frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Should hate speech be illegal?

Debate Information

I was wondering if you think that hate speech should be illegal.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • just4funjust4fun 21 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: No, it should remain legal.

    While obviously most people would disagree with other people's opinions and offensive comments, making hate speech illegal would be ineffective, a waste of time, and most importantly, a violation of our first amendment right. First of all, where would we draw the line at hate speech? Would we claim truly hurtful speech hate speech or just offensive words and slurs, which could easily be mislabeled? Second, what would be the punishment for the crime? Would it be a small fine, or jail time? And finally, how effective would this really be at stopping hate speech, in a time where anyone can share their thoughts anonymously on the internet, and it would be a waste of time and resources to punish someone just for saying, albeit offensive, words.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @just4fun
     First of all, where would we draw the line at hate speech?

    This is definitely a difficult question because hate speech is often defined on the basis of how it makes the victim feel, and since everybody has different thresholds and triggers, a blanket law is always going to be inadequate. 

    That said, speech is not harmless, and can intentionally be used as a weapon to bully someone to the point of self-harm or suicide. I do not believe it should be legal to do this. Psychological torture can be just as harmful as physical torture, albeit in different ways. In my opinion, if it can be evidenced that you have used words to bully someone relentlessly and intentionally, and if it can be evidenced that this person ended their life as a direct result of that abuse, then you should be tried for homicide.

    just4funDee
  • just4funjust4fun 21 Pts   -   edited January 2023

    @just4fun

     In my opinion, if it can be evidenced that you have used words to bully someone relentlessly and intentionally, and if it can be evidenced that this person ended their life as a direct result of that abuse, then you should be tried for homicide.


    Sure, I do believe that if someone has undeniable evidence of truly mentally-harming and constant vocal harassment, then the proper steps should be taken. In fact, there are several instances of racists and supremacists using strong offensive language publicly, and later committing horrendous crimes. But this does not change the fact that it is a violation of the 1st amendment, and not everyone using offensive language, whatever that may be, will commit crimes. But I truly think that without a clear definition of hate speech and where the line is drawn, it will be difficult to debate this question, but I would like to know your views.
  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    "Hate speech" is anything that a neo Marxist objects to.  
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @just4fun


    While obviously most people would disagree with other people's opinions and offensive comments, making hate speech illegal would be ineffective, a waste of time, and most importantly, a violation of our first amendment right. 

    But your speech is limited in the US in no way do you have the freedom of speech Americans speak of , all speech is limited 

    First of all, where would we draw the line at hate speech? 

    Well to start I don't think an assembly of Neo Nazis should have any right to March down a street spewing hate speech 

    Would we claim truly hurtful speech hate speech or just offensive words and slurs, which could easily be mislabeled? 

    I think hate speech is fairly well defined in most societies 

    Second, what would be the punishment for the crime? 

    Depends on the damage done 


     And finally, how effective would this really be at stopping hate speech,

    Works fairly well where I live    Tell me can you exercise hate speech in work? On tv ? On a plane flight ? In hospitals ? Schools? .....how is that deemed freedom of speech in the US if you cannot do it in the US ?


    in a time where anyone can share their thoughts anonymously on the internet, and it would be a waste of time and resources to punish someone just for saying, albeit offensive, words.


    So you think people should be allowed verbally abuse those who they wish without  consequence ?
  • anarchist100anarchist100 781 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    No, for any truth to be found in a society, a Free and open dialog must be had, if we think logically then the more information and points of view we have the better off we will be. Truth is under no obligation to be kind, by censoring unkind speech you are limiting your scope and preventing truth from being discovered, not only does this cause a society to be led by false beliefs, but being able to reason for oneself what is and isn't true is essential for a tolerable existence.
  • just4funjust4fun 21 Pts   -  
    @DeeWorks
    Works fairly well where I live    Tell me can you exercise hate speech in work? On tv ? On a plane flight ? In hospitals ? Schools? .....how is that deemed freedom of speech in the US if you cannot do it in the US ?

    The difference here is that those examples that you listed are private corporations/businesses, which can decide their own policies and rules, so they can make certain behavior intolerable. An airline isn't a direct extension of the government.

    But your speech is limited in the US in no way do you have the freedom of speech Americans speak of , all speech is limited 

    Your speech is limited and subject to punishment if it places someone's life in danger. For example, you cannot just yell out "fire" in a movie theater when there is no evident real threat there, since it can result in mass panic and potentially fatal consequences, such as a person falling and dying due to panic.

