Why Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech By George Lakoff

[elleng]

'Freedom in a free society is supposed to be for all. Therefore, freedom rules out imposing on the freedom of others. You are free to walk down the street, but not to keep others from doing so.

The imposition on the freedom of others can come in overt, immediate physical form — thugs coming to attack with weapons. Violence may be a kind of expression, but it certainly is not “free speech.”

Like violence, hate speech can also be a physical imposition on the freedom of others. That is because language has a psychological effect imposed physically — on the neural system, with long-term crippling effects.

Here is the reason:

All thought is carried out by neural circuitry — it does not float in air. Language neurally activates thought. Language can thus change brains, both for the better and the worse. Hate speech changes the brains of those hated for the worse, creating toxic stress, fear and distrust — all physical, all in one’s neural circuitry active every day. This internal harm can be even more severe than an attack with a fist. It imposes on the freedom to think and therefore act free of fear, threats, and distrust. It imposes on one’s ability to think and act like a fully free citizen for a long time.

That’s why hate speech imposes on the freedom of those targeted by the hate. Since being free in a free society requires not imposing on the freedom of others, hate speech does not fall under the category of free speech.'>>>

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/45717-focus-why-hate-speech-is-not-free-speech

[X_Digger]

1. Oh look, the literal goddamned word police.

Fuck that noise.

The answer to bad speech is good speech.

[unblock]

2. And sometimes the answer is making an editorial decision

to cut out certain speech.

Once upon a time, fringe elements were given a scant mention but otherwise ignored.

The world isn't better off because they got more airtime

[FBaggins]

3. This isn't just wrong... it's ridiculously, dangerously wrong

All nine Supreme Court justices recently agreed on this.

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. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence.

Keep in mind that the majority will always have the power to define what constitutes "hate speech".

If the First Amendment doesn't protect hate speech... then it no longer protects any speech that the then-current majority elects to outlaw.

[cilla4progress]

4. I disgree

Speech associated with historical violence or genocide perpetrated against a group, or that professes the same in the future, can be clearly delineated as not protected.

[WinkyDink]

6. Then the United States would be fundamentally altered. Are you British? Canadian? We in the US

have a Constitution.

[cilla4progress]

7. I think this is a legitimate interpretation of

1A. Much like yelling fire in a crowded theater. The right is not unfettered.

[WinkyDink]

5. Quackery. And just who do you think would be defining "hate speech" right about now, huh? DJT?