

    Whatever political party is in power will be defining hate speech.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Well the first question is to believe there is some speech that is bad and illegal and harmful to the public good.  Assuming you agree to that.....then we can have the discussion you want.  banning shouting fire in crowded theatre is legitimate.  banning yelling can someone go murder those darn politicians in that building is legitimate.

    Bottom line is that if we are to be a functional decent society, we have to have rules to keep evil; in check.  or we could have no rules, in which case evil will take over....

  • david
    Lv 5
    4 weeks ago

    Good question. Generally there is a consensus agreement arrived at by the powers that be after input from multiple sources. 

  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    Therein lies the reason the Framers put the freedom of speech part right at the front of the Bill of Rights. 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 weeks ago

    The dems only want to condemn any speech that criticizes them.  And only they get to decide.  It is obvious that they want to end free speech period!

  • Gary
    Lv 5
    1 month ago

    ANY attempt to ban ANY speech based on ONE party's definition is CLEARLY ILLEGAL and 100% totally contrary to the constitution AND the BOR! The LIEberal left socialist demoCROOKS WILL try the exact same thing when they start attacking the 2A by selectively banning firearms due to they're features like what THEY claim are "ASSAULT WEAPONS" BUT the wording they'll use will include ANY and ALL semi-automatic firearms then they'll go after revolvers and lever action rifles THEN ANY firearm that uses metallic cartridges until the PEOPLE are ONLY allowed to own muzzle loading single shot black powder firearms like were in common use when the constitution was written like they have intended to all along! The demoCROOKS ultimate goal is to make it safe for THEM to control the PEOPLE and keep the PEOPLE from forcefully removing THEM from power as outlined and provided for in our declaration of independence, the constitution and the BOR!

    From our constitution:"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."ANDAmendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (The government making "hate speech" illegal OR speaking out against the government.)Amendment IIA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be INFRINGED!!! (The government deciding what type or amount of firearms a legal citizen is allowed to buy or ow to protect the CORRUPT GOVERNMENT from the citizens from FORCEFULLY removing them from power.)Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (The government SEARCHING for NOW illegal weapons OR forced government buybacks along with the 5th and 6th amendments protecting the people from the government.)

  • 1 month ago

    obviously the people hearing it make own definition ... which likely isn't yours

  • Maxi
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Hate speech is defined as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".......... reality is in most 1st world countries in the world the population is educated and hate speech is against the law and the law is in place for the few uneducated anti socials that don't seem to be capable of keeping their hateful opinions to themselves and cause offense and/or voilence towards other human beings

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    In Europe, speech that does more than offend and incites hatred or violence against specified groups is not protected as freedom of expression conveyed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An example of this in practice was a Belgian Islamist hate preacher who posted videos calling for the death of infidels whose prosecution was deemed by the European Court of Humann Rights not to have breached his Article 10 rights.

  • 1 month ago

    When we surrender our rights to the state, the state then dictates our rights.  So whomever is in charge at the moment makes the rules.

    Which is the best argument against such foolishness.

    Update: I want to add that claims of superiority, higher education or the like, are not justification for the existence of “hate speech” laws.  Protection of speech is not equal to support for the topic.  It is protection for individual rights against the threats of a totalitarian regime that you may not agree with someday.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.