    Well to start I don't think an assembly of Neo Nazis should have any right to March down a street spewing hate speech

    I slightly agree with you on this, and such groups should be closely monitored by law enforcement, however, I believe that censorship only makes someone like a Neo Nazi feel victimized, and makes their hatred justified in their mind. It also creates the "their coming out to get us" mentality, which could raise their hatred of the government, resulting in terrorist attacks, as we have seen before. Also, what would banning hate speech really do? Would devout racist groups really end their activities due to a ban, when they're well known to commit acts already illegal in the US?
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @just4fun

    My point is freedom of speech is a myth nearly all speech is limited 




    I believe that censorship only makes someone like a Neo Nazi feel victimized, and makes their hatred justified in their mind.

    They feel their behaviour  is justified either way 


     It also creates the "their coming out to get us" mentality, which could raise their hatred of the government, resulting in terrorist attacks, as we have seen before. 

    That's doesn't follow in some cases maybe , but are you  suggesting we give in to bullies?

    Also, what would banning hate speech really do? 

    Well we wouldn't have to listen to their bull to start 

    Would devout racist groups really end their activities due to a ban, when they're well known to commit acts already illegal in the US? 

    We don't know the the full effect of such but there groups crave attention silencing them would do damage as they need to be vocal to get a reaction 

  • just4funjust4fun 21 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @Dee
    The point is, we are mostly a very progressive nation, so it's not like people are just going to be convinced by a racist spouting nonsense in the 21st century, and hate groups are very isolated and in small numbers. Anyone can easily ignore such statements

    We don't know the the full effect of such but there groups crave attention silencing them would do damage as they need to be vocal to get a reaction .

    These said groups would most likely just go into hiding and make their views and points from there. Censorship is like repressing a traumatic experience, it may be hidden but it's still present and not healed. Also, if we decided to ban hate speech, we would end up banning every somewhat controversial phrase, since the diverse political and ideological background of the US would label several different terms as "hate speech", such as "Back the Blue" or "ACAB" or "MAGA", and so on. Banning hate speech would be very difficult, complex, and would fail in the end.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 809 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Censorship

    Hate speech is nothing more than [deleted] and [deleted].  If someone vigorously [deleted] they should be [deleted] every time.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    If the idea that speech (or absence of thereof) harms people by emotionally upsetting them and the speaker is responsible for it is to be accepted, then all hell breaks loose. That beautiful girl that ghosted me a while ago after our messaging went sour? Did not feel very good. Should I be able to bring charges against her and sue her for compensation of damages? Oh, but the alternative would have been her not ghosting me - and what if I wanted to be left alone and that upset me?

    You see, any law that defines your guilt based on factors outside of your individual actions is fundamentally contradictory to the idea of human rights. If it is not the action itself that is legal or not, but its outcome dependent on factors outside of one's control, then everyone is a potential criminal, regardless of what they do. There are societies in which this idea forms the basis for the system of justice, and they are not pretty.

    Murder is illegal because the outcome of murder is always the same: a dead body that was not dead prior to the act. A failed attempt at a murder is still illegal since the intent was that outcome.
    But on what basis can speech be made illegal? What I say can have unforeseen outcomes, given how complex and diverse human brains are. I can say something that sexually arouses my lover, yet throws my neighbor into blind rage - and I cannot possibly know in advance what exactly will happen. If so, how can I possibly be a law-abiding citizen, when it is not just me, but other people decide whether I am one?

    No, someone's reaction to my actions cannot determine whether I am a criminal or not. If I stole someone's car, it does not matter whether they decide to try to get the car back or not: I am a thief. It is the action that can be criminal, and its criminality cannot depend on others' reaction to it. Therefore there is no case for speech of any kind to be made illegal.

    Now, if speech is merely a part of the action in question, then the judgement may be different. If I tell someone that I have a loaded gun on me and they better hand me over their wallet, then I will not simply have said something: I will have threatened their life and employed coercion. The criminal act here is not the phrase itself, but the phrase accompanied by the context in which it was uttered. Similarly, if someone is expressing hatred towards someone else while holding a knife, it is more than just speech: it is an assault. But if one does not express any intend to commit any violent acts and simply expresses their feelings towards someone or something, then there is no case to be made for them committing a crime.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @just4fun
    But this does not change the fact that it is a violation of the 1st amendment

    Well, I'm certainly no expert on American law, so you may be right. I was, however, under the impression that American courts have ruled in the past that hate speech is not covered under the first amendment. 

  • just4funjust4fun 21 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Well, officially, the 1st amendment "protects the freedom of speech, the press (media, news, etc.), assembly (peaceful, non-violent protests or gatherings)". I would be interested to see what you mean by instances of american courts ruling such statement, if you have a link or anything.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @just4fun

    Yes, from what I'm reading I can see I'm very much mistaken. Hate speech isn't even defined in American law, let alone punishable as an offence. My apologies. I thought I'd read a link about individual states having hate speech laws a while ago, but I can't find anything to support that. I did find a few exceptions, listed below, but the general rule is that hate speech is constitutionally protected.

    In 1942, the issue of group defamation was first most explicitly brought up in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which surrounded the issue of a Jehovah's Witness, Walter Chaplinsky, who verbally attacked a town marshal for restricting his use of a public sidewalk to protest organized religion by calling him a "damned fascist" and "racketeer."[4] Later, when the court heard Beauharnais v. Illinois,[5] establishing the narrow traditional exception to the First Amendment covering those words which by their very utterances tend to inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.[6]

    About a decade later in 1952, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's group libel law, which punished expression attacking the reputation of racial, ethnic, and religious groups.[7] The defendant was charged for distributing a leaflet that rallied white people in Chicago "to halt the further encroachment, harassment and invasion of white people, their property, neighborhoods and persons, by the Negro."[8] Going off Chaplinsky, the court ruled that since "libelous utterances [are not] within the area of constitutionally protected speech," it did not matter that the speech did not incite any direct harm.[4] 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

    just4fun
  • just4funjust4fun 21 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    I see, all good, no worries. Law is pretty complex and confusing at times to be honest.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @just4fun

    It is my friend, but the main issue is that I'm not American and haven't ever lived in America. 
    just4fun
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @just4fun


    The point is, we are mostly a very progressive nation, so it's not like people are just going to be convinced by a racist spouting nonsense in the 21st century, and hate groups are very isolated and in small numbers. Anyone can easily ignore such statements 


    A progressive society  generally advocates for a universal healthcare system, wage equity and labor rights, economic justice, social welfare , etc ,etc ,do you believe that America as a nation is genuinely seeking such a society?

    I'm afraid in my experience of living in the US and interaction with Americans abroad and online I've come away with a totally different view regards progression in the way I've stated it

    Yes I agree such statements can be ignored and even in the US your chances of doing such are very limited , tell me where can such groups legally vent hate speech like this in the US?

    In what way is your law so different to ours as there are so few places to air such views

    These said groups would most likely just go into hiding and make their views and points from there.

    Yes which is what they do over here , any such views would normally be aired on some of the more controversial radio shows 

     Censorship is like repressing a traumatic experience, it may be hidden but it's still present and not healed. 

    Censorship is a horse of a different colour  as such views are expressed in print and certain radio shows, I'm not against book , movie banning etc ,etc  just what's very clearly defined as hate speech which is speech aimed to damage others 


    Also, if we decided to ban hate speech, we would end up banning every somewhat controversial phrase, since the diverse political and ideological background of the US would label several different terms as "hate speech", such as "Back the Blue" or "ACAB" or "MAGA", and so on. 

    That's not how hate speech laws work in Europe as hate speech is clearly defined. If say you as an individual or a group feel you have been the victims of hate speech citizens rights will tell you if this is the case or not 


    Banning hate speech would be very difficult, complex, and would fail in the end.

    Well it's banned here and not complex at all as the law on such is pretty clear and personally I don't believe it has failed 

    Thank you for your thoughts , it's an interesting topic 

  • Well it's banned here and not complex at all as the law on such is pretty clear and personally I don't believe it has failed 

    Said Mr. No links..........LMAO
  • What should be weighted when addressing law is the amount of legal malpractice of law which goes with legislation of law. A united states Constitutional Right offers a higher standard by protecting the people for costs and the establishment of tyrannic governing from the act of legal malpractice inside litigation. As it is no secret that litigators have in the past and present take advantage of the many rules limiting lawsuits that can be levied against the state or federal government. Which sponsor such legislation of malpractice.


  • At the head of this list is abortion which had come from Europe..........Mr. No cite Dee.
    Dee
  • Is hate speech so bad it needs to be legislated as against the law twice?


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch