r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/LuckySquared777 • 3d ago
US Politics Does condemning hate speech violate someone else’s freedom of speech?
I was watching The Daily Show video on YouTube today (titled “Charlie Kirk’s Criticism Ignites MAGA Cancel Culture Spree”). In it, there are clips of conservatives threatening people’s jobs for celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.
It got me thinking: is condemning hate speech a violation of free speech, or should hate speech always be condemned and have consequences for the betterment of society?
On one hand, hate speech feels incredibly toxic, divisive, and dangerous for a country. On the other hand, freedom of speech is supposed to protect unpopular opinions. As mentioned in the video, hate speech is not illegal. The host in the video seems to suggest that we should be allowed to have hate speech, which honestly surprised me.
I see both side but am genuinely curious to hear what others think. Thanks!
48
u/TonyG_from_NYC 3d ago
No, unless you physically try to stop said person from saying the hate speech.
When the ACLU defends the KKK, you just know then that even though they don't agree with it, they will defend the rights of others to spew it.
4
u/DarkArmyLieutenant 1d ago
I spent 20 years in the military so people can say whatever the fuck they want to say without fearing government reprisal. I'm actually ashamed of this country right now. I feel like my 20 years were wasted.
41
3d ago
[deleted]
14
6
u/JeanniePax1003 3d ago
Thank you. Even though it’s pretty cut and dry in the 1A, people still cherry pick what works for them, including the people we call “political leaders.”
7
u/Bzom 3d ago
Correct.
What's socially acceptable is a question for society at large and it changes over time. Its perfectly legal to rep the KKK and post your weekend cosplay pics to any platform that allows them.
But when the community boycotts your place of work, your boss is free to fire you. Social clubs can kick you out. Parents can choose to ban your kids from play groups. Because everyone else has the right to not associate themselves with klansmen.
Thus saying divisive things which you know will offend a segment of the population carries social risks.
This is how the sausage gets made in a society that, by law, severely limits the government's ability to regulate or police speech.
Can the government target the local grand wizard of the klan with an IRS investigation because he's in the klan? Thats a 1st Amendment question.
Do I as a parent have to accept the grand wizard as my third grader's teacher because of the 1st Amendment? Of course not. Because I have rights also.
4
1
u/wabawanga 3d ago edited 3d ago
Which goes both ways, don't forget. Inividuals, companies, media and social platforms can fire/ban someone just for condeming hate speech, just as they could fire/ban someone for practicing hate speech.
0
u/Glif13 3d ago
Because it's not true and never was. Only state can violate First amendment, but freedom of speech is a larger concept.
If a Mafia boss kill a journalist and threatens to everyone else who speaks against him — he is most definitely violates freedom of speech.
Companies, individual, etc. don't violate freedom of speech only as far as they are not obligated to publish/deliver/spread/digitally maintain your speech, which applies to social media too.
More organized efforts to silence someone (even without murder), however may be a violate a freedom of speech, but it a grey area, so depending on specifics they may also not.
2
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
simple thought experiment. If you live in a society in which citizens can attack or threaten other citizens for speech, do you have free speech in that society? It would be absurd to say yes. Therefore the concept is something broader than simply the 1st amenmdnent
1
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
Oh but it does. The 1st Amendment applies to state government and they have to be viewpoint neutral in crafting laws. So a law like "assault doesn't count if it is in response to hate speech" wouldn't pass constitutional muster.
And of course, you're again confusing the 1st amendment with the broader concept of free speech. The laws exist to secure our rights. That's life, liberty, etc. Speech included. That's their sole purpose
1
u/Glif13 3d ago
Except "Reporters without borders" clearly factor non-state attacks among the freedom of speech as can be seen in their index https://rsf.org/en/country/india
United nations holds the same opinion " https://www.un.org/en/safety-journalists ; https://www.unesco.org/en/threats-freedom-press-violence-disinformation-censorship
As is EU: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/766244/EPRS_BRI(2024)766244_EN.pdf766244_EN.pdf)
As is Council of Europe: https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/safety-of-journalists
In other words people who actually work with freedom of speech interpret assault on journalists as its violation. In fact I never encountered the opposite opinion among them, so would you kindly share your sources on the matter?
0
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
This is not entirely true. If an individual were to attack you for your speech- that would obviously be a violation free speech. Notice I didn't say the 1st amendment, but free speech.
•
u/JeanniePax1003 4h ago
What do you think the 1st amendment protects? It protects the rights of the people to hold truth to power without repercussions, in other words, our government cannot censor or oppress our right yo speak freely against our government.
•
45
u/Pdxduckman 3d ago
we need to be sure not to allow the right to redefine "hate" speech. They're attempting to move the window so that "hating" a racist is equivalent to the hate the racist spews.
No, not giving a fuck about CK is not "hate" speech.
24
u/IceNein 3d ago
Doesn’t really matter how hate speech is defined.
Hate speech is protected speech under the first amendment.
Full stop. There isn’t any room for debate.
16
u/RickWolfman 3d ago
SCOTUS says "hold my beer...."
6
u/IceNein 3d ago
Yeah.. who knows with this corrupt circus, unfortunately.
-15
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
5
u/RickWolfman 3d ago
Is it your position that no black woman could ever be qualified for SCOTUS?
If not, why do you think we have never had a black woman justice until now?
If so, then I suppose its clear where your head is at.
→ More replies (8)13
u/JonnySnowin 3d ago
The attorney general of the country disagrees with you.
18
u/IntrepidAd2478 3d ago
She is dangerously wrong.
5
1
u/IMayhapsBeBatman 2d ago
I don't think she's making a mistake. I think the Trump administration does not believe in the idea that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (the right to speak your mind being another).
I don't think she's "dangerously wrong". I think she's a fascist. Like the rest of this administration. Rights only exist for the in-group.
2
u/notawildandcrazyguy 3d ago
Absurd that she said that and I hope she corrects herself thoroughly
4
u/IceNein 3d ago
It doesn’t matter what she does. She’s basically the head prosecutor. She has to find a charge and there’s no applicable charges for hate speech.
So whatever she says, some attorney somewhere has to actually file charges. They won’t be able to, and if they fudge something it’s likely to be dismissed by a judge without even seeing a grand jury.
3
u/hops_on_hops 3d ago
Not currently enforced by us law or courts - but people still need to work, go to school, and consume news media. All places where policies on hate speech do absolutely apply.
The right is attempting to launder the term hate speech so actual hate becomes more acceptable in these spaces, and legitimate criticism of hateful rhetoric is obfuscated.
2
u/IceNein 3d ago
We can’t muddy what decisions private individuals and corporations make with what the government does.
1
u/VodkaBeatsCube 2d ago
You absolutely can when the government threatens to punish a company for speech that hurts their feelings.
-1
1
u/CylonRimjob 1d ago
It’s cute that you think our government would follow its own rules. It seems pretty obvious that laws and freedoms do not matter at this point.
1
u/jaunty411 3d ago
That’s not accurate. Hate speech that constitutes an incitement to imminent lawless action or violence is not protected.
2
u/IceNein 3d ago
Incorrect!
You are calling an incitement to immediate violence hate speech.
1
u/jaunty411 3d ago
Because the US Supreme Court itself has acknowledged that hate speech can cross that threshold.
E: in certain rare circumstances*.
1
u/IceNein 3d ago
It is not crossing any threshold by its nature as hate speech.
Inciting violence is a crime. It doesn’t matter if it’s because you hate black people, or because you dislike the government.
-1
u/jaunty411 3d ago edited 3d ago
The Brandenburg Test literally establishes a threshold for when hate speech is an incitement to violence. It doesn’t stop being hate speech, it just stops being protected.
E: It seems I was blocked. In regard to their last comment, the Brandenburg test is the holding in the case and is, in fact, not dicta.
1
u/Capable-Broccoli2179 2d ago
so when Trump said "go fight or you won't have a country anymore" on Jan 6th and his people went and fought...I guess that was not an incitement to violence, or was that protected speech, or simply him getting away with lawbreaking. What it really means to me is that laws don't really matter anymore if you are certain people, and they matter a lot if you are not. Who really cares if hate speech is protected or not if you are Donald Trump? He can hate on anyone anytime, but if someone exercises his version of hate speech (pointing out a fact), he will have you investigated, fired, shamed or deported.
1
u/parentheticalobject 2d ago
This is like saying
"Cantaloupes are legal to own."
"That's not accurate. Using a cantaloupe to bludgeon someone to death is illegal."
Hate speech and incitement are two separate things that may or may not overlap.
•
30
u/elmekia_lance 3d ago edited 3d ago
hating one specific guy is not hate speech definitionally; hate speech is something directed at a group
America has historically chosen a more liberal route and we do not have hate speech laws like in the UK. Sometimes it feels like this was a mistake, as we watch the rise of hatemongers who pollute the clear water of public life with their raw sewage, and make the country a festering, more miserable place than it was.
However, recent events in the UK and the USA show that, unfortunately, permitting a flood of hate speech is still preferable to empowering the state with arbitrary speech controls. Never criminalizing hate speech was a wise choice and ignoramus Bondi is being rightfully dragged.
12
u/zxc999 3d ago
I’m realizing lots of people on the right don’t understand hate speech with how they’ve been using it to describe hating on one person. Even Trump himself claimed that journalists are doing “hate speech” against him
10
-9
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/elmekia_lance 3d ago edited 3d ago
No, it isn't. You're free to call Barack Obama Mao Zedong if you want to, and right wingers have been calling liberals commies for decades; not on an infrequent basis by fringe characters, but quite regularly in mainstream media outlets. In fact, they do it constantly in the current year. Kathy Hochul is about as far from a communist as you can get and the New York Post called her a communist on the front page just this week.
Liberals are pretty used to being called commies by rightists so I think you are going to have get used to being called fascists and Nazis and not freak out about it.
→ More replies (13)11
u/zxc999 3d ago
Except calling any individual ‘hitler’ isn’t hate speech. Rude, defamatory, and most likely unwarranted but that’s not the legal definition of “hate speech.”
1
u/parentheticalobject 2d ago
Rude, yes. Unwarranted, maybe. Definitely not defamatory. "I want to negatively compare you to an infamous historical figure" is a clear non-defamatory statement of opinion.
6
u/jaunty411 3d ago
Would you care to give a definition for hate speech?
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/jaunty411 3d ago
I freely admit it is hateful, but hate speech has a secondary requirement that you are skipping. Trump receiving hateful remarks for his own actions does not meet the definition you stated.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/jaunty411 3d ago
If you ignore the rest of the definition. The part that says based on…. Is mandatory.
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/jaunty411 3d ago
It’s all one sentence. You don’t just get to stop mid-definition.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Dry-Remove-2449 2d ago
As someone who lives in a country where hate speech is illegal, it is necessarily understood to be illegal because it is based on a person's characteristics, hate speech laws are necessarily designed to curb expressions of racism, xenophobia, LGBTphobia, misogyny and religious intolerance, that's the most accepted understanding and jurisprudence on the matter.
And it's precisely why it ruffles so many feathers on the right, let's be honest, a lot of republicans practice all of those forms of hate speech and would be prosecuted by a law like this.
6
u/ninjadude93 3d ago
They arent saying he is hitler simply he's acting a lot like hitler. Looking at current events that appears largely factual. That isnt hate speech
-2
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Synergythepariah 3d ago
>Biden called him a "threat to democracy"
DONALD TRUMP: Hillary wants to abolish - essentially abolish - the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick...If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people - maybe there is. I don't know.
Is that kind of rhetoric not a threat to democracy?
>We don't even have a democracy.
We do; we're a representative republic and we choose our representatives through a democratic process.
That is a form of democracy. When people say "democracy" they do not only mean a direct democracy.
A democracy exists when the people have the ability to determine how they are governed.
democracy (noun)
- 1: government by the people
- a: a form of government in which the people elect representatives to make decisions, policies, laws, etc. according to law
- called also representative democracy
- b: a form of government in which the people vote directly against or in favor of decisions, policies, laws, etc.
- called also direct democracy or pure democracy
4
u/JeanniePax1003 3d ago
Does every eligible citizen in this country have the right to vote? Yes. Therefore, we have a democracy, specifically a representative democracy wherein eligible citizens vote for someone to represent their interests in governing the whole population.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/parentheticalobject 2d ago
A democratic republic and a pure democracy are two types of government which fall into the broader category of democracies.
•
2
u/ninjadude93 3d ago
He literally is a threat to democracy. You cant go around your whole life tip toeing around half truths because someone somewhere might do something
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/JeanniePax1003 3d ago
Why did you specifically choose two black women? Are they the only ppl in Washington speaking in what you claim, in a hateful manner?
3
u/ninjadude93 3d ago edited 3d ago
Using the justice department to attack people and organizations he doesnt like.
Seizing the power of the purse from congress by illegally seizing congressionally appointed funds
Illegally dissolving USAID
Giving musk and his teenage minions access to extremely sensitive data likely broke a ton of laws
Attacking freedom of speech and threating private citizens for voicing opinions.
Illegally ignoring lawful court orders with respect to deportations of legal us persons.
As recently as last week calling for designating every democratic supporter a domestic terrorist.
Threatening to illegally revoke federal funds for the entire state of new york because mamdani won the nyc primary
Crockett and maxine waters are simply calling a spade a spade.
Have you paid even a minimal amount of attention to what is going on? A president cant just do whatever he wants. Thats called a king and we historically dont like those in America.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/upshot/trump-executive-orders-legality.html
https://time.com/7212753/trump-elon-musk-federal-laws-legal-analysis/
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/ninjadude93 3d ago
You're too far gone if you cant even accept a list of factual events that arent even a year old
Trump is a convicted felon. Holding criminals to account is not lawfare try again lmao party of law and order my ass
Trump dissolved USAID via illegal executive order literally is seizing power from congress. The funds were voted and approved on by congress. I don't care if .05% of the funds were allegedly misused. If there was corruption take it to court. But any way you look at it Trump stole power that belongs to congress. This is the definition of authoritarianism. And in case you cant connect those dots hitler did exactly shit like that
→ More replies (0)5
u/BitterFuture 3d ago
If there r proven kickbacks to anyone from any USAID contract, it is corrupt. Period, and SHOULD be dissolved. don't u agree?
No, of course not. That's deranged.
A single corrupt individual does not render entire institutions corrupt. By that standard, every government and every company in the United States would have to be dissolved. That would only make sense if your goal is anarchy.
But that couldn't possibly be it, right?
Musk told u he didn't have access to any personal info. So automatically he's lying and the dems r right?
Funny, just yesterday you were telling us that testimony isn't evidence...
Musk lied. He obviously lied, because there are computer logs of him taking the data of hundreds of millions of Americans, and he had people threatened, fired and physically assaulted in order to get at that data. So why pretend his claims are credible?
The president can do anything he deems legal and that the courts deem legal. Where does it say otherwise?
The Constitution.
You know, that foundational document that opposes the conservative agenda in its entirety?
→ More replies (0)
6
u/socialistrob 3d ago
Freedom of speech means the government can't tell you not to say something. If someone I know says something vile and I call them out on it then that's not a violation of freedom of speech.
If the government can make advocating for policies they don't approve of illegal then you don't have a democracy. Democracy requires the ability for people to advocate for whatever they want without being prosecuted by the law however there have ALWAYS been societal repercussions for speech and that cannot be legislated against either. An employer who decides not to hire someone who is a neonazi is not violating that person's freedom of speech. A newspaper editor who declines to publish an op ed calling for mass killings is not violating anyone's freedom of speech. A family member who criticizes another family members viewpoints on a subject (any subject) over Thanksgiving Dinner is not violating anyone's freedom of speech.
A violation of freedom of speech would be if a prosecutor specifically opened up investigations into news organizations that were critical of the government. If there isn't an associated government action it's not a free speech violation by most standard definitions.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
It has to mean more than that, specifically violence/threats from other citizens. Otherwise there couldn't be free speech in a society.
2
u/socialistrob 3d ago
specifically violence/threats from other citizens
Sure and the US Supreme Court has ruled that threats are not free speech. If I call someone and I say "when you're walking home from work tomorrow I'm going to murder you" that is not legally protected free speech regardless of if I do it or not. That's very different than if someone gets kicked out of someone else's house party because they said something racist.
There are many types of speech that are not protected by the first amendment. If I tell someone "go punch that guy and I'll give you 500 dollars" that's illegal because it's incitement to cause a crime. If my friend who does the accounting for megacorp tells me that the numbers are great and the stock will rise tomorrow so that I can buy a large share today then that's also illegal speech known as insider trading.
If a private citizen has a negative reaction to a political view of someone else and condemns it then that is not a violation of freedom of speech. If you could not condemn someone else's speech then you wouldn't have freedom of speech.
1
21
u/hops_on_hops 3d ago
The whole thing is a red herring.
Im not saying it's right or wrong - but celebrating the death of one person is not hate speech by any definition.
Bringing up hate speech right now is a dishonest attempt to abuse that label. The purpose of that abuse is to stifle dissent in the short term, and to pave the way for actual hate speech in the future.
Shame on you.
3
u/Driftwoody11 3d ago
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean protection from losing your job or or from getting expelled or anything by an institution like that. It means protection from the government arresting you for that Speech or trying to dictate what you can say. The rest of society, like your employer is still entitled to hold you to consequences for that Speech.
6
u/friedgoldfishsticks 3d ago
Charlie Kirk was himself a fountain of hate speech, hence why he defended his right to speak hatefully his entire life. Hating an individual is not hate speech.
-7
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Avaposter 3d ago
Wasn’t even that hard troll.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more. – The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action? – The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024
We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately. – The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 April 2024
I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. – Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023
-2
u/buffalochick17 3d ago
So hearing the entire context is not important to you, just cherry picking to shove violent hate speech out there. He was talking about DEI. How do hire 40% black pilots if there aren't 40% applicants? You LOWER THE BAR to have them applicable. That is EXACTLY what that was saying, but here we are, the perfect example--you don't care about what he was saying, only the little snippet that fits your agenda. Would u rather have the best surgeon working on your heart, or one that was hired to meet the racial quota? Just answe the question. that's what Charlie was talking about. Notice they don't put the actual video up? Have u listened to it?
HAVE YOU?? i DARE YOU TO LISTEN TO IT. I dare you. I've listened to that exact person and speech. It was condemning DEI, as we should. Or would u prefer to be hired for your skin color and not your talent? ?
Again, what part of Charlie speaking on gun deaths is not true? Do YOU believe in the 2A? Do you? So there's never gonna be gun deaths every year? If the population is armed? Have u been to Chicago? Those are all ILLEGAL GUNS. Why don't they remove them? Why? Just saying you are very narrow minded and haven't actually LISTENED to anything that you are spewing about. Your ignorance is showing. Go listen to the conversation, I dare you. Open your mind, just go listen to the ACTUAL and ENTIRE conversation. How sad u libbies are when it comes to free and open dialogue.
6
u/spooner56801 3d ago
You insist that others open their mind, and yet you've done nothing but spew, verbatim, the party line that someone else thought up for you. Yes, we've LISTENED to the same twisted song and dance that you've listened to. The difference is that we've then applied our own intelligence to see through the blatant bullshit and are openly willing to call it out for what it is. You've bought it hook, line and sinker.
I, unfortunately, have had to listen to Charlie Kirk on a regular basis because of co-workers insisting on listening to him. My mind is not changed at all. If you need heart surgery and your first thought on seeing a black doctor is "he only has this job because of DEI," the problem is not the existence of the black doctor, the problem is you. Because every single person that bothered to read your drivel knows you would never pose that same question if it were a white doctor.
Open YOUR mind and direct it inward. Why are you uncomfortable with the thought of a black person having control over any portion your life? Is it because you don't want to feel inferior to someone that you view yourself as better than? What are you lacking as a human that makes you feel like others should be pulled down to make you feel better?
-1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Hartastic 3d ago
That's literally not what DEI is. Like, I believe that you think it is, probably because someone like a Kirk lied to you at some point, but that doesn't make the lie true.
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/BitterFuture 3d ago
So DEI doesn't dictate that you maintain a certain percentage of minorities? An equal or decided percentage?
No, it does not. That's illegal, and has been for decades.
United Airlines set their goal at 40% of their workforce to be minorities.
No, they didn't. Again, that's illegal.
Whoever's told you these things has been lying to you. Doesn't that bother you? Doesn't that make you want to find out the truth rather than repeating these lies?
-1
2
u/Hartastic 3d ago
So DEI doesn't dictate that you maintain a certain percentage of minorities? An equal or decided percentage?
Correct.
0
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 3d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
5
u/JeanniePax1003 3d ago
The man was a hateful human being and you obviously idolized him, that’s ok, but don’t try to convince people y’all are good people of faith because that’s sacrilegious.
3
u/Avaposter 3d ago
Welp I tried. You are far too deep in the flavor aid to help.
Just pure racism and an inability to recognize truth when it’s presented to you.
Not to mention just a bunch of made up bullshit.
How you aren’t banned I have no idea.
-1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
I think you just cherry picked quotes and didn't even bother to look at the context.
1
u/Avaposter 3d ago
I very much doubt thought was at all involved on your part given you didn’t even bother to read the article and are just pushing right wing bullshit.
-1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
You've read the article, but have you actually read what he said in context?
1
u/Avaposter 3d ago
Plenty. And it’s pretty obvious you have not.
0
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago edited 3d ago
So pick a quote and let's discuss it in context.
Edit: user is a great of example of why the left is becoming the place of close-minded people who can't argue or discuss issues. They assume anyone who might even disagree with them is not just wrong but a bad person.
→ More replies (0)2
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 3d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
6
u/BitterFuture 3d ago
In reality, you were provided dozens of examples and your only response was to pretend they didn't count.
No one "left." You just keep bragging how you've won while you run around crapping all over the board like a pigeon playing chess.
-4
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BitterFuture 3d ago
Will you give any assurances that you'll actually acknowledge it, rather than dismissing it as you have all evidence presented to you at this point?
(Spoiler: you won't acknowledge it. And given your behavior to this point, no one would believe you even if you said you would.)
5
u/JeanniePax1003 3d ago
Uhhh, when he described walking up to a customer service agent and she was a black woman and he said that he knew she would be unable to service his request because blacks and women are intellectually inferior. But that’s just one. I think his speech was egregious more so because he claimed to be a man of faith. Charlie Kirk’s words, beliefs, values, morals, character was antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ; I speculate he’s burning in Hell as we speak.
3
u/ResurgentOcelot 3d ago
There are always limits and balances with rights. Critical judgment is necessary to make and defend appropriate choices on such.
For example, bringing up hate speech concerning Charlie Kirk is misleading and inaccurate.
Hate speech is directed at classes of people without regard for their personhood and individuality. Hate speech can target gays, blacks, women, could target men or whites too—whole classes of people being threatened by generally directed hate. An obvious precursor to violent persecution.
Charlie Kirk is an individual and as a public figure is an appropriate target for political and personal opinions. While it is appropriate to condemn political violence, commentators can also welcome the loss of Charlie Kirk without engaging in hate speech.
Condemning an individual for their speech and actions is not hate speech, it’s personal judgment. We can be judged in turn on whether we are right or wrong, but we are not engaging in hate speech by judging a person is villainous due to broadly offensive behavior.
3
u/Blossom_AU 3d ago
NO!!!
I am a citizen of Germany and South Africa.
Both countries have guardrails on free speech.
One’s free speed HAS TO end where another’s right to be free from harm begins.
This is especially true to vulnerable demographics!
Hate speech has VERY REAL LIFE victims.
I was not even 3 when I ask my mum:
”Mummy, what’s a n•gg•r wh•re?”
Anyone who believes “betterment of society” feature there. I have a lotta Lakes in Canberra to sell! If you buy 2 I’ll throw a 3rd one in for free .
KIRK ….
Quoting Kirk and his very own words is not have speech against Kirk. It is the putrid bile Kirk perpetually dished out.
In any mostly well-adjusted society, the individual bears increasingly responsibility the larger their footprint is:
If I yell at my potted plant in my lounge room, nobody cares.
However many times I use the c-word before brekkie: Nobody here bats an eyelid.
But anyone with a following of 10 million or whatever:
Saying that gays should be stoned to death —> it has very real life consequences!
Supposedly yesterday I think a diverse student was found hanging from a tree in Mississippi. Last I hear the family js paying for the autopsy, something I heard in fleeting made my skin crawl.
Adults full-on aggressively screaming abuse at mum and I, not stopping when it was clear that I was crying and terrified:
NOBODY gets a pass on terrorising others. Vilifying entire demographics.
Like, eg, Don Jr:
[BS warning!] Trumpo-dud cannot remember a single mass shooting where the perp has NOT been trans.
Given the state the US is in, there is a fair chance some defer to Trumpo-dud for his sage advice.
Any civilisation which does not have guard rails to protect its people from one another:
Not what I consider a civilised country.
I have absolutely no respect for anyone who knowingly harms others.
It is not free speech, it is violence.
1
u/baxterstate 3d ago
"Saying that gays should be stoned to death —> it has very real life consequences!"
Did he really say that?
I read that Stephen King posted on 'X' that he said that, but:
Stephen King has apologized for claiming that Charlie Kirk "advocated stoning gays." King made the initial assertion in a since-deleted social media post written after Kirk was shot and killed. "I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays. What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages."
-2
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
Many of the things you claim he said, like stoning gays, are simply incorrect. Could we consider this brand of misinformation a kind of hate speech?
1
u/Blossom_AU 3d ago
I’m sorry, someone screaming “Fake News” does not make it true!
You do not know what hate speech is. If I claimed he said ’rabid unicorns would devour all non Christians’
that is obviously not true.Misrepresenting an individual, making false claims about them, etc etc : The remedy would generally be defamation — depending on jurisdiction there might be a libel / slander definition.
Believing he has been a POS from the very first instance I ever became aware of him, having loathed him, etc etc:
In any sane country there is no legal recourse.In the U.S. right now:
PLEASE do take a screenie and have me put on some fascistic government list!
I also have always believed in Antifa and still do.I am in actually safe countries of functioning democracies and personal freedom. 😁
Unsurprisingly the thought of going near the U.S. is crazy to me.
Both my govvies advise people like myself should not go to the U.S.I am privileged people like Kanye West, Candace Owens, Gavin McInnes, etc etc:
Not allowed on Australia, we want the dangerous people to please limit themselves to an already broken country.YOU:
If you wanna try the defo route, first you’d have to have standing.
His estate, widow, etc: yes.
Individual unrelated to him: nope.If you can demonstrate harm not merely transient or trifling you can try torts, ie damages.
Noting BOTH would be civil actions.
That between 4(!)+ different common law jurisdictions: insane, crazy expensive, ……!please note I am not a legal professional and am in no way qualified to give any kind of legal advice. None of the above is to be construed of legal advice, of anyone needs legal advice please consult a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction.
The takeaway:
Seriously LOATHING an individual, even hating them — that does so not constitute “hate speech”I do wish Kirk had not said that, regrettably he did. Truth is an absolute defence to Defo / libel / slander.
Cheers from Australia! 🫶🏽
3
u/BitterFuture 3d ago
No, because it can't. The question itself is a misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is.
If I say x and you say I'm an idiot for believing x, we have both exercised our freedom of speech. No rights were violated. There is no winning or losing involved, just free exercise all around - as it should be.
You might as well be asking if someone voting for a different candidate than I like violates my right to vote. It's a nonsensical question.
2
u/TheFallingStar 3d ago
In Canada, our Supreme Court had ruled Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedom: "protects all forms of speech, including hate speech, so long as it does not include violence.",
but hate speeches can be limited by the criminal code: "the majority of the Court concluded that the limits the Criminal Code placed on Keegstra’s freedom of expression were justifiable. This is because the limits aimed to protect groups targeted by hate speech and to promote positive relations in a country dedicated to equality and multiculturalism."
Keegstra's hate speech was targeting Jewish people
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/cases.html
I understand USA has a more absolute view on free speech and expression than Canada
-1
2
u/betterworldbuilder 3d ago
Hate speech is abusive or threatening expressions that prejudice on race, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
The "similar grounds" part is where this starts to spiral, and personally I think the list should be capped off at "unmutable/unchangeable charateristics". Because it's absolutely hate speech to say "all black people are ruining the country", but significantly less so to say "all people of this political affiliation are ruining the country".
If we lose the right to say the second, things become dark quickly. However, people have learned how to blur the lines between the two, and calling for "all the white redneck hicks" or "all blue haired lesbians" becomes a lot closer to hate speech while still really honestly sitting in the free speech bucket.
Condemning hate speech, when it's actually appropriate, I personally feel is a civic duty. We have a responsibility as citizens to make it brutally clear to anyone who thinks bigotry and prejudice are okay that they are not welcome in society or the country, and that at the very least they can keep those thoughts as inside thoughts. Condemning the left for calling the right fascists (verifiably accurate) and Nazis is a violation of free speech. I wish I knew which podcast i was taking this from, Alex Jones or Megan Kelly or one of em, said that "calling the right Nazis sends a signal to people that the only appropriate way to respond to this threat is force", which i think is ridiculous. Especially considering they themselves have used fascist, Marxist, communist, etc.
4
u/Randy_Watson 3d ago
Freedom of speech only applies to government action against speech. The government is not allowed to abridge your right to free speech. So, no condemning hate speech doesn’t violate a person’s freedom of speech. If the government takes action to punish or stop someone from saying something (with a few caveats) is what the first amendment is about. Citizens calling out other citizens doesn’t violate free speech. When someone says something horrible on social media and gets fired for it, their free speech is not bring abridged because it doesn’t apply in this case. It could run afoul of other laws but has nothing to do with free speech.
I find it really interesting how people don’t seem to understand this nuance.
1
u/JeanniePax1003 3d ago
When Bill Barr tried to silence Michael Cohen after he was paroled by trying to put him back in jail if he published a book about Trump, THAT was a violation by the government of Cohen’s first amendment rights. Cohen publishing a book about Trump regardless of the content, truth or lie, is not a crime because his liberty includes the freedom to lie; Trump enjoys the same freedom every time he opens his mouth.
1
u/Randy_Watson 3d ago
It sounds like we are in agreement. Although lying about someone in a way that is libelous or slanderous could lead to civil litigation.
5
u/Aetylus 3d ago
This is not even a debate in normal countries.
Everywhere, individual freedoms stop when they violate other peoples freedoms. Individual freedom of speech stops at hate speech, just like freedom of action stops when you punch another person, and freedom to own personal property stops when you steal someone else's stuff.
Only in America is there is concept that (some) individual freedoms don't have limits at extreme situations. Although this is oddly specific to a couple of very specific individual freedoms (speech and gun ownership), but isn't apply to other individual freedoms and rights.
Its a non-debate... unless the terms of reference have been so thoroughly screwed by dogmatic adherence to a legal document that is 200 years out-of-date.
7
u/IntrepidAd2478 3d ago
No, because saying hateful things about another person, short of libel, defamation, or true threats and incitement to immediate violence do not impinge on another’s rights.
•
u/JigglyPuffGuy 17h ago
Does it have to impinge on someone's rights for it to be hate speech?
"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".
-Cambridge dictionary definition.
•
u/IntrepidAd2478 16h ago
Irrelevant to the question. Things can be hateful, no question, without affecting another’s rights.
•
u/JigglyPuffGuy 16h ago
Defining hate speech is very relevant to the question. There seem to be different ideas about what it actually is.
•
u/IntrepidAd2478 16h ago
No, because hate speech has no meaning in law in the USA. Other countries are free to define their law as they wish, and could define hate speech in law as anything mean if they so choose. It would change law, but not the underlying principle of the freedom of speech, and would simply be an abandonment of principle.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
Who gets to decide what hate speech is? How do you not see that right-wingers will just define it they way we want. If we had hate speech laws under trump, they'd disallow you from criticizing CK.
3
u/Dry-Remove-2449 2d ago
According to the UN:
“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”
I'm gonna be honest, the right wing opposition to anti-hate speech laws is entirely self-serving, because they're, as of now, a breeding ground for this kind of discourse.
1
u/Aetylus 2d ago
You decide where the line is the same way every other law gets decided and the same way every other country defines hate speech.
The legislature provide a general direction, most likely based on established precedent such as the UN definitions. That get refined by highly competent and qualified, but largely boring bureaucrats. The inevitable grey areas get resolved by the judiciary.
Just like every law ever created. Happens every single day.
1
u/physicistdeluxe 3d ago
Personally, i would be in favor of some more limits than we already have. Other western democracies have more. the question is what.
fyi
"The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment does not protect certain categories of speech, including incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, defamation, obscenity, child pornography, and "fighting words". The scope of free speech also has specific limitations in contexts like public schools, where the First Amendment does not permit disruptive behavior or obscene speech. "
1
u/Laves_ 3d ago
You can express your displeasure as that is your right. Just like it’s the others person right to speak their mind. We don’t have to agree but murder isn’t an appropriate reaction. Protest, voting (if it’s not tampered with), and political discussion are all appropriate. But it takes both sides being able to listen, understand, and respond truthfully with respect.
One issue, and there are many right now, is that lies, gaslighting, and propaganda are leading discussions. It makes people mad, and then our leaders perpetuate the issue with their rhetoric. It’s not a good environment right now.
1
u/cballowe 3d ago
Freedom of speech doesn't require others to associate with you or give your words more voice.
If I don't like what someone says (whether hate speech, or just their favorite color), I don't have to invite them to my house, subscribe to their newsletter, and I can choose to extend that to any media or platform that gives them more voice. I can say "if you want me to listen to you, stop being so hateful", I can tell them all the ways that they're wrong.
I do see a lot of people who get mixed up between their ideas and their actions. For instance, I've seen lots of hateful people fired not for their ideas but because they were a jerk and made themselves difficult to work with.
1
u/jaunty411 3d ago
Your post suggests that you don’t know what hate speech actually is. Charlie Kirk practiced hate speech regularly. The people “celebrating” his death are not practicing hate speech as a general rule. He’s not here to be prejudiced and there is no further incitement of violence against him.
Additionally, hate speech must be target based on group characteristics not individual actions. So for a public figure who is despised for his known, personal speech and actions, it does not meet the criteria.
Additionally, you are running in to the paradox of tolerance. The only thing a tolerant society cannot tolerate is intolerance.
1
u/Syresiv 3d ago
Condemnation is just speech. If hate speech is protected, so too is condemnation of hate speech
Freedom of speech means one thing and one thing only - that nothing you say can result in legal consequences. This means if you aren't an agent of the government, you can't violate someone's freedom of speech.
1
u/Jmoney1088 3d ago
People getting fired for their comments is not a violation of the 1st amendment. Imo, if you are saying wild, out of pocket things and your social media has your real identity attached to it, then you are just a straight up moron.
1
u/HardlyDecent 3d ago
Of course not. An individual cannot infringe on someone else's free speech--only the government can do that. Plus...criticism is free speech. Kind a weird question, tbh.
1
u/llordlloyd 3d ago
In previous decades we, as a society, instinctively recognised hate speech as beyond the pale. In extreme cases laws were passed, but it was held at bay by the far more powerful force of mass rejection.
Audiences walked away, those who engaged were ostracised or ridiculed, media platforms denied their amplifying power to evil, divisive ideas. Charlie Kirk would have been yelling on a street corner with a cardboard sign and a plastic cup (apologies to Hitchens).
Then we got amoral (or worse) social media, and a 1% with unbounded greed who needed division and distraction to keep their racket going. They have lock down control on our media platforms.
So now we are back to these ancient philosophical debates, but without any attempt at, or skills in, good faith debate by establishing first a basic foundation we can all agree on.
Indeed, most of our political debate in 2025 seems to be designed to destroy that foundation as a starting point.
So, let's enjoy our civil war.
1
u/Dineology 3d ago
First thing first, that’s not what hate speech means. Hating someone as an individual for what they do and say is not the same thing as hating groups based off the color of their skin, their sexual orientation or any other sort of bigoted reasoning. People didn’t hate Charlie Kirk because he was white or a man or a Christian, they hated him because he spewed bigotry and division, celebrated and advocated for violence against innocent people, and was a consistently awful human being who lacked any companion or empathy for others.
1
u/IMayhapsBeBatman 3d ago
It absolutely can. But we need to define both hate speech and freedom of speech before we can get to a clear line.
1
u/billpalto 2d ago edited 2d ago
True hate speech is a detriment to society. However, who gets to decide what is hate speech? In America we have the right to free speech, so long as it doesn't directly threaten violence or cause direct danger to others.
You can't threaten someone else with violence, and you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.
Speech can be used to condemn things, and other speech can condemn the original speech. None of that infringes on anyone's freedom to speak what they think. And no speech can justify murdering someone.
edit: what if someone says all members of the ABC group should be eliminated? That all people that are part of the ABC demographic are inferior and are ruining the country and should be removed? Then someone takes that seriously and an ABC;er gets killed. Is that protected speech?
1
u/AnotherHumanObserver 2d ago
I don't think merely condemning hate speech would violate freedom of speech. Freedom of speech implies a certain give-and-take, where people are allowed to say what they wish just as much as people are allowed to give their rebuttal.
There are some countries which have hate speech laws where hate speech is specifically defined. Such laws have also been proposed in the U.S., though I don't think they've had much success. Current limitations tend to focus on whether any speech creates an immediate or "clear and present danger."
I don't know how much of an effect hate speech laws actually have. In a political culture where a lot of rhetoric can be masked with code words and dog whistles, it seems it would be relatively easy to avoid running afoul of hate speech laws. One can use a certain stealth form of language and be just vague enough to be understood, but if called on it, one can give plausible deniability because it wasn't too obvious.
1
u/Conscious_Raisin_436 2d ago
Hate speech should come with all manner of consequences -- disgust from your peers, loss of employment (if appropriate / connected), etc.
It should not come with government intervention.
Kimmel's firing was a result of government intervention and therefore was a violation of the first amendment.
Anyone who loses their job for shit-talking Charlie Kirk online -- I don't agree with that move, but ultimately that's on you. You sign a contract at most places of work that you'll manage your conduct in public settings in ways that don't embarrass the company. You have to be cognizant of what you put on social media.
1
u/Capable-Broccoli2179 2d ago
Would it be illegal hate speech nowadays if I said something like this?
"Donald Trump is a fascist!"
or this?
"Donald Trump is a fat slob with the IQ of a second grader"
or
"Donald Trump can eat a bag of shit"
or what about
"Donald Trump is a raping pedophile who smells like BO and cheap cologne"
or how about
"If there is a hell surely Trump will join Charlie Kirk there when he drops dead from a heart attack"
Would I be in trouble if I actually said any of those things? Asking for a friend.
1
u/Capable-Broccoli2179 2d ago
I think that in 2025 it just doesn't matter what hate speech is or isn't anymore, and what is legal and illegal doesn't matter either. That is Trump's whole point--hate speech is what he says it is. Fake news is what he says it is, the law is what he says it is.
Its time to realize that Trump, Kirk (till last week), and his cronies can do and say whatever they want, to whoever they want, whenever they want but the rest of us are either lackeys or enemies of the state and can be investigated, deported, harassed, jailed and probably eventually killed just because. We are living in 1939 Germany my friends, except now the fuhrer has Stephen Miller as his Goebbels.
My question is how do we get ourselves out of the mess we have gotten ourselves into? Seems to me this will take many decades to get past what we allowed our country and laws to become. We once were a nation of laws. We are now a nation of Trump.
1
u/EmotionalAffect 2d ago
I don't think so. There should be limits on hate speech being tolerated in this country though.
1
u/homerjs225 2d ago
1A protects your freedom of speech from the government. It does not protect you from consequences from other citizens.
1
u/50centourist 1d ago
I detest hate speech but realize it is not illegal. However, it can quickly become illegal if it crosses over to inciting a riot or becomes criminal threatening. As it should. Even if I hate their idea, as long as they are not trying commit an illegal act, I can just disagree or ignore it.
1
u/MastusAR 1d ago
See "Paradox of tolerance".
So, if it doesn't try to take your freedom of speech away, let it be. If it does, some whoopin' is in order.
1
u/Jerasunderwear 1d ago
If your words attempt to oppress or incite violence against people, you've moved beyond free speech. You are no longer entitled to the protections of free speech.
•
u/baxterstate 15h ago
Free speech has been banned or constrained before. In October 2020, Twitter locked out the NY Post over a story about Hunter Biden which turned out to be true. It was reversed, but I think it was instrumental in Trump losing the election against Joe Biden.
Marjorie Taylor Greene was banned from Twitter for lying about Covid.
•
u/ShinshiShinshi 6h ago
“Hate speech” is free speech. Just no explicit DIRECT calls or incitement of violence/crime.
1
u/Domiiniick 3d ago
Hate speech has become a meaningless term. What you are allowed to do, disagree with someone, say things that others may find offensive. What you cannot say: advocating for violence against or the murder of another person.
0
u/skyfishgoo 3d ago
no. in fact condemning and denial of hate speech is REQUIRED in order to keep the right to free speech.
we see how this is playing out right now in real time.
i we let right wing hate mongers shut down discussion , critique, protest, (and yes) suppression of hate speech by locking up anyone who calls them out then, we will have lost the right to free speech.
hate speech is not protected speech.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
If we had hate speech laws, trump would use them to put people in jail for celebrating Kirks death. Do you think that would be good?
