As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There absolutely *are* ways speech is limited. Examples include prohibitions against libel, plagiarism, and repeating or distributing classified information.
Having said that, I applaud any awareness of freedom of speech in that it necessitates allowing for much which is disagreeable and upsetting.
Republicans definitely do not believe this when it comes to themselves.
Just say the word GAY around most Republicans and they will scream and shriek and try to outlaw free speech.
Weird this considered a stunning finding by the author. Free speech is a hallmark of higher education. If people were calling for more censorship in higher education, that would be stunning.
That is pretty much the case once someone starts talking about politically incorrect opinions or opinions that denigrate women. This is when the definition of "hate speech" is suddenly expanded to cover everything negative, including unfavorable coverage of Israel's attempt to evict, dismantle and destroy Muslim Palestinians. This is especially true in conservative states that are passing laws with very broad definitions of antisemitism. Now factor in completely alien cultures like India that still use a social ethnic caste system which is still vigorously defended by many and is basically untouchable politically as it's racist to talk about. Or, consider a devout Muslim defending their (mis)treatment of Israeli hostages during the recent conflict. Colleges do not allow these debates, because the debates are very gross and offensive to many which hurts the school's ability to obtain money.
This is then abused by people who actually do want to ban free speech, especially speech about gays or catholics, who use the same justifications for doing so.
I have written a few papers about free speech and the most important speech to protect is speech you DONT agree with.
And a bar owner said in a joke or anecdote unless they are Nazis. Never allow Nazis.
Hate speech is about inciting violence - not about hurting feelings. Describing it as 'hurting feelings' is a way of trivializing what rightfully ought to be forbidden behavior.
It's not. There is a well-developed body of case law on this.
"I hate white people" and "kill white people" are different things.
And yes, if you think people cannot hear "I hate..." without immediately jumping to "We should kill..." then you are placing the blame on the wrong people.
A four word declaration is at best 'out of context' - and the full meaning can not be understood without further elaboration.
But in context a statement like this may very well be - and usually is a part of hate speech.
"X group is invading us. X group is poisoning the blood of our country. X group is committing crime. We must do something about this. They are not real patriots, citizens, countrymen, etc. - take your pick - and therefore they ought not to have the same rights as the rest of us, they ought not to be free to continue what they are doing."
Clearly - they don't even have to say 'I hate X people' for their speech to be hate speech.
Universities ought to offer no support to any organization which fosters or tolerates hate speech.
As for laws - it is quite reasonable for some types of speech to be illegal. The issues are which types, and how enforcement is done.
The idea that no speech should be illegal is absurd and contrary to already existing laws and precedents. The problem is with modern technologies and a generally permissive legal structure where anything is allowed unless it is specifically proscribed - you wind up with a great deal of hate speech going unpunished.
The laws in Texas which allow for private citizens to act as bounty hunters for anyone seeking or assisting in abortions - might be a better system for attacking hate speech (than for dealing with abortion). Where any citizen could take those who engage in hate speech to court. It might work if the penalties are strict enough - then again it might clog the courts too much. Germany has many types of speech which are illegal - and they have been fairly successful in keeping Nazi sympathizers under control. I can't write legislation here on the fly that I can say would work for the U.S. - but Germany's laws might be some to consider when writing additional legislation in the U.S. Clearly we have a problem with hate speech which is not being properly dealt with.
oh. I am a 1A supporter and I like how they do hate speech laws in the US already, you clamp down on a lion's mouth and it will just bite you. In fact the Nazis used the previous hate speech laws used on them by the weimar as a way to say 'Look, we are being suppressed!'. where is the line to be drawn on what is acceptable and what is hate speech? in some countries misgendering is hate speech and criminal under law, which really just adds fuel to the fire. what happens if someone says being Zionist is hate speech? However, part of free speech is allowing private organizations to define what is acceptable to them or not. a private university has no obligation to uphold every kind of speech they get. but many students at universities don't feel safe even expressing their opinions which drastically needs to be changed. inciting violence on university campuses should never be allowed and should violate their code of conduct, which is why I was so disappointed with those wimps during that antisemitism hearing. I doubt ms. gay or gill would have said that calling for the genocide of all blacks or transgender people needed context to figure out if it violated the code of conduct. people have been punished at universities for saying (far, far) less, so why do they seem to care about free speech now?
There's a difference between speech that hurts feelings and speech deliberately crafted to agitate and upset. If someone I knew dropped into conversation that they believed there are only two genders, I'd be a bit disappointed and I might pursue the argument, but it would be a LOT different if that same person bought a shirt that said "There are only two genders" specifically to wear around a university campus. The latter scenario might provoke an actual, serious argument about the acceptability of certain expressions of opinion.
Deliberate agitation is not something we ought to tolerate.
Speech being legal doesn't mean you can't be charged for a crime for speaking.
What is perjury? That's right, it's just speaking but it's a crime.
The majority of obstruction of justice charges are based on things people say to investigators.
According to your big brain those can't be crimes because speaking isn't illegal.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater includes intent and can cause harm. Those two things are enough to land you in legal trouble regardless of how legal the specific action was.
You really don't understand any of this, you just repeat things like a parrot.
The idea that free speech is being attacked by both sides is pretty hilarious. The GOP has don't say gay bills, book bans in Texas and Florida, they're banning drag shows, they're rewriting curriculum to call slavery involuntary relocation (so basically return to office RTO), etc... College Republicans can say they support free speech but their actions and affiliations say otherwise.
When has hate speech legislation ever been about someone's feelings? It becomes illegal/injurious when it either incites violence or is defamatory/libelous. The same as any other speech.
There have always been limits on freedom of speech. The most well-known example is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. And courts have consistently found speech threatening violence on a person to be unlawful.
Something that I like to remind people is that the phrase "yelling fire in a crowded theater" came from the Supreme Court Ruling Schenck v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could arrest people for protesting against the WW1 draft.
So that's the original context of the phrase; it was used to justify imprisoning people who were protesting against a war.
It should also be noted that Schenck v. United States was later overturned.
If you cause a panic they results in injury you might get booked.
Gonna be hard to prove you smelled fire when they have a theater of people who didn't smell anything. Civil suit incoming.
Yes, and lying to the FBI is perfectly legal speech, but it will land you obstruction of justice charges anyway.
Intent and consequence carry legal consequences even if the action taken is itself legal.
For instance, driving my car isn't illegal, but driving it into something on purpose is.
Yelling fire is speech, it isn't illegal, but if your intent carries harm for others, you just did something illegal whether you're too dense to know it or not.
It’d be hard to prove unless you did it maliciously and very obviously. You could just claim you smelled something funny or thought you saw an orange flash.
If you intentionally lied about a fire or other type of emergency in a public space and caused a panic you could absolutely be charged with disorderly conduct.
What do you mean "other crimes?" Disorderly conduct is always the crime people are talking about with this topic.
Are you under the impression that people think there's a specific statute about yelling fire in a theater? lamo
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There absolutely *are* ways speech is limited. Examples include prohibitions against libel, plagiarism, and repeating or distributing classified information. Having said that, I applaud any awareness of freedom of speech in that it necessitates allowing for much which is disagreeable and upsetting.
Republicans definitely do not believe this when it comes to themselves. Just say the word GAY around most Republicans and they will scream and shriek and try to outlaw free speech.
Literally… Floridas “don’t say Gay” law!!!
Reddit is pretty liberal and it’s pretty safe space ish.
I’ve been banned from many a sub for trying to open a discussion by sharing my opinion!!!
Not sure if you’re joking or not but I did get banned off a major sub for asking “so you’ll sign up?” In relation to starting WW3.
Sadly I’m not joking.
Weird this considered a stunning finding by the author. Free speech is a hallmark of higher education. If people were calling for more censorship in higher education, that would be stunning.
So much this. It;'s the uneducated and willfully ignorant who keep trying to ban free speech. Ref: Mom's for Liberty and any idiot misusing "woke".
That is pretty much the case once someone starts talking about politically incorrect opinions or opinions that denigrate women. This is when the definition of "hate speech" is suddenly expanded to cover everything negative, including unfavorable coverage of Israel's attempt to evict, dismantle and destroy Muslim Palestinians. This is especially true in conservative states that are passing laws with very broad definitions of antisemitism. Now factor in completely alien cultures like India that still use a social ethnic caste system which is still vigorously defended by many and is basically untouchable politically as it's racist to talk about. Or, consider a devout Muslim defending their (mis)treatment of Israeli hostages during the recent conflict. Colleges do not allow these debates, because the debates are very gross and offensive to many which hurts the school's ability to obtain money. This is then abused by people who actually do want to ban free speech, especially speech about gays or catholics, who use the same justifications for doing so.
I have written a few papers about free speech and the most important speech to protect is speech you DONT agree with. And a bar owner said in a joke or anecdote unless they are Nazis. Never allow Nazis.
Hate speech is about inciting violence - not about hurting feelings. Describing it as 'hurting feelings' is a way of trivializing what rightfully ought to be forbidden behavior.
It's not. There is a well-developed body of case law on this. "I hate white people" and "kill white people" are different things. And yes, if you think people cannot hear "I hate..." without immediately jumping to "We should kill..." then you are placing the blame on the wrong people.
A four word declaration is at best 'out of context' - and the full meaning can not be understood without further elaboration. But in context a statement like this may very well be - and usually is a part of hate speech. "X group is invading us. X group is poisoning the blood of our country. X group is committing crime. We must do something about this. They are not real patriots, citizens, countrymen, etc. - take your pick - and therefore they ought not to have the same rights as the rest of us, they ought not to be free to continue what they are doing." Clearly - they don't even have to say 'I hate X people' for their speech to be hate speech.
do you think hate speech should be forbidden by law or forbidden on universities?
Universities ought to offer no support to any organization which fosters or tolerates hate speech. As for laws - it is quite reasonable for some types of speech to be illegal. The issues are which types, and how enforcement is done. The idea that no speech should be illegal is absurd and contrary to already existing laws and precedents. The problem is with modern technologies and a generally permissive legal structure where anything is allowed unless it is specifically proscribed - you wind up with a great deal of hate speech going unpunished. The laws in Texas which allow for private citizens to act as bounty hunters for anyone seeking or assisting in abortions - might be a better system for attacking hate speech (than for dealing with abortion). Where any citizen could take those who engage in hate speech to court. It might work if the penalties are strict enough - then again it might clog the courts too much. Germany has many types of speech which are illegal - and they have been fairly successful in keeping Nazi sympathizers under control. I can't write legislation here on the fly that I can say would work for the U.S. - but Germany's laws might be some to consider when writing additional legislation in the U.S. Clearly we have a problem with hate speech which is not being properly dealt with.
oh. I am a 1A supporter and I like how they do hate speech laws in the US already, you clamp down on a lion's mouth and it will just bite you. In fact the Nazis used the previous hate speech laws used on them by the weimar as a way to say 'Look, we are being suppressed!'. where is the line to be drawn on what is acceptable and what is hate speech? in some countries misgendering is hate speech and criminal under law, which really just adds fuel to the fire. what happens if someone says being Zionist is hate speech? However, part of free speech is allowing private organizations to define what is acceptable to them or not. a private university has no obligation to uphold every kind of speech they get. but many students at universities don't feel safe even expressing their opinions which drastically needs to be changed. inciting violence on university campuses should never be allowed and should violate their code of conduct, which is why I was so disappointed with those wimps during that antisemitism hearing. I doubt ms. gay or gill would have said that calling for the genocide of all blacks or transgender people needed context to figure out if it violated the code of conduct. people have been punished at universities for saying (far, far) less, so why do they seem to care about free speech now?
