What if any limits should be placed on freedom of speech?
It has been well established you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater and claim free speech (that isn't actually on fire). So free speech is limited when it may physically injury others such as in the "FIRE" example.
What other limits are acceptable?
Hate speech in which the objective of the speaker is to intimidate, harm, kill or drive out minorities by using virulent and invidious lies and propaganda.
Fair enough, but whom decides what is hate speech?
Whom decides on what the speakers objective is?
The hater or the hatee ???
I bet you I can find many many instances of things that I find Hate speech that you will not and vice versa......
No doubt we would disagree on what is hate speech.
this would be a waste of valuable court time.
I say no censorship of speech.
Hate speech is very recognizable and takes care of its own demise. Most people are quite astute at ignoring it, with no need for big brothers help.
Most folks aint snowflakes
On the contrary that would be a valuable expenditure of court time. That is precisely the time courts are most valuable.
You ought to tell the millions of victims of genocide, pogroms and lynchings that hate speech takes care of its own demise.
Speech is broader than words. Burning a flag is an act but it is also speech. Nazis demonstrating is an act but it is also speech.
Speech leads to those atrocities. It is the sine qua non of the violence and murders.
Ok Jake so you want to limit some speech cause you don't agree with it but Keep other speech cause you do agree with it.
Don't deny the Holocaust, but Ok to burn flags.
I am not a big fan of either but folks are free and should be free to do both as long as they do not injure others.
I dont care about flags, but there was an attempt to rewrite history that had to be stopped that did have the potential to do great harm to those who deserve reparations and potentially would also deny punishment to those who need to be punished.
Are you advocating trolling and abusing people?
"Are you advocating trolling and abusing people?"
Simon I don't advocate or stand against trolling. The way you are equating this with "abusing people" is open to interpretation.
NO i don't agree with beating your kids and locking your spouse in a closet.
However, I do not see the Gov't as being responsible to keep folks from hurting other folks feelings. Quite frankly the Gov't is not really very good at doing this without huge unintended consequences.
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The term 'hate speech' is used to abridge the Right of Free Speech.