10
Yes because otherwise you can shut down speech you dislike by labeling it "hate speech"
Canada restricts hate speech, as does most of Europe.
Yet its the US with the speech suppression issues going on right now.
You shouldn't base a law on "The current government is okay" simply because the next one might not be.
That implies the bad government will care about following the laws, or won't change the law or its enforcement
Can you think of a useful purpose it serves?
No, it should not. "My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights." is the basic law of humanity. Any law book should basically follow this line, and mostly actually do.
My only gripe with this is that the state in its current form cannot be trusted to be an impartial judge of what constitutes hate speech. We see today that many states around the world are using anti hate speech laws to suppress criticism of the state of Israel. Giving the state broad powers to crack down on speech that it deems hateful will inevitably result in the state deciding that all criticism of its actions or the actions of its allies constitutes hate speech.
As an alternative, I prefer that hate speech be met with social consequences rather than criminal ones.
I voted to raise my taxes to fund my local school. Now my neighbors have to pay more in taxes as well... Did I just harm them?
I think so, in the sense that the tax is enforced by state violence. The system should be redesigned such that the school is no longer reliant on extorting non-consenting parties in order to function effectively.
No, that benefits society as a whole by increasing education for the next generation. Which leads to better lives and more opportunities.
When something benefits the whole, not all individuals will see obvious benefits to themselves. But they still get to benefit from the outcomes, like better jobs more opportunities and such.
Ah, so it would have been harmful to vote against it.
The question is what is less harm? Increased taxes or lack of education?
Perhaps both of them harm (or help) different parties by different amounts. So maybe a system where "My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights." looks like a common sense framework, but when scrutinized reveals that it doesn't really stand for anything at all.
I don't know why you are being downvoted, this is correct: "My freedom ends where the next person's freedom starts." We can do everything we want as long it doesn't harm or encroach (and "harm" and "encroach" are loaded words in this context) on the next person. "Harm" and "encroach" here means you don't diminish the other persons rights, at all.
"At all" is kinda contradictory part. Limiting harm to others would already necessitate limiting freedoms and the more people and closer together they live the more freedoms are limited.
Living in the middle of nowhere and a person can do almost whatever pops in their mind, almost absolute freedom.
Living in a city and there's a long list of laws/rules/regulations that already limit what one can do. Not that those are bad limitations.
Individuals should not limit other's freedom, and as such the law can restrict individual freedoms to that purpose.
The problem is you hand government and courts the right to decide what is hate speech.
In the UK the government is already trying to classify anti-zionist speech as banned hate speech.
Laws are weapons, your enemies can use them against you.
I'd rather know someone is a nazi then not know
I don't know why you're being downvoted. A lot of extremists like to be heard. I like to know when they're coming.
Charlie Kirk would still be a piece of shit today if he wasn't out and loud about being a piece of shit.
If it already is, because it had already been decided. People once again misunderstand what exactly the 1st Amendment even covers. It protects you from the government silencing your voice and expression, which is what someone like Trump has been working hard to do.
It does not and should not protect you outside from that. You do not have a case on your hands when you're banned from an online forum for using hate speech. Because that forum, is not the government. Facebook, is not the government. Reddit, is not the government. So on and so forth.
Everybody should be able to say anything they want, and everybody else should be able to make fun of them.
Or choose not to hire them, or ostracize them.
Hate speech is free speech. So is recording that hate speech and making sure that everyone the bigot knows is aware of their bigotry is free speech too.
Or choose not to hire them
This just allows capitalists to decide what is acceptable speech.
Or choose not to do business with them, or choose not to help them on the side of the road, or choose not to invite them to your parties, or choose not to let them on your property, or choose to sign them up for all the useless email and mail spam you can find...
Don't tunnel on one thing. A freedom for everyone means a freedom for the capitalists, and the communists too.
Isn't it suspicious you're the one who said "Fuck them" about Gaza children?
By voluntary associations (like a fediverse instance) absolutely not.
By government? Absolutely. What happens when disparaging the One True God Baby Jesus or His Followers is declared hate speech?
Whatever powers you give the government, you also give to the worst form of that government which you can imagine. The civil liberties that protect rapists and drug dealers are the same ones that are helping keep more people from being kidnapped by ICE in America.
This is an important point. There's a big difference between guys with guns telling you what you can say, and a local get-together. Sometimes people act like they should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want, even if they're like standing in someone else's house
Yes. I don’t trust anyone to draw the line on what does or doesn’t count as hate speech.
Now, calls to violence are little more black-and-white. I can see a ban on that.
I really wonder how many people in this thread have ever had hate speech directed at themselves.
Hate speech laws are fascist. As in, they are laws that differentiate between people. Some are protected but not beholden, while others are beholden but not protected. These laws are already used to protect cultist child abusers from criticism.
I think it should. People should me able to say what they want. Even the most stupid or hateful things. They are thinking them anyway, it's not like hat it's going to disappear with a ban on hat speech. Hate speech is the expression of the hateful thinking but not the root.
Ban on hate speech would be like puting on a blind and thinking that you made the sun dissapear.
Ban on hate speech would be like puting on a blind and thinking that you made the sun dissapear.
This isn't true.
Think about how much more common certain kinds of rhetoric have become since Trump became president.
People (especially those with power or influence) saying things not only increases the likelihood that others will believe it, but makes it easier that these people will find validation and reinforce their beliefs.
You can be okay with that, but it's wrong to deny that it happens.
But Trump became president partially because of the backlash to the Obama era language and tone policing.
I think that's a bit cherry-picked. I can't even remember tone-policing being a defining part of Obama's presidency..
It was pretty common on Reddit around that time with people saying you were trans phobic if you didn’t want to sleep with trans people.
Reddit edge lords aren't really the zeitgeist
Yes it should. "your freedom ends when you start to hurt my feelings" is just plain censorship, as anything you don't like can be labeled as hate speech
This is exceptionally bad in my homeland (Ukraine) So much so that if I explain the situation here, I'll just get banned here because it can be labeled as hate speech
as anything you don't like can be labeled as hate speech
That's not actually how it happens. Countries can define what is and isn't allowed, and I don't think "hurt feelings" are the definition for hate speech anywhere in the world.
If it were not, it would just be inviting the government take a massive dump all over it.
Despite the crapshow that is the current US government, you can't be arrested for standing in front of the Whitehouse shouting your support for whatever idea or group you beleive in (granted you are a Citizen of the USA).
Compare that to something like the UK where people have been charged and thrown in jail for wearing a t shirt or holding a sign, even outside of a protest because the government can just designate whatever it wants to be "hate speech".
Private spaces like social media are not bound by this which is fine, but social media is so ridiculously controlled and filtered as a result, that you're better off sticking to a non mainstream platform (like lemmy) where your comments won't get banned and deleted for stepping out of line.
You have to be a citizen for the constitution to apply?
I think that if something is made illegal, it should be very clearly defined. "Hate speech" is wide open to interpretation and can easily be used to silence all kinds of speech. The issue isn't the obvious cases but where exactly we draw the line. If that line can't be made crystal clear, it's a slippery slope toward tyranny. Being offensive is okay - spreading hate and inciting violence isn't.
Nah. It's better when it's not.
I think speech that a reasonable person would know to cause danger to others should be illegal.
Like trying to start a human stampede by yelling "fire" in a crowded stadium should be illegal. Having a club where you talk about how great it'd be if a certain group of people would be murdered, and here are some ways to get away with murder? Should be illegal.
And even if you do think that freedom of speech should include objectively harmful and dangerous speech, Americans need to understand that limits on speech can be placed in more places than not. Private places and businesses can exclude people for things people say. This is much more true on the internet, which is a global space.
this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
10 points (100.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
48218 readers
137 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS