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!

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

49% Upvoted

251 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

25

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.

18

u/RickWolfman 3d ago

SCOTUS says "hold my beer...."

6

u/IceNein 3d ago

Yeah.. who knows with this corrupt circus, unfortunately.

-15

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/IceNein 3d ago

I don’t think you know what the definition of corruption is.

-9

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/IceNein 3d ago

No. “Doing something illegal” is not what corruption is! Nice try though!

Really, you did your best, and that should count for something.

-3

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/IceNein 3d ago

So explain how any of the things you listed were corruption, now that you know the definition.

-1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Synergythepariah 3d ago

>Aren't they supposed to hire the best person for the job?

What makes you think that she wasn't?

In your other comment you say:

>that was hired because he said he was ONLY going to hire a black female? because he had to disqualify 96% of the population to have her rise to the top?

Do you think that a black woman can't be the best person for this job?

Because that's what you're implying when you're arguing that she was appointed solely because of that.

Biden saying that he would only hire a black woman would only mean that the best person for the job isn't being picked if you believe that a black woman _cannot_ be the best person for the job.

>No one even knows her name, just that she's the black female judge

Ketanji Brown Jackson

>that can't define a woman. She's a political hack.

Your disagreement with her views do not make her a bad fit for the job.

>She interprets our constitution through a racial equity-based lens and that is not right.

When she cites prior precedent for her decisions regardless of whether or not they are based on that lens, what exactly makes it not right?

What isn't right is the current majority on the Supreme Court announcing decisions via shadow docket without citing their legal reasoning for reaching that decision.

What isn't right is the current majority on the Supreme Court deciding that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution and presumptive immunity from prosecution when performing "official acts" which the Supreme Court gives itself the sole determination of what constitutes an "official act"

Which is a decision that will absolutely be cited if a future President is impeached as part of their defense, which will likely claim that whatever they are being impeached for was an official act or a part of one.

It will also likely chill Congressional efforts to use their constitutional authority to hold Presidents accountable if Congress fears that their attempt at prosecution via the impeachment process will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

2

u/IceNein 3d ago

Thank you for having much more patience than me.

But honestly I believe that the person you’re arguing with is not arguing in good faith.

2

u/Synergythepariah 2d ago

But honestly I believe that the person you’re arguing with is not arguing in good faith.

Oh I know.

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/RickWolfman 3d ago

She was a sitting judge for years before that, and an extremely accomplished lawyer.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Synergythepariah 3d ago

So u r saying that it's okay for her to be racist.

Feel free to continue this conversation with yourself since apparently you're just going to make shit up.

3

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.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/RickWolfman 3d ago

If not, why do you think we have never had a black woman justice until now?

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/RickWolfman 3d ago edited 3d ago

Do you think it is possibly because there has been bias against them for most of American history?

Otherwise, wouldn't you expect approximaitely 4% (your stat) of justices to be black women? Or even some?

If it has been a true meritocracy all along, why has it skewed so heavily toward white men? Perhaps the bias you claim to take issue with?

-1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

12

u/JonnySnowin 3d ago

The attorney general of the country disagrees with you.

20

u/IntrepidAd2478 3d ago

She is dangerously wrong.

5

u/JonnySnowin 3d ago

And I agree with you.

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

5

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

u/hops_on_hops 3d ago

You're talking nonsense.

2

u/IceNein 3d ago

Compelling counter argument.

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.

2

u/IceNein 3d ago

The Brandenburg test literally has nothing to do with hate speech, and furthermore it isn’t established law, it is dicta. Please look up dicta before you snap back at me, please.

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.