Hate speech isn't freedom of speech. Prove me wrong

Anything that offends a certain group of people. Mostly being racism despite being facts.

We have a subject called "Democracy and human rights". Now give me a valid argument or fuck off mutt.

Hate speech isn't a thing, it's just made up bullshit used to make other people shut up.

Ok, memeflag. Don't know why you posted here. Hate speach is obviously fee speach. Any government who says otherwise is already totalitarian.

hate speech is a nebulous concept and can be applied in a way that is unfair. if i say it is hateful to express pride in being balkan-nigger you would probably think that is unfair.

And how am I going to tell that to him? I need something more smoother and intelligent.

what's the point of free speech if it only protects agreeable opinions?

no free people has to abide by hate speech laws. hate speech is imposed on a conquered people to prevent them from voicing opposition to their own oppression.

show me a picture of your gypsy mother op. i can print her picture out and cum on it and make u proud

Attached: bosnia mode.png (500x589, 462.49K)

By definition, freedom of speech is being free to speak what you want, when you want. Also, the definition of hate speech is not exact, so some people may think something is hate speech, while others may not.

Attached: reddit_whole_pig_in_plastic_1022427v..png (735x698, 921.17K)

Okay retards, clearly you haven't gotten my point. I'm doing this so that faggots like you can give a valid argument when asked the same question by some kind of opposition.

Attached: 1579286292570.png (449x800, 84.01K)

Okay. There is no need to protect speech everyone agrees with.
Only that speech that others find objectionable, or offensive, or even, yes, hateful, needs any form of protection.
If you understand that basic distinction, then you can only conclude that so-called 'hate speech' is, in fact, exactly the kind of speech protected by the concept of freedom of speech.
And if it isn't protected, you have no free speech rights and you live in a tyranny.
Good enough?

You prove your self right
The burden on proof is on you nigger

I think what you want is a ben shapiro casuistry argument when there isn't one. It's a simple concept, stop deferring to jewy puffery

To be free is to act with responsibility, hate speech is directed with malice and has inherently evil intent - utterly opposed to the notion of freedom.

There isn't one, which is what I already said.

I was right the first time. Fucking chink bugman

there is no argument you faggot
the argument your teacher is making is that anything he doesn't like should be against the law
if his argument is that banning speech is better for society then you can only go in to discussion in to how to make a better society.
you're going to have to prove then that black people commit 90% of violent crime between blacks and whites
also you can bring up that majority of serbs are poorer than blacks in america so poverty argument doesn't work
etc...
the only way you can approach this is label him a totalitarian and then prove him wrong on why his version of totalitarianism isn't better for serbians. (assuming he's a libtard)

There is no jewy puffery in this simple question I asked. I want to hear what people here think and what material they can give me to prove me wrong.

>democracy teacher
>teaching human rights
>flag
>Muslims actually need to learn how to be Democratic, free thinking and what even is human rights

Attached: 1578455183566.jpg (398x376, 37.07K)

>"The sky is purple! change my mind"

You're a fag

truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth
if you want to live in a society where bad thoughts are forbidden I suggest you move to north korea

fuck you nigger

Why would I bother trying to prove you wrong? The case has been decided by the Supreme Court, the matter has been settled by greater minds than yours.
Do you have an argument that brings to light some aspect of the question that hasn't already been settled? Then bring it back ti SCOTUS.

And BTW OP, still a faggot.

It’s really on him to make the argument as to why hate speech is not free speech, nor on you. The burden of proof lies on him. So I’d have to ask what his argument is in favor of hate speech not being free speech.

>there is no argument you faggot
i forgot to mention that if someone advocates for control and safety over freedom and chaos then you can only reason with them at the point of a shotgun

>can't give a single simple argument
>I was right the first time
hang yourself mutt

please define hate speech; your process for identifying it; and any remedies for it.

They won't of course, YOU have to be specific and they can be as vague as is needed

Not muslim schekelberg

faggot nigger deepjike

because "hate speech" is a made up term designed to stifle dissent
>freedom of speech
>freedom to not listen to freedom of speech
you stupid nigger

Attached: 1582894499708.png (899x407, 37.92K)

I SAID THE WORD NIGGER are you seriously trying to get this from a bunch of incel losers from pol?

Attached: 1561326027842.png (469x387, 258.24K)

It is

/thread

Dumb nigger.

Free speech is an objective term. It can be quantified by what isn't allowed. Hate speech is pure feelings, especially given that intent is impossible to be 100% certain about. Furthermore, taking it as a literal description, forbidding the expression of a basic human emotion is as clear cut a case for that speech not being free

Clearly not all of them are dumb losers

The concept of hatespeech means that you can define any opinion you don't like as "hate" and use this as a justification to ban it. Either you allow speech, even if it is controversial or offensive, then you have free speech, or you don't allow these things, then you don't have free speech. Hatespeech laws are an attempt to not have free speech while at the same time claiming that you do because the opinions you don't like are "hate". In a free society, people have to learn to deal with opinions they don't like and not be so easily offended by everything.

funny how blue checkmark jews get absolute freedom to spout "hate speech"

Attached: 1577878053931.png (2000x2000, 2.86M)

if you block any speech then it's not freedom of speech
therefore hate speech must be allowed if you want to enact true freedom of speech
it's not that hard to understand even for a 90 iq average friend

You’re a nigger.

Attached: 05DAC78F-9E9B-4F77-BE9C-BB9855288D9D.jpg (680x621, 59.25K)

The content of the speech is irrelevant in "freedom of speech".

