Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 40% Of Millenials Say The Government Should Be Able To Step In And Censor Peoples Speech If It Is [View all]Yorktown
(2,884 posts)53. Here a report by UK Channel 4 two days ago
In it, radical Mulism women advertise the ISIS caliphate in private 'Tupperware' sessions.
Is it free speech?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
40% Of Millenials Say The Government Should Be Able To Step In And Censor Peoples Speech If It Is [View all]
liberalnarb
Nov 2015
OP
I guarantee that if they were permitted, the first prosecutions for "hate speech" in this country
Nye Bevan
Nov 2015
#12
There is no right to not be offended, and no law prohibiting the taking of offense.
JonLeibowitz
Nov 2015
#45
This isn't the public square. This is a club, a private website, a place with owners who have
MADem
Nov 2015
#75
Not always. Some alerts can 'cleverly' point to a post which can only offend out of context
Yorktown
Nov 2015
#82
Uh, no, they aren't, not in the context of free expression of ideas that someone else may not like.
Warren DeMontague
Nov 2015
#95
A terribly inappropriate analogy. Words and ideas do not become dangerous until
Yo_Mama
Nov 2015
#105
it's hard to prove someone incited violence if they didn't actually incite violence
onenote
Nov 2015
#73
Well, hate speech laws exist in Europe, so they apparently managed to define it
Yorktown
Nov 2015
#51
Except hate speech laws in europe aren't about 'deferred incitement' so try again. That's.. novel.
X_Digger
Nov 2015
#54
My elephants are blue, therefore potato. Feel free to propose your own definition.
X_Digger
Nov 2015
#66
You haven't defined that mushy middle. You've proposed something that's illogical.
X_Digger
Nov 2015
#100
The definition of "hate speech" is subjective and will change dependng on the listener.
Agnosticsherbet
Nov 2015
#103
The establishment thus figures out what candy they can use to lure the new generation...
AZ Progressive
Nov 2015
#10
If 40% of a large population said that blacks and women shouldn't be able to vote...
TipTok
Nov 2015
#110
Hate speech is not "offensive", it is incitement and is illegal in those countries like Germany
Fred Sanders
Nov 2015
#68
You seriously think that the lesson of history is that taking away freedom of speech is a good idea?
Donald Ian Rankin
Nov 2015
#92
For context, here are the figures for some other countries (whole population)
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2015
#112