I find all racial epithets extraordinarily offensive.

[Wella]

However, I would not want to see them outlawed. That would lead us into speech censorship, which is a violation of the First Amendment.

[boston bean]

1. Who is saying to outlaw any word? Is there some proposed legislation somewhere... anywhere?

[uppityperson]

2. Is someone asking for laws to be passed to limit use of some words?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

3. Huh, outlawed? Is the teaparty up to being stupid, again?

[Wella]

4. I can't speak for anyone on the right side of the aisle, and, increasingly, not for my own party

But I think it's important to understand when you label something "hate speech" and punish people for it you are de facto censoring. No one should use racially charged language: it's simply not decent. But even the indecent shouldn't be illegal.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

5. But who said it was to be illegal, am I missing something? Are you referring to something

that you left out?

[Matrosov]

43. Perhaps it's in reference to OU

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

44. Yes, but what does that mean? Since nobody has EVER suggested we outlaw speech

i guess we will never know as the OP wont answer

[Matrosov]

49. It seems some people view expulsion as outlawing speech

While I can't speak for OP, I get the feeling from many of the online discussions about the racist chants at OU that quite a few people equate expelling the offending students with outlawing hate speech and violating the First Amendment.

Obviously expelling the students from a university is not the same as having the government charge them with a hate crime and locking them up, yet it seems many equate 'freedom of speech' with being able to say whatever you want and not having to worry about any negative consequences.

[Bjorn Against]

6. Just because something is labeled hate speech does not mean people are punished for it

You do realize that hate speech is not illegal don't you?

[Wella]

9. Actually they are: both legally and socially

If I spray paint a ladybug on your house, I am charged with a misdemeanor and do community service and a fine for a first offense.
If I spray paint a racial symbol on your house (or something that can be interpreted that way), I can be charged with a felony under Federal hate crimes statute.

So yes, there is legal punishment connected with it.

And socially: that you can see in the media.

[Bjorn Against]

12. Vandalism is not free speech

You are confusing hate speech and hate crimes, they are not the same thing.

Vandalism is a crime which is not protected by the first amendment.

Just as there is a difference between first and second degree murder based on the motives of the killer there is also a difference between a girl who draws a lady bug on her locker with magic marker for fun and a neo-nazi who spray paints swastikas on a synagogue to intimidate the members of that synagogue.

[Scootaloo]

27. No, actually, they're not

Crimes motivated by hate are punished more harshly. This does not make hate speech illegal, it only adds stricter sentences to actual crimes.

It's sort of like how there's several degrees of homicide, all determined by intent of the killer.

[geek tragedy]

42. The harm that results from a crime may be considered in establishing the punishment

Burning a cross on someone's lawn is far worse than toilet papering a tree in their yard.

If you do not understand why this is, you know nothing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. No-one is proposing a law, as far as I'm aware

however universities expelling students for their use of racist language is not something that this applies to. The First Amendment says that the government can't restrain your speech or pass laws doing so; that doesn't mean you're free to go and be loudly racist wherever you want without consequences. Some of those consequences may include expulsion from school, or being fired.

[HereSince1628]

8. Wondering? Do you think slander and libel should remain offenses?

And if you do, how as offenses are they qualitatively different from hate speech/verbal abuse?

[Wella]

10. False equivalence.

.

[HereSince1628]

11. Ok, but do you believe libel and slander should remain offenses?

[Wella]

13. Not helping you with your false equivalence argument.

Sorry.

[HereSince1628]

15. So you post on a discussion board to educate others

to your opinion, but you don't want to discuss it.

Ok.

[Wella]

16. No, I post to hear intelligent comments of others

I'm willing to listen if you'd like to make one.

[Bjorn Against]

18. That poster did make an intelligent comment and you blew it off

If you are going to call it a false equivilance then explain why it is a false equivilence.

Personally if I were a minority I would much rather have people slander me than spray paint swastikas on the side of my house. Hate crimes are a more serious offense than slander in my opinion so I am not seeing where the false equivilence is.

[Wella]

23. The poster was given a response.

The poster didn't like the response.

[Bjorn Against]

26. Crying "false equivilence" without even explaining how it is a false equivilence is not a response

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Here is demonstrating that you are not an absolutist on free speech

You have exceptions to the rule of "say anything." Or maybe you don't. But if you believe in slander and libel exceptions, then you have exceptions. If you believe in "clear and present danger" exceptions, then you have exceptions. What about incitements to riot? Do you believe that sort of speech should be criminal? If you have exceptions, then you agree that - minimally - we can, as a society, socially negotiate exceptions to the absolute freedom of the individual to say anything to anyone at anytime without legal intervention or sanction. It seems that you don't want to admit that, since then you'd have to discuss why a hate speech exception (like spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue rather than a lady bug) is somehow different from an incitement exception.

Or, you'd have to explain why you're so agitated at this particular moment about specific racial slurs being punished by public entities like public universities. Because that's what this is about for you, right?

[Wella]

17. You've proven nothing.

You're just throwing questions around and trying to see what sticks.

[Bjorn Against]

19. Why don't you answer the questions?

You have not proved anything in this thread yourself and refusing to answer legitimate questions is not helping your argument.

[Wella]

21. The statement in the OP is self-explanatory

Answering unrelated questions is of no value to the argument.

[Bjorn Against]

24. The statement in the OP is completely baseless

Hate speech is not illegal as has been pointed out to you by more people than just myself.

After it was pointed out you tried using the different examples of how vandalism was prosecuted as an example, but you failed to understand that property damage is not a first amendment right.

The only thing your OP clearly explained was that you are very ignorant.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. You are unable to debate because you have a childish,

uninformed, and contradictory opinion on this topic. As soon as you start answering questions, your position will crumble, and you actual motives will become clear. So continue to dodge.

[Wella]

22. When you provide the evidence of your claim, then we can have a real debate

Until then, it seems to me, you just want to spout off emotion. That's not debate.

[Bjorn Against]

25. And exactly what evidence have you provided of your claim?

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. We're debating principles - the test is internal consistency

Your stated principles are not consistent. You masquerade as a free speech absolutist when it comes to racial slurs and hate speech. If you have exceptions, you are not an absolutist. So the question is very simple: are you a free speech absolutist? Is your position consistent? If you answer the questions posed above, we can determine whether your position is consistent. If you refuse to answer those questions, we must assume that you CANNOT answer them, or you WILL NOT, because your position will be exposed as an inconsistent farce.

Your position is so childish that you can't even construct the proper means of demonstrating it.

But I'll play your game anyway. What kinds of evidence would you like to see for my questioning of your claims? Since I am only trying to determine the consistency of *your* position (which you refuse to engage), I'm curious about what kind of evidence you'd like me to provide. Here's a clue: first you have to determine what you think my claim is.

[bettyellen]

32. Oh dear, there is no punishment for hate speech- hope you feel better now, lol.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. Here's a LOLZ for you - Results of Jury

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sat Mar 14, 2015, 07:00 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Huh, outlawed? Is the teaparty up to being stupid, again?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6361692

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calls DU member stupid. Tea Party did not create this OP, therefore he did not mean to call Tea Party. stupid

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 14, 2015, 07:13 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bit of a stretch there, alerter
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grow up.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the alerter misunderstood the post.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Over the top personal accusation.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, they did not write as the alert said. For some reason I suspect this alert is for other reasons than the words written in the alert.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Huh? Seems the poster is asking the OP if something occurred involving teabagger stupidity that lead to the OP's argument, not that the poster is calling the OP "stupid". Think the alerter misinterpreted the intent of this post.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

34. It is official, silencing me and those like me is very important to certain people.

[BumRushDaShow]

35. I have seen that

I don't have as much time to devote to full blown participation in many of the threads (am bouncing around between this and 3 hobby sites that I frequent), but the past week has been pretty brutal... And the troll count has escalated of late.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

36. More proof that allowing liberal voices to be potentially silenced by rightwingers is simply

not acceptable.

