65
66

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment (washingtonpost.com)

joeycastillo30,male,gay');DROP TABLE flair; が 投稿

全 83 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a

[–]TotesHuman 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (34子コメント)

In case anyone is interested Eugene Volokh is not just some random guy posting his opinions. He's one of the most well respected first and second amendment scholars in the U.S.

[–]pyrespirit 41 ポイント42 ポイント  (33子コメント)

He's also entirely correct.

Speech cannot be outlawed because it makes people uncomfortable, insults them, or hurts their feelings.

But that doesn't mean that it's censorship to campaign for a backlash against the person saying it. As much as it's legal for a person to say hateful things, it's equally legal for me to try and campaign for them to lose their job as a result, lose clients as a result, or any other form of speech against them I may participate in.

The government should not be involved in cases of speech except where that speech rises to the level of incitement to do violence.

[–]Rubykuby 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (19子コメント)

I do not think that someone should be fired for opinions they hold. This happened in the 20s with the Red Scare, where you would potentially be fired if you had any sympathy for socialism.

It goes both ways, really. I don't want to be fired for the opinions I hold, so "bigots" shouldn't be fired for the opinions they hold.

[–]pyrespirit 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (11子コメント)

The fact that something can be misused doesn't serve to invalidate every use of it.

For example, a spokesperson for a company making racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic comments absolutely should lose that job.

[–]Rubykuby -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Anyone expressing politically sensitive personal opinions while representing a company has the risk of being fired, and I don't disagree with that.

What I do disagree with, is what happened to Brendan Eich, who held a personal opinion and was consequently pressured out of his position as CEO, even though he made a public statement that he would not let his personal beliefs and opinions affect any internal or external business of Mozilla.

Anything I do outside of work that is politically sensitive should not be ground to fire me.

[–]joeycastillo30,male,gay');DROP TABLE flair;[S] 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (6子コメント)

If he'd said "I don't believe in same-sex marriage," he probably would have found himself in hot water. But this isn't even that. He said "I'm against same-sex marriage, and I'm contributing to a campaign to break apart same-sex families at Mozilla and throughout the state of California."

In either case, it already has affected the internal business of Mozilla, in that his actions had a direct and detrimental effect on same-sex families working at Mozilla — to say nothing of Mozilla's ability to recruit the best talent. There's a difference between doing something "politically sensitive" and doing something that's actively detrimental to your employees.

[–]blue9254 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

He was representing the company to the public. The public didn't like his expressed views. This was translating to losing (and even more threats of losing) users, clients, developers, etc. His politically sensitive beliefs so offended others that he became unable to do his job. Inability to do one's job is usually grounds for firing, but instead he resigned.

[–]Rubykuby -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So CEOs cannot say, do or think anything without the involvement of the company they work for? I think that's a little far-fetched.

Let's revert the situation. Let's say Eich staunchly supported equality of marriage. Would that personal (political or otherwise) opinion be ground to fire him, if the public disliked that he holds that opinion? And if he were fired for his hypothetical public support of marriage equality, I'm going to wager a guess that this sub and others would call that a violation of his freedom of speech.

But he wouldn't have been fired for such an opinion, because the public and zeitgeist is in favour of marriage equality. But if we let the ability to be able to hold opinions without losing your job depend on whether the current zeitgeist agrees with that opinion... I don't think that's right.

[–]blue9254 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They can't publicly support controversial political opinions without any controversy, no. If he was fired for supporting gay marriage, I'd be mad, but it wouldn't be an issue of free speech. No one's censoring him in that scenario. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a company and the public at large to call for the resignation of someone who publicly supports an opinion that most people, especially in the relevant industry, think makes society worse. Political opinions are neither unchosen nor behaviorally binding, like most protected classes are. That's what differentiates them.

[–]AccusationsGW 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

That depends on the values of your employer, who is entitled to their opinions too.

[–]Rubykuby 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I don't think a politically right employer should be able to deny politically left candidates, or fire employees if discovered to have voted left.

The same goes for any other political topic.

Now if an employee treats black people poorly while on job, for instance, that is excellent reason to fire them. But if for some fucked up reason they hold personal racist opinions that don't affect their workplace, then that is no reason to fire them.

[–]AccusationsGW 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The same goes for any other political topic.

Okay, well that's totally absurd.

I agree that their actual actions are the deciding factor here.

[–]Rubykuby 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Why is that absurd? What determines whether a subject is valuable enough to cross that line? Some might argue that economical right-left politics are much more important than whether some minority can marry, though I'm not sure I'd agree.

[–]AccusationsGW 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I dunno, if you are fundamentally opposed to your company and it's business practices that could be a good reason to fire someone.

But if someone never makes these opinions known I suppose it's not an issue.

[–]Rubykuby 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's just "don't ask, don't tell" in a different coat. I should be able to personally campaign for whatever political goal in my free time without the fear of being fired.

Let's say I'm campaigning for a revision of the law that determines whether someone can legally have their sex/gender changed in their passport, and my boss disagrees with my campaign and consequently fires me. I don't know how that works in America because you have much more workplace mobility, but in the Netherlands that would be outrageous to the point where I could sue my employer and win.

I do not see why it would be right if I were instead campaigning for - I don't know - deporting all non-integrated immigrants (or conversely, opening up the borders further for more refugees). Immigration is a hot topic in Europe, and certainly sensitive and divisive, so it is very possible that my boss might disagree. But fire me over it? That's stupid.

[–]AccusationsGW 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well weather or not it's absolutely acceptable in every possible case, and weather the law should support that, is entirely different from my personal value call on a specific circumstance.

If you're fired for your opinions or actions outside work, I could be outraged or totally indifferent depending on the situation. Good thing I'm not a lawmaker!

[–]iemfi 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It works both ways, if you think it's fine to someone to lose their job over their political views then you have to be fine with people being fired for supporting gay marriage.

It may not violate the first amendment but it goes against the spirit of free speech. And no, saying that it is ok because it's morally right is not an option, it wasn't long ago that supporting anything lgbt related was considered morally wrong.

[–]QueerandLoathinginTO 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (11子コメント)

He's not entirely correct for two main reasons.

First of all hate speech laws have absolutely nothing to do with banning speech which makes people uncomfortable, insults them, or hurts their feelings. They outlaw speech which incites violence or discrimination against marginalized peoples.

Second of all, he makes the common mistake of conflating the political concept of "free speech" with the specific law in one jurisdiction called "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution".

[–]Ghostofazombie 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

First of all hate speech laws have absolutely nothing to do with banning speech which makes people uncomfortable, insults them, or hurts their feelings. They outlaw speech which incites violence or discrimination against marginalized peoples.

You don't know what hate speech is, clearly, as incitements to violence are already illegal.

[–]QueerandLoathinginTO 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That is not correct at all. The USA actually does not have hate speech laws because of the First Amendment. Matt McLaughlin will not be charged with anything, for attempting to start a genocide. If he had tried to do that in Canada where there are hate speech laws, he would be facing criminal charges.

If you would like to learn about hate speech laws, look into such laws in other countries.

[–]Ghostofazombie 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The USA actually does not have hate speech laws because of the First Amendment.

What are you talking about? Did I ever say anything to the contrary?

[–]QueerandLoathinginTO 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes you said that inciting violence against a group is already illegal in the USA. The fact is that religious people talk about how gay men should be put to death all the time and are protected by the First Amendment.

[–]Ghostofazombie 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's not a direct incitement to violence, it's a statement of religious belief about how the laws should function; under a theocratic regime, such killings would be legal executions as punishment for the crime of homosexuality, rather than illegal murders as they are now under secular law. An incitement to violence would be more like "Go kill the next gay person you meet today."

[–]comeonjustonce [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think what he's saying is that that trick wouldn't work in Canada, that's still an incitement to violence. Sort of like that story of that street preacher in Britain I think it was (don't know what they call Britain nowadays, they keep changing it's damn name) who was charged for quoting Leviticus in reference to gay men. They may have only given him a slap on the wrist because Britain is still Christian, barely but it's still Christian, and the response would be the same in Canada I imagine, with anyone inciting violence from out of the bible would get a slap on the wrist. But things are moving in the right direction. At any rate, your lie wouldn't be nearly clever enough to work in either of those two countries, that's only clever enough to fool a few people in the U.S.

[–]BustaHymes 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

hate speech laws have absolutely nothing to do with banning speech which makes people uncomfortable, insults them, or hurts their feelings.

Absolutely not true. Hate speech laws all around the world do this. In fact, they usually specifically use the word "insult" in the written law.

[–]QueerandLoathinginTO 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Even if that claim has evidence to back it up, it isn't universal to all hate speech laws in all jurisdictions. It still isn't an accurate way to talk about the issue. It is intentionally misleading in order to be ideologically convenient.

There is certainly no requirement that "insulting" speech be outlawed in order to outlaw speech which tries to incite discrimination or genocide, so the claim I am objecting to is still patently false.

[–]BustaHymes -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

There's a wiki article on it. Actual hate speech laws all around the world come down to "saying mean words" to or about certain groups. It is criminalizing people's expression of their opinions.

[–]QueerandLoathinginTO 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That is not true at all.

[–]BustaHymes -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah huh

[–]CToxinGender is stupid, lets eat icecream 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

https://xkcd.com/1357/

relevant xkcd is relevant

[–]xkcd_transcriber 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Image

Title: Free Speech

Title-text: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 1398 times, representing 2.2173% of referenced xkcds.

xkcd.com | xkcd sub | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete

[–]Ghostofazombie 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody said we have to like hate speech.

[–]indroraTypeException: object contains no definition for 'gender' 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

One small hole: we did at one point try and define "unpatriotic speech" -- McCarthyism ruled the land for a good long while.

[–]BrianBrecker17 bi cismale with a longing for pizza 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (8子コメント)

It's fine for people to be allowed to perform hate speech as long as they aren't intentionally trying to start violence or conflict. i.e. Having a Neo-Nazi parade in Compton or something like that. XD

[–]Glass_Underfoot 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, that's considered legal too, look up Skokie, where Nazis planned a march through a Jewish neighbourhood where one in six Jewish residents was a holocaust survivor. The courts sided with the Nazis, although they choose to march somewhere else where they could easily get permission.

[–]meldroc 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I hate Illinois Nazis...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktmNEWwH69s

[–]rcinmd 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

No reasonable person would assume a cartoon contest in Texas would incite violence.

[–]spook327 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's a really difficult point to argue when the people organizing the contest brought in extra security for that very purpose.

[–]rcinmd 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Drawing a picture is not a call to arms in the US. It's not illegal to draw pictures of the Mohammed here. By arguing that it's inciting violence to draw a picture while doing absolutely nothing else illegal is taking away another their rights based on other people's religious beliefs. It is no different than arguing getting gay married is "inciting" Christians. It's sad that I have to remind people of this, especially those in a gay political subreddit.

[–]pyrespirit 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A neonazi parade isn't a violent action.

Parades are legal.

Yes, it's tacky to parade in certain places, but it doesn't constitute violent language in and of itself.

[–]ihatenormals 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are referring to the "heckler's veto". The government isn't supposed to support that concept (though it has at various times).

[–]Ghostofazombie 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This criterion would be really easy to turn against us; what would happen if Pride parades could no longer be held in straight neighborhoods because people think we're trying to start a conflict?

[–]rcinmd 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It absolutely is protected speech, as it should be.

[–]CToxinGender is stupid, lets eat icecream 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly, that is just fine. Shits will be shits. I'd rather let it be legal than set a precedent that any form of censorship is legal.

That being said, it only protects them from the government. It is perfectly a-ok for others to censor them: i.e. social media sites banning people for hate-speech, being told to leave a social function, and the good ol' just being told to shut up.

Some states also have laws on verbal abuse and harassment.

[–]inpuMAAB KS:5 BSRI:M30F70A64 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think hate speech should in general be illegal. I think, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to spew their hate in their own churches, in TV interviews, or on street corners. I do think, however, they should not be allowed to picket funerals. That, to me, is intentional psychological cruelty against specific persons, committed not to voice an opinion but to inflict emotional pain.

Edit:typo

[–]corathus59 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Lord knows, I find most of the speech of the religious right hateful. Doesn't mean I get to silence their sermons. And they don't get to silence me.

[–]comeonjustonce 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Don't worry. One day soon everything they say will be edited out of everything everywhere like saying 2 + 2 = 5 isn't allowed in schoolbooks anywhere in the world. All of those thousands of years of censorship they engaged in, all of their attempts to bring censorship back again, will be repaid to them 1000x fold.

[–]corathus59 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

If you approve of that, you are every bit as evil as they are, and the two of you deserve each other.

[–]comeonjustonce 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

If you're saying you just as soon associate with a racist, lying, stupid, loud-mouthed, violent, religious straight person as you would associate with me, and I might start thinking you're one of them. You sure you want that?

[–]corathus59 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm saying, if you join them in supporting censorship, you are as bad as them, and I don't want to associate with either one of you. You judge and condemn just like them. You are self righteous, just like them. You are, as you word it yourself, stupid, loud-mouthed, and violent. Plague on both your houses.

[–]comeonjustonce 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

But you're wrong about me being just as bad as them. Censoring me is wrong. Censoring them is right.

You're not going to find any friends in them by saying that all censorship is evil. All of them support censoring us fags, and never ever censoring themselves.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I am just as bad as them. After all, it's been less then two months since I beat the shit out of a straight Christian. He came to my doorstep and threatened to kill me, so I did a bad bad thing and took his ugly face and left it even uglier then it already was, for the rest of his life. Maybe I'm a bad man for that. But I know you're wrong, me and them are not equals, and they know you're wrong, that they and I are not equals, so me and them agree on at least one thing, that you're wrong.

My "house" is pedophiles and drug addicts and Nazis and thieves and Christians, all of them straight besides myself. I consider it my lifelong duty to be a plague on their house, nothing brings me more joy. Maybe if you were a little more interested in being a plague on your own house and a little bit less concerned about making sure that your house is well off, then your house would learn to quit being such a plague on you. Mine has.

Or you can keep trying to handcuff all queers with your sentimentality, right when we finally get the upper hand. I'm sure that could never come back to hurt us, once the religious have the upper hand again.

[–]corathus59 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It is you, and people like you who will shoot down our cause right as we have a real shot at equality and liberty. Gays are gaining rights because so many Christians have seen the validity of our cause, and are standing up for rights. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, and all the other democrats who have stepped up for us ARE Christian. They openly say they are standing up for our rights BECAUSE of their faith.

In case you have forgotten 85% of the country is still Christian. When you start talking about "having the upper hand" and silencing Christians, you will drive away the Christians that are giving us the majority. Any idiot can see that you don't shoot your own allies in the foot right as they are coming out to defend you.

Seriously, I think folks like you have some deep self loathing down inside. Right as we are about to break out into real liberty, you would ruin it all with your bigotry and fanaticism. Free speech brought us here. Free speech is why a majority of Christians now support gay rights. And now, right as we get close to victory, you would silence it?

[–]comeonjustonce -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're wrong, because Christians are starting to support us because they're no longer being beat by their parents into hating us, no longer chased out of town by their church and then tarred and feathered for supporting us. They no longer even have to worry about break-ins anymore, if we're talking about white people, and I assume you are, since you are claiming they support gay rights. They don't even have to worry about dirty drinking water anymore, or earthquakes, all white people homes are so modern and safe they're even safe from forces of nature. Infinite peace and safety breeds in them an infinite fear, so that even a wooden splinter in their finger is life-threatening, and they wouldn't dare offend a homosexual because to offend a homosexual is too scary. Homophobia among western white people arises mostly from 60+ conservatives, who still remember being beat as punishment for being fair to other people, and among teenagers, who are still in PTSD while they're in highschool and determined to carry that highschool culture with them everywhere to prove their loyalty.

You're wrong, because I took certain creative licenses with my words, when we're posting in a thread about supporting the creation of hate speech laws/not creating hate speech laws. I propose that we create as many hate speech laws as possible, my position should be clear from my personality, you support the creation of none.

You're wrong, because in Baltimore, black people maimed riot police, robbed gas stations, set whole blocks on fire, beat random white people, all because cops murdered one innocent black man who's only crimes were being fast on his feet and being paranoid. In response to black people maimed, stealing, burning and beating, those cops will face justice. They wouldn't have otherwise. It was the same way with Rodney King, and other riots. If every single LGBT person took to the street and beat the nearest straight person in response to a trans kid who commited suicide in the news, the teachers, principal, students, parents, preacher, judges and juries that supported that kid killing herself would all face jail time.

You're wrong, because I love myself, so much. You can't imagine how much. However high you've been, or however drunk, or however enlightened you've felt after reading your bible, your high doesn't amount to anything compared to the feeling I get when I realize I exist.

You're wrong, because since the earliest days of the Pride Parades, police have been busting them. Police still bust them in some cities in the U.S. You see, straight people don't think that Pride Parades deserve freedom of speech. It wasn't the bravery of the Freedom of Speech that made those parades possible. It was the bravery of the LGBT people who march in them.

You're wrong, because most Christians still don't support gay rights. Most conservatives still only support conservative parties because of gay marriage and abortion, and abortion is a lost battle already, their last great hope is gay marriage. Conservatives still have enough support that the battles are always close, in fact in some first world countries they still win once in a while. I'm not concerned with what straight people SAY they believe in surveys, where they're so afraid they won't even tell the truth anonymously, I'm concerned with what they DO, where they try to vote against my freedom.

You're wrong, because you're not trying to be right.

[–]comeonjustonce 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is this r/shitthe1%says? Did I click on the wrong subreddit? Maybe this is r/shitstraightpeoplesay? Or r/harvardgraduatesreallycare? Maybe it's r/seanceswiththefoundingfathers? r/fagburnersunite? Why is there a whole thread technologically, virtually, virtual-reality-virtually kissing this man's ass in a queero subreddit? Don't enough Christians worship this man's ass hairs elsewhere on reddit?

Am I the only person here who's been fired for insulting a straight person working alongside me, in response to how they insulted me for being a fag, while they faced no reprocussions? Hasn't anything like that happened to any of you in school too? Because it has to me. Haven't any of you had your genitals fondled by police after hours in a prison because you're just a queer and you like it? Because I have. I dared to say I was innocent, so of course that meant I was just a sex object to some good and righteous Christian straight people. Of course their speech was protected, their free speech is always sacrosanct, but mine? Not so much. Why would I support that system?

[–]owlowlingson 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Isn't this why things like the SPLC hate group classification exist? As a personal opinion I think it's good that everyone can share their thoughts, no matter how awful they are. That way you know which people to avoid, among other reasons.

[–]iridescentcosmicslop22/M 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm playing devil's avocate and don't actually believe this please don't hurt me

Should there be?

If this country was founded partially on the idea of freedom from censorship, then I should be able to walk down the street calling people whatever I want. To stop me from doing so would be censorship, which is against our moral code. No?

[–]rcsheets30's cishet male 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't understand your argument.

[–]Ghostofazombie 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can't harass people or incite violence against them, but otherwise you can say hateful things about anyone you want.

[–]TotesMessenger -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote. (Info / Contact)

[–]Shill_Nyecrazy straw enthusiast 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

eyeroll

[–]ColeYoteKinky gay furry nerd 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's a subreddit that exists?

Why do I use this website again?

[–]MeowsticgoesnyaKittyCat~ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because there's other users here, and most of the other sites that are available you either 1. aren't used to, or 2. don't fit what you want.

[–]The_Messiah 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

lol sounds like someone's in denial about their identity

[–]comeonjustonce -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No wonder out LGBT people are so hateful to closeted LGBT people everywhere. There isn't a website or a social circle irl in the world where you people don't blame all of the world's problems on closeted LGBT people. Of course if you tell a lie like that everyday you're going to fool yourselves into believing them.

Don't associate me with Nazis. Associate yourself if you must, take personal responsibility for what you believe. Instead of saying, "these people are just as bad as all fags!" say, "these people are just as bad as meeee!" That way people will know what you're worth, and you won't be tricking them into disrespecting the rest of us.

[–]theherpsHigh commander of the patriarchy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I-I'm totally not gonna go shitpost there...

Edit: I may have gone to have a little fun. They get soooooo fucking triggered when their little circlejerk is interrupted :DDDDD

[–]CToxinGender is stupid, lets eat icecream 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are also hypocrites.

"We allow dissenting opinions ... fuck off"

So, are we not allowed to discuss things or not? They can't seem to figure that shit out in between hategasms.

I'm all for having a reasonable discussion about gender stuff, but it is kinda hard when one side is unwilling to actually listen.

[–]Rbnblaze 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And here we see the perfect example of both why we should have an exception, and why we shouldn't. We should because this is fucking vile, but we shouldn't because if we set the precedent and these fuckwits gain power all of a sudden it's us who are being censored.

[–]m0llusk -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is an important truth, but there are potential exceptions. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not necessarily protected free speech so much as it is inciting riot. Circumstances matter, and speech can be different from sabotage.