Freedom of speech does not include hate speech

[DNinja69]

Actually once upon a time this site provided a great source of free advertising for providers. Currently not so much but either way I don't see the point you are trying to make about pointed hate speech

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

When hate speech cries for denial of rights. When hate speech calls for Obstruction and insurrection. When hate speech is false and outright slander.....That should not be protected. Never intended to be.
Free speech has limits like other amendments. Thankfully!
Those that wish not to believe it really don't believe in democracy.

Originally Posted by DNinja69

We are all promised the same rights and once speech begins to intrude on those there must be a check and balance. Once speech ventures into an area where it should not be protected then it is not censorship it is someone not using their speech responsibly.

The examples both of you provide are wrong accordingly to the law.

You should read what the Supreme Court on the First Amendment has ruled in in multiple cases regarding the extremely limited circumstances when hate speech can be criminalized.

In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.

In fact a few quotes from 2017 Matal v Tam:

but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate".

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by DNinja69

I would argue that someone joining a white supremacist forum could not claim the comments are offensive but having those same views pop on a Facebook scroll is an entirely different situation.

You are wrong. Strictly from a first amendment / legal perspective which is what we are talking about, it is exactly the same situation. Not different at all

Originally Posted by DNinja69

That said it is true a lot of people get 'offended' by little shit and want to set unrealistic limits and it damn sure ain't just Democrats

Leftists are by far the biggest proponent's of violating people's first amendment rights, of supporting government censorship, etc.

[DNinja69]

Incorrect mostly due to your continued improper use of the term leftist. Your overall objections would be much more accurate on many topics if you were simply speaking about that fringe group but it seems to you everyone left of 3/4 tank to full right winger is a leftist so no sorry not true at all. I do enjoy the irony of the same folks advocating (as DeSantis did) for legal sanctions against AB for their Bud Light marketing also claiming 'the other side' is who stays about suppression and squelching Freedom.

As for your issues with regard to what the First Amendment actually means
I don't have much energy for bigotry and shed few tears for those who find the consequences of engaging in the activity unpleasant. There are times when the will of many dictates the protocol and other situations where the opposite is true. Just because SCOTUS may rule something is protected does not absolve people from responsibility when they choose to speak in way that might be termed 'hate speech' and also does not mean it should be allowed on all social media platforms.

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by DNinja69

There is always a context. Some forums are accessible by the public and others are member only and some posts may only be viewable by those included in the thread so the rules of engagement will vary quite a bit.

One foundation of our right to free speech is that unpopular comments are protected but there will always be a limit. I would argue that someone joining a white supremacist forum could not claim the comments are offensive but having those same views pop on a Facebook scroll is an entirely different situation.

We are all promised the same rights and once speech begins to intrude on those there must be a check and balance. Once speech ventures into an area where it should not be protected then it is not censorship it is someone not using their speech responsibly. That said it is true a lot of people get 'offended' by little shit and want to set unrealistic limits and it damn sure ain't just Democrats

Nope. If a person believes the white race is ‘supreme’ they can (and many times do) shout it to the heavens as much as they please, just like you can shout that they’re a racist fucktard. The answer to speech you don’t like is more speech, not silencing others.

[DNinja69]

Well not really but it does depend again on context. In the discussion of whether 'hate speech' is protected as a concept but in practice it becomes different things entirely.

When the idea is simply something we don't like sure but when the behavior begins to infringe upon other's rights it is no long so simple.
A cute girl walks by me on the sidewalk and does not like my comments about her ass flips me off calls me a fuckstick all is fair but when I turn around and follow her chanting 'big fat ass' over and over my claim of protected speech may fall short of justifying my behavior. If you think that is incorrect try and apply it in a different situation like saying 'gun gun gun' towards cops when they have someone detained or maybe mention a bomb to the bank teller when asking to withdraw some money.

Lots of laws on the books regarding defamation, libel, and slander also so at times truth is the simple measure of protected or not protected.

Again I support free speech and agree that silencing someone should come only with good cause and not because what they are saying does not reflect what I believe or what anyone wants to hear. Much like the 2nd our 1st amendment is not absolute and can be abused to bring serious consequences.

[luv2sixtynine69]

Trump normalized people saying what they think when it comes to bigotry, misogyny , or anything else that your mother told you that you can’t say out loud. So nothing surprises me. What will surprise them is that he could get 100% of the vote in the primaries but based on how elections work he doesn’t have enough votes to win a general election. So it’ll be another one of his greatest hits of “election fraud” rather than concede. Which is understandable because he’s usually too busy making perfect phone calls.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by DNinja69

Just because SCOTUS may rule something is protected does not absolve people from responsibility when they choose to speak in way that might be termed 'hate speech' and also does not mean it should be allowed on all social media platforms.

Glad you admitted you were wrong according to the law in your previous examples you provided

No one here has argued that specific social media platforms can't have their own rules on what is and is not allowed. You are trying to twist the focus from what is allowed under the first amendment

[winn dixie]

Uhhhh

Hate speech is hate speech on any site.
Can't spin that in circles

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by DNinja69

When the idea is simply something we don't like sure but when the behavior begins to infringe upon other's rights it is no long so simple.

A cute girl walks by me on the sidewalk and does not like my comments about her ass flips me off calls me a fuckstick all is fair but when I turn around and follow her chanting 'big fat ass' over and over my claim of protected speech may fall short of justifying my behavior.

Actually it IS THAT SIMPLE. Again, the First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular or that some may find downright offensive

And your example as stated of you chanting at her 'big fat ass' is protected speech under the constitution. It would only not necessarily be protected speech if you truly physically threatened her

[HDGristle]

Lacks context, berry. When they begin following with the chant they open to door to harassment in many jurisdictions.

That requires:

1. Targeting of a protected class (gender, race, religion, etc.);

2. Unwelcomeness of harassing behavior or verbal, written, and/or online conduct;and

3. Deprivation of access, opportunities, rights, and/or peaceful enjoyment therefrom.

The generally accepted limitations on free speech are obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and [redacted 5 letter word] pornography.

How far they open the door is a different discussion. Plenty of Nuance to discuss and not as cut and dry as you want to pretend.

[Jacuzzme]

The entire premise of a “protected class” is patently ridiculous. People should be treated as individuals, not as part of some group or another. This is what gave us communism, Marxist/Leninism, and Nazism.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

The entire premise of a “protected class” is patently ridiculous. People should be treated as individuals, not as part of some group or another. This is what gave us communism, Marxist/Leninism, and Nazism.

Unchecked free speech gave us those ideologies. It's being repeated again

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Uhhhh

Hate speech is hate speech on any site.
Can't spin that in circles

WRONG AS USUAL

pay attention

In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Unchecked free speech gave us those ideologies.

Unchecked free speech. Just say it, you want to censor speech you don't agree with

Thankfully the founders of our country and the Supreme Court disagreed. Again, the First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular or that some may find downright offensive