>"lol I'm going to be truculent in order for people to engage with me."

if you are agaisnt hate speech, aren't you breaking the right of another person freely expressing themselves? Like they are freely expressing that they don't want hate speech but they are also breaking the rights of someone hate speeching.

Attached: waytoodank2.gif (56x56, 130.79K)

the painful simple ironclad coup de gras of
that argument:

"hate speech" can mean anything, which means it means nothing
which is the same with all "special categories" of *REALLY BAD SPEECH* (no matter the label) of free speech any may wish to carve out, all of which are arbitrary

if you can ad hoc carve up free speech, then there can be no free speech

THAT.

It isn't enough just to say it is, that why I started this thread so that I could hear others opinions and use them as arguments against those who say otherwise

this argument doesn't work because "free speech" in america already doesn't allow call to violence
you're going to have a much harder time advocating for complete unvetted speech since it doesn't exist anywhere in the world

A few decades ago, saying "Gay people should be allowed to get married" would be "hate speech"
Before that, saying "Black people should be allowed to use the same water fountains as whites" would be "hate speech"
Before that, saying "Slavery should be abolished" would be "hate speech"

Now fuck right off cunt

here you go bud:
especially:
(youre welcome)

>It isn't enough just to say it is

Why isn't it enough? is 2+2=4 enough?

Good examples

thats good and factual and etc
but it doesnt get to the root of why the very notion of "hate speech" (aka *WHAT PEOPLE SAY MAKE ME MAD RAWR!*) is empty and fallacious and capricious and self defeating

>Give me your arguments on why hate speech isn't freedom of speech.

Define hate speech? Unwelcome or uncomfortable facts arn't 'hate speech'. For example, if i was to say that blacks commit most of Londons crime, relative to their population, that would be a cold hard statement of fact. No hate or malice, yet...it would be shut down by people who found that truth uncomfortable. Telling that truth could lead to correction, instead the problem will persist, and never be challenged because of the fear of social punishment, or in some cases, legal.

I understand the need or desire to stop people shouting out slurs, and other stuff, but the law is pretty vague on this, and its a fine line to draw. Another example is section 5 of the public order act. Basically anyone who causes anyone else alarm, distress, or harrassment, can be arrested. The law is so vague that if someone 'feels' upset, the police can nick whoevers causing the distress. The fact that the person could be lying, never enters their heads. So it's a 'catch all', you can catch anyone with it.

Attached: bloody hell.jpg (322x157, 13.3K)

"free speech" really means "free expression", which is why stuff like paintings or flag burnings are legal, and why SAYING things like "I will pay someone to murder person X" is still illegal

thank you

mathematicians can still prove you wrong with that one but that is too simple so yes you can go away with just saying "it is"

Who defines what 'hate speech' is? The state? The media. Popular culture (which can be moulded by the two aforementioned entities)?
Why is 'kill whitey' permissible but 'blacks statistically commit the majority of violent crimes' hate speech when it is a statement of fact?
The proponent of hate speech is naively trusting that the state/power structure will always concur with him or her on issues of morality and ideology.
You only need to look at the turning wheel of fortune at is history to see why that's retarded.

the matter of unraveling and eviscerating hate speech is not one of opinion, not one of subjectivity

lets get that straight right now

Tell that to Terrance Howard

It's the only freedom of speech. Prove me wrong.

>Why is 'kill whitey' permissible but 'blacks statistically commit the majority of violent crimes' hate speech when it is a statement of fact?

That's exactly what annoys most people. Either racism is bad across the board, or it's open season on everyone. The current state it's racism against whites that's acceptable.

You see, that's a subjective standard. I can pretend that everything you say is a racial slur, effectively defining everything you say as hate speech and then claim you shouldn't be allowed to speak at all.
Example:
"I have black friends"
That's what a racist would say.
"I don't have black friends"
Because you're racist.
We can see here that logical consistency is not required for subjective measures, therefore they can never apply to absolutist rules like freedom of speech.

You people seem to appeal to reason way pass anyone caring. They know, they just don't care

Hate is legal.
SJW for instance hate everything that interferes with eternal Anglo dominating over the world and turning it into a medieval opium-drugged hellhole.

Even God instructed people to hate on evil.

There is no legal system where hate is prohibited in general.

The only thing you get to trough hate speech policing is the choice of the direction where that hate goes. The question is - are you willing to give the state legal instruments to choose what you can and what you can not hate?

>mathematicians can still prove you wrong with that one

many have tried
many will try
all will always fail

Is hating on haters hatespeech?

>blacks statistically commit the majority of violent crimes'
This isn't considered hate speech you mong

i know but free expression of violence is also forbidden hence why they changed it to speech in america
you can easily put limitations on "expression"
for example defecating on the street can be called art by some but it's illegal thankfully

Try getting a politician to say it.

anything is hate speech depending on second-by-second feelings

if you cause a lefty any discomfort with any words at all then you are instantly guilty of the litany of their prime curses

that is health endangerment

Freedom of speech exists specifically to protect the things you don't want to hear from being censored.

Depends, not everyone interprets hate speech the same. Many anons already answered to this.

common man i can find other examples
standing in the square and shitting in to a bucket.
there, no health hazard

This argument is my favorite.

well
no
public defecation, outside of the contained bathroom-toilet to sewage system is a health hazard
uhhhh
did you know water is wet?

> Hate speech isn't free speech.
That statement is hate speech. It infringes on the rights of other citizens.

Is saying bad things about the "White Race" hate speech?

>This isn't considered hate speech you mong

It actually would be. The state could 'argue' that the only reason you said it was to stir animosity. Guy in the UK got arrested for quoting Churchills quote on Islam. Public space and everything. But that's the UK though.

>Is hating on haters hatespeech?

For them it is.