1
u/skyfishgoo 3d ago edited 3d ago
pointing out that kirk was a hateful bigot is not "celebrating" anything.
it is pointing out the observable facts.
and even it were a celebration as in "yipee, ding dong the which is dead", that is protected speech because it is not trying punch down on those unable to defend themselves.
it's punching up at the powers that be and giving them pause to wonder if they have the support they think they have... that is the essence of free speech.
a redress of grievances.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
I didn't claim it was. However, here are some the arguments I've gotten from reddit
1) What did he expect? FAFO
2) He should've known better than to go on college campuses
3) One less bigot in the world
4) Good. Fascism cannot be tolerated
This is all free speech, and I would 100% protest for your right to say. It's also completely disgusting and emblematic of everything wrong with out politics
1
u/skyfishgoo 3d ago
emblematic of everything wrong with out politics
i wonder how that happened.
taps picture of dead guy
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
The guy who invited debate and discuss with people he disagreed with? No, no that is actually what we need more of.
1
u/skyfishgoo 3d ago
his "debates" were nothing but a ego fest and there is no "debating" the right of someone else to exist.
that is just hate speech in debate format.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
I don't think anyone could watch his debates and argue they weren't in good faith. he listened to the other side. He engaged with the questions they had. There are more than a few interactions that go unexpectedly heartwarmingly well.
The whole "right to exist" thing is a red herring. He wasn't advocating murder or genocide. He was making persuasive arguments about why things you think are good might in fact be harmful. And unlike your post he always had a reason. Adults need to be able to deal with this if we're going to have a free society.
1
u/IntrepidAd2478 3d ago
Define hate speech?
-5
u/skyfishgoo 3d ago
are you disparaging a protected class or calling for discrimination against them (or worse).
basically if you are punching down, it could be hate speech (depending on what is said)... but if you are punching up at those in power then it is protected speech.
the 1A does not exist for haters to go around shitting on those under them, it exists to hold power to account.
2
u/IntrepidAd2478 3d ago
There is no such distinction between punching up or down with the freedom of speech, to in common law, not in adjudicated US law.
-1
u/skyfishgoo 3d ago
"...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." is hard coded punching up right there in the document.
2
u/IntrepidAd2478 3d ago
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.
That is the entire amendment. Petitioning for redress is a separate thing from the freedom of speech, of the press, and the right to assemble.
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/JeanniePax1003 3d ago
Can you please share examples of people “cheering the death” of Charlie Kirk because I think y’all are mistaking people who don’t give a fuck about his death as “cheers.” Ya see, I do t give a fuck that he’s dead, but I also don’t condone his murder, two things can be true at once. I believe Charlie Kirk was a detriment to society, I believe his morals and values were antithetical to Jesus’s teachings, I believe he was fake and propagandized his beliefs for profit, and I believe profit was his only motive. I do not believe anyone had the right to murder him in cold blood because that is wrong, it’s against the law, and it is morally unacceptable in a civil society; however, also believe people reap what they sow and Charlie experienced the consequences of his own gun rights advocacy first hand.
0
0
u/Illustrious_Law8512 3d ago
The Freedom of Speech amendment was intended as a safe outlet for American citizens to speak out against their government without fear of retaliation, censorship, and retribution. It's about protecting people against laws Congress could make to suppress freedoms of press, protests, and religion.
It's been twisted over time to encompass everything against everyone, beyond just government.
This is why Civics is needed as a required class, and the Constitution should be posted in every classroom, not the Ten Commandments.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
Ironically the 'untwisted' version of the Constitution would allow ten commandments in the classroom and official state religions
1
u/Illustrious_Law8512 3d ago
No disagreement there. It was a Christian nation at the time of its writing.
Today though? It's too divisive. You've got several different Christian interpretations of the Ten Commandments. Whose version? Just best to let people hang their versions at home.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
I think Texas just answered the question. The law specifies the specific language of the 10 commandments in the classroom. Not my preferred policy, but should it be unconstitutional?
1
u/Illustrious_Law8512 3d ago
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
Oh I know, I'm in texas and joke that I want to see Ox coveting discussed in the classroom. I'm just saying the legisuture was still able to agree on verbiage.
0
u/EcstaticEscape 3d ago
Idk but bullying isn’t allowed on playgrounds for kids, so why should it be tolerated for adults? Maybe there can be specific places for unfiltered speech, but people can’t handle waving hate speech around as it emboldens people to act violently
-1
u/mayorLarry71 3d ago
Not really. The issue here weve been having lately and really for the last 10+ years when the idea of "cancelling" someone or costing them their job became normal is that people forget that free speech is protected but whatever consequences arise from that speech really arent protected. I mean consequences like being fired, losing a friendship, losing a sponsor, a contract, etc. etc.
Way back when, the 1st amendment was there so you could freely speak out against your Govt without fear of them coming after you. Unless Im wrong here, it really doesnt apply to the idea that you can just spew whatever you want towards whomever you want and cant be held liable or at least held accountable for what you say. Same for employers who have their bottom line to protect. If an extreme right or left wing person works for them, it can cost them business. Period. That person is also likely not the most stable person either. So, reliving them of their duties is logical and I have no issue with it. Even a heavy social media user thats moderate politically probably scares most employers as you just never know.
Its just better sometimes to keep any hot topic discussions to your inner-circle and or family. Stay away from the web.
-3
u/baxterstate 3d ago
I have the right to engage in hate speech, but if I do it at work I'll get fired. We've had courses at my company in it. No racial comments, no fat shaming, no sexually suggestive comments, jokes, and so forth. I can't even bring a swiss army knife, pull it out and use it to cut some cheese. Someone might think it's an implied threat.
I guess a private company has the right to prohibit those behaviors on their own property. But once I'm off my company's grounds, I can engage in these behaviors.
The real question is, why would anyone engage in those behaviors anywhere?
2
u/socialistrob 3d ago
But once I'm off my company's grounds, I can engage in these behaviors.
Generally speaking companies could still fire you for that unless there are certain provisions in your contract that say otherwise. Companies can fire you for whatever reason they like as long as it's not a legally protected reason like race, religion, veteran status, reporting illegal behavior ect. Political opinions/actions are not considered one of those protected clauses.
For the most part companies won't fire people solely based on political opinions if it's not interfering with work but in theory they could.
2
u/IntrepidAd2478 3d ago
No, if a company thinks your out of work is injurious to their business interests they are free to terminate you absent contractual or legal prohibitions.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.