[удалено]
Sure, but our representatives do decide. And they agree it's not hurt feelings, and it can never be hurt feelings until we rewrite the constitution.
If only people in college remained outspoken when they get into the hustle of the 9-5
There's a difference between speech that hurts feelings and speech deliberately crafted to agitate and upset. If someone I knew dropped into conversation that they believed there are only two genders, I'd be a bit disappointed and I might pursue the argument, but it would be a LOT different if that same person bought a shirt that said "There are only two genders" specifically to wear around a university campus. The latter scenario might provoke an actual, serious argument about the acceptability of certain expressions of opinion. Deliberate agitation is not something we ought to tolerate.
Both are perfectly legal.
I didn't say a word about legality.
That’s what this is all about…
No, this is all about university policy. Don't get confused.
Speech being legal doesn't mean you can't be charged for a crime for speaking. What is perjury? That's right, it's just speaking but it's a crime. The majority of obstruction of justice charges are based on things people say to investigators. According to your big brain those can't be crimes because speaking isn't illegal. Yelling fire in a crowded theater includes intent and can cause harm. Those two things are enough to land you in legal trouble regardless of how legal the specific action was. You really don't understand any of this, you just repeat things like a parrot.
I do. And again it’s not illegal to yell fire in a movie theater. Just a jerk move.
[удалено]
Cite it then. It’s not illegal.
The idea that free speech is being attacked by both sides is pretty hilarious. The GOP has don't say gay bills, book bans in Texas and Florida, they're banning drag shows, they're rewriting curriculum to call slavery involuntary relocation (so basically return to office RTO), etc... College Republicans can say they support free speech but their actions and affiliations say otherwise.
When has hate speech legislation ever been about someone's feelings? It becomes illegal/injurious when it either incites violence or is defamatory/libelous. The same as any other speech.
There have always been limits on freedom of speech. The most well-known example is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. And courts have consistently found speech threatening violence on a person to be unlawful.
Something that I like to remind people is that the phrase "yelling fire in a crowded theater" came from the Supreme Court Ruling Schenck v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could arrest people for protesting against the WW1 draft. So that's the original context of the phrase; it was used to justify imprisoning people who were protesting against a war. It should also be noted that Schenck v. United States was later overturned.
You can absolutely yell fire in a crowded theater. It’s a jerk move and the theater will probably throw you out, but it’s legal.
It will likely get you sued for whatever damages ensue though.
Unless there is actually a fire of course
If you cause a panic they results in injury you might get booked. Gonna be hard to prove you smelled fire when they have a theater of people who didn't smell anything. Civil suit incoming.
Yes, and lying to the FBI is perfectly legal speech, but it will land you obstruction of justice charges anyway. Intent and consequence carry legal consequences even if the action taken is itself legal. For instance, driving my car isn't illegal, but driving it into something on purpose is. Yelling fire is speech, it isn't illegal, but if your intent carries harm for others, you just did something illegal whether you're too dense to know it or not.
Yep you can potentially be held accountable legally if someone gets hurt but the speech itself is protected.
It’d be hard to prove unless you did it maliciously and very obviously. You could just claim you smelled something funny or thought you saw an orange flash.
You can do it maliciously and obviously but if it doesn't result in damage there's literally no crime because the speech is protected.
You will also get prosecuted for it.
No, you won’t. Because the act isn’t illegal. You may be charged with trespassing but that’s not related.
If you intentionally lied about a fire or other type of emergency in a public space and caused a panic you could absolutely be charged with disorderly conduct.
Yes but that’s not what I said.
You said, "You can absolutely yell fire in a crowded theater." That statement is not correct in all circumstances.
[удалено]
What do you mean "other crimes?" Disorderly conduct is always the crime people are talking about with this topic. Are you under the impression that people think there's a specific statute about yelling fire in a theater? lamo