General Discussion

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

68. How do you determine intent behind what someone says?

Mon Jan 30, 2012, 01:58 AM

Jan 2012

And it's not just 'literally' true that speech in and of itself is not capable of negating anyone out of existence, it is also literally true, without quotes.

Are there potential societal effects to speech? Absolutely. But the answer to speech we don't like, or that we don't like the effects of, is more speech. Censorship- the censoring of any speech- is the first step on the road towards totalitarianism; that's why I said that, despite being from a Jewish family that had relatives in the camps in WWII, even, I understood that to let the Nazis march in Skokie was a defeat for them. Censoring them, conversely, paradoxically, would have been an endorsement of their approach to things.

Words are powerful, which is one of the many reasons why the 1st Amendment is so important. Free speech is only as good as the right of the person you MOST don't want to hear, to be heard.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should Free Speech include Hate Speech? [View all] BrentWil Jan 2012 OP

I don't know if there is a "best" jberryhill Jan 2012 #1

Hate crimes become hate crimes because of the addition of hate speech, right? MerryBlooms Jan 2012 #2

But that is considered a factor in the intent of the hate crime, not the speech itself. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #5

Speech can definitely be a mitigating factor. MerryBlooms Jan 2012 #30

Intent Sgent Jan 2012 #86

Yes. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #3

Only if I get to decide what is hate speech. FreeJoe Jan 2012 #4

It is a slippery slope JitterbugPerfume Jan 2012 #6

Normally the courts, as with all speech NT BrentWil Jan 2012 #17

We assassinated American citizens for their al Qaeda supporting web site. Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #7

At set it as an extreme... BrentWil Jan 2012 #10

Pass the popcorn Hugabear Jan 2012 #8

I enjoy my threads... BrentWil Jan 2012 #12

I enjoy my threads as well. I've got this one t-shirt that's like 35 years old... HopeHoops Jan 2012 #16

I think the real cure for hate is knowledge, thus the founders had wisdom. napoleon_in_rags Jan 2012 #9

THIS ^^^^^ (well said!) Moostache Jan 2012 #13

Yes, of course. cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #11

No Constitutional expert here, but it's obviously a much debated and fluid set of standards. pinto Jan 2012 #14

Unless it includes a direct threat, then yes, it should be allowed. HopeHoops Jan 2012 #15

you can be verbally assaulted- words do have power Bluerthanblue Jan 2012 #18

That's a pretty stupid and unenforcable idea... JSnuffy Jan 2012 #21

That was hurtful dems_rightnow Jan 2012 #22

Good lord... JSnuffy Jan 2012 #25

verbal abuse can result Bluerthanblue Jan 2012 #46

Because children on the receiving end of abuse internalize it. TalkingDog Jan 2012 #49

If you can really believe that becoming an "adult" Bluerthanblue Jan 2012 #53

Actually quite the opposite. My mother had bouts of paranoid schizophrenia and BPD. TalkingDog Jan 2012 #75

Oh and ... really Sigmund Freud? Really? TalkingDog Jan 2012 #77

That is absolutely untrue... JSnuffy Jan 2012 #50

some people think a picture of a naked boob on the internet is an "assault" Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #34

a picture of someones breast on the internet isn't Bluerthanblue Jan 2012 #47

Touching and spitting on are not speech, in fact can technically be considered assault Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #48

I didn't make the point I was trying to very well- Bluerthanblue Jan 2012 #58

Okay, but for one, that is not just difficult, it's basically impossible to determine. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #59

a decent definition of what Bluerthanblue Jan 2012 #60

How do you determine intent behind what someone says? Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #68

Perfect Illustration of the Slippery Slope Argument Against. Terry_M Jan 2012 #38

I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist. Xithras Jan 2012 #19

oh? provis99 Jan 2012 #39

Supreme Court has already settled this: You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. TalkingDog Jan 2012 #52

Do you support the Citizen United Decision, then? BrentWil Jan 2012 #55

No more limitations, thanks. X_Digger Jan 2012 #20

I agree. What is your thoughts on Citizens United? BrentWil Jan 2012 #56

I'm ambivalent, to tell the truth. X_Digger Jan 2012 #61

can you yell mzteris Jan 2012 #23

The Supreme Court has pretty much nullified the 'fighting words' objection to speech Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #26

I didn't say "piss people off" mzteris Jan 2012 #29

making a direct threat isnt protected. Being a bigot is protected. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #33

Yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater Viking12 Jan 2012 #31

Of course you can yell fire in a crowded theater. NYC Liberal Jan 2012 #43

This message was self-deleted by its author X_Digger Jan 2012 #62

Judith Butler's Excitable Speech: The Politics of the Performative is instructive re: hate speech tishaLA Jan 2012 #24

The 1st Amendment protects the speech of bigots, assholes and shitheads, too Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #27

Popular speech needs no protection- by it's very nature. n/t X_Digger Jan 2012 #64

IMO society has the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #28

But SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2012 #37

Who decides what constitutes 'intolerant' RZM Jan 2012 #63

Your speech is intolerant if it terrorizes another group of people, AKA, Hate Speech. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #70

It's hard enough to come up with a definition of 'terrorism' RZM Jan 2012 #72

So anything that frightens people can be banned? Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2012 #78

Agree 100% n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2012 #82

Gee we can't determine acceptable words here - see the meta discussions Broderick Jan 2012 #32

If we were to ban "hate speech" outright, all we would succeed in doing is . . . markpkessinger Jan 2012 #35

+1 Far better to have it in the open where it can be confronted for what it is. Yup. BrendaBrick Jan 2012 #79

Very good question and I may be flamed for this... Honestly. IF you want Freedom of Speech REAL Justice wanted Jan 2012 #36

I actually think most people here agree with that assessment. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #40

Voltaire didn't say it (one of his biographers did)- but it does summarize his position nicely. X_Digger Jan 2012 #66

Thank you. I always thought he said that. Justice wanted Jan 2012 #81

Isn't that ProSense Jan 2012 #41

I like our system, but I respect the right of other nations to do differently Hippo_Tron Jan 2012 #42

Putting someone in jail for their words is ludicrous. MrSlayer Jan 2012 #44

Yes. And jail time for speech alone is abhorrent. NYC Liberal Jan 2012 #45

How anyone who posts on a political bulletin board former9thward Jan 2012 #51

Someone is suggesting that? BrentWil Jan 2012 #57

You want it discussed. former9thward Jan 2012 #67

Yes... BrentWil Jan 2012 #85

I wouldn't want to empower the state to define the difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech Douglas Carpenter Jan 2012 #54

Yes, in my opinion, free speech should include hate speech. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #65

Yes with the exception of death threats or calling for or encouraging the death of someone NotThisTime Jan 2012 #69

YES. Iggo Jan 2012 #71

Yes it should Marrah_G Jan 2012 #73

USA! USA! USA! We are the best!!!! Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #74

"Hate speech" is primarily a euphemism for "Free speech I want to see banned". Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2012 #76

The German laws banning Holocaust denial are ill-conceived, in my opinion. Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #80

Rick Santorum is elected President justiceischeap Jan 2012 #83

Free speech should always be protected Terra Alta Jan 2012 #84

Reluctantly, I would say yes. Jack Sprat Jan 2012 #87