This isnt a test run, we are up against very serious consequences if Scott Walker or Jeb Bush takes the WH, so many things we take for granted are gone if that happens.

Ferguson is a symptom of nationwide, rampant institutional racism that exists EVERYWHERE which is why to deny it would exist in the SS is to deny it exists anywhere.

The stakes are high, i guess if I am eventually kicked out of DU for supporting the Democratic Party and liberal ideologies, I will find somewhere else to express them.

[BumRushDaShow]

39. The GOP weakness

is that in order to make it through their primary, they have to go stark raving lunatic.. after which they are forced to flip-flop to appear "moderate" to appeal to the rest of the nation. The critical piece for Democrats is to re-take their states in order to control the policies, the redistricting, and many of the matters that directly impact people where they reside.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

40. I cant find a single liberal radio or tv person who doesnt understand that the Bill Kristol/Hillary

email story is bullshit and is a rightwing story to hurt Hillary.

Fortunately the vast majority of Americans are noticing, they are trying to pay bills

[BumRushDaShow]

47. As spring moves to summer

the general public will tune them out even more. They have seen that worn-out playbook before.

[Number23]

50. You nailed it.

the past week has been pretty brutal... And the troll count has escalated of late.

It's been way longer than a week! DU somehow manages to keep going down. Shedding genuine posters right and left, particularly ones with melanin, and like you said meanwhile the troll count keeps going up and up. No wonder that the most gleeful posters here now are always the anti-Obama, anti-Dem variety. They must love what this place has become.

[BumRushDaShow]

54. You would think that Discussionist

would have siphoned some off but alas...

[Bobbie Jo]

46. Wut

was that?

[BumRushDaShow]

48. I call it an "ad hominem alert".

Jury duty for it was the first thing I got when I logged into DU this morning.

[trumad]

30. Strange Op dude...

Seems like a all hat and no cattle situation.

[bettyellen]

31. Did you misread somewhere that someone wants to outlaw them? Poor dear-

You seem quite confused. Maybe a bit of research on the topic before posting would have helped.

[treestar]

33. I don't think outlawing is on the table at all

We're discussing it as a matter of politeness. Or whether it reveals a person to be a racist. Or whether it impacts on whether or not there is racial equality.

[Rex]

37. Yep, thanks for the reminder.

We got to take the bad with the good.

[stevenleser]

38. You've managed to argue something no one disagrees with and against a law no one is proposing.

This might be a good time for a strategic self delete.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

41. Maybe the point is while they wouldnt use the words they want others to be able to freely

do so and with little or no repercussions?

I can only guess, since the OP wont explain to us what they mean

[gollygee]

45. Super strawman

No one has said any language should be made illegal.

[Kalidurga]

52. Actions have consequences

we can argue if those consequences are fair or not fair. But, we can't argue that people don't have a right to be offended when someone freely uses their speech to be offensive. I have no problem with a university expelling students for using racial epithets, or someone being fired for using racial epithets, or for someone breaking up a friendship over racial epithets. None of those things are censorship or making free speech illegal.

[nomorenomore08]

53. No one I'm aware of is being thrown in jail for using racial epithets. So this seems like a strawman

Or do you think there should be no consequences at all - like, say, expulsion, losing one's job, etc.? These have nothing to do with "free speech" BTW - the First Amendment is about government censorship and/or legal punishment, not social or professional sanction.

For the record, I'm pretty absolutist when it comes to free speech, and I think only direct, specific incitement to violence should be illegal. But freedom from government censorship never has and never will mean freedom from criticism - demanding the latter is a violation of others' freedom of speech.