General Discussion

Xithras

(16,191 posts)

54. Mohammed was a mentally ill pedophile. <-- That's not hate speech.

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:06 PM

Jan 2015

It's an OPINION. There is a difference.

Part of the problem with the argument today is that we have allowed people to redefine "hate speech" to include speech that merely offends. The original definition of hate speech was text or images that are designed to INTIMIDATE a group, or to provoke hatred against them. A cartoon Mohammed, or a statement that Jesus Christ was as real as Santa Claus, does neither of those.

Charlie Hebdo did not engage in hate speech. They did not whip people into a frenzy of hatred against Muslims, and certainly didn't advocate violence against them. They simply published things that some Muslims disagreed with and were offended by.

OFFENSIVE speech is the most important kind there is. It is the kind we liberals must be most vigilant in protecting.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

76 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What is the proper response to hate speech? [View all] philosslayer Jan 2015 OP

More speech. Including derision and ridicule when appropriate (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #1

DU locks and hides speech all the time RobertEarl Jan 2015 #8

DU is a private website, not a government REP Jan 2015 #9

So we can put you down as no problem with limiting speech? RobertEarl Jan 2015 #21

We can put me down as knowing what a private website is REP Jan 2015 #25

Newspapers and TV news programs aren't government run in USA either. MADem Jan 2015 #67

Nope. Was your OP referring to hate speech on DU? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #13

Interesting... whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #15

Wow. Why are people having so much trouble with this? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #24

So you wouldn't advocate censoring whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #33

There's a big wide world out there outside of DU. (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #41

You didn't answer if you find any censorship of hate speech (outside DU) acceptable whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #49

I agree with NuclearDem Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #59

You wrote: RobertEarl Jan 2015 #17

More speech outside the confines of private websites and forums, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #29

Are you clear yet? RobertEarl Jan 2015 #42

You're right. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #45

Right you are RobertEarl Jan 2015 #48

No, it doesn't. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #53

No it is not--Locking and Hiding are forms of speech--not censorship MADem Jan 2015 #69

Last I checked, Skinner and MIRT didn't have the power to fine you or throw you in prison. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #32

Yeah RobertEarl Jan 2015 #37

Bingo. nt cwydro Jan 2015 #63

The answer is always MORE SPEECH REP Jan 2015 #2

The cartoons were really hateful. I hardly think we need more of that shit. CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #6

So, should we have denounced the Zombie Nativity scene that included Zombie Baby Jesus? geek tragedy Jan 2015 #7

You can call it hate speech, but that won't make it into hate speech REP Jan 2015 #14

Leering, grotesque caricatures engaged in lewd acts CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #30

speech is not allowed on a 'do we need that' basis geek tragedy Jan 2015 #35

I don't want to restrict free speech CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #58

Neither one of us gets to decide that REP Jan 2015 #47

I'm not trying to decide for them CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #51

Who's this "we"? REP Jan 2015 #57

And I clearly wasn't trying to speak for you CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #65

Impiety towards your deity is irreverence, not hate speech REP Jan 2015 #3

And what is "impiety" to religions not yours, including gross sexual references? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #4

How in the fuck would any person be able to know all the things that might be 'impious' to some Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #16

Why do you not ask the fellow who raised the question, why hound me with gratuitous vulgarity? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #20

Still impiety. REP Jan 2015 #19

One mans impiety is another man's hate. philosslayer Jan 2015 #26

Wrong. Impiety is directed at a set of beliefs. Hate is directed at people. Coventina Jan 2015 #31

Now your sophomoric attempts have been exposed, you're trying to deem blasphemy against geek tragedy Jan 2015 #34

You don't get to define it, either REP Jan 2015 #39

blasphemy is not hate speech. learn the difference. geek tragedy Jan 2015 #5

This, a billion times. REP Jan 2015 #22

Can we do so to the Jewish religion? RobertEarl Jan 2015 #28

Judaism REP Jan 2015 #36

A Family Guy episode this past XMAS portrayed Jesus as a player... Drunken Irishman Jan 2015 #66

We can do so to any religion. But you instantly went after the believers in the religion not the Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #38

What is the answer to all of the above seveneyes Jan 2015 #10

More speech. First you have to make a case that mockery and derision of a religion is 'hate speech' Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #11

As an atheist, my life is blasphemous. MineralMan Jan 2015 #12

Can we make fun of atheists? RobertEarl Jan 2015 #27

Sure, as far as I am concerned. MineralMan Jan 2015 #40

Don't take it personal RobertEarl Jan 2015 #43

Life of Brian is also hate speech. Are atheist billboards hate speech? alphafemale Jan 2015 #18

No, it wasn't CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #44

Is this hate speech? alphafemale Jan 2015 #50

No CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #55

It was to portray the most extremist, violent Muslims in a demeaning manner. alphafemale Jan 2015 #60

Life of Brian is not hate speech. egduj Jan 2015 #71

I don't thing Life of Brian is hate speech. But some do. alphafemale Jan 2015 #72

Blasphemy is a victimless crime. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #23

I don't see how this changes anything LittleBlue Jan 2015 #46

I think yopu need to learn what hate speech is. HERVEPA Jan 2015 #52

Mohammed was a mentally ill pedophile. <-- That's not hate speech. Xithras Jan 2015 #54

He satirized a lot more than Islam TexasMommaWithAHat Jan 2015 #56

Charlie did not engage in hate speech. I challenge your precept on point Jan 2015 #61

Well, obviously not wholesale slaughter. MADem Jan 2015 #62

One thing that is not a proper response is victim blaming (nt) LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #64

Speech restrictionists are far more dangerous than those who draw pictures of fictional characters tritsofme Jan 2015 #68

Charlie Hebdo is a hate speech rag. egduj Jan 2015 #70

Define "hate speech". Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #73

One might imagine your augment against Volatire is absurd and lacks rational thought. I certainly LanternWaste Jan 2015 #74

Criticism and ridicule are equivalent to hate speech?? prayin4rain Jan 2015 #75

I disagree with you, Hebdo did NOT engage in hate speech- political/ religious cartoons are NOT hate Sunlei Jan 2015 #76