Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHAnswersSocial IssuesStarted 6yrs agoActive 2mos ago

Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence

+
Expand
+ Settings

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of

@B62NSP7
#1 Engaged Voter
@B62N6YY
#2 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

13 Replies

 @B9ZZLG9  from Ohio  disagreed…4mos4MO

Why would a person even want to use hate speech towards others? There is no legitimate reason to hate another person unless they have committed a crime, violated your constitutional rights, or have personally victimized you. You should not want to be racist/homophobic/islamiphobic etc., towards others; you should, morally, want to be a better person and not emotionally harm individuals who happen to be different than you. Yes, the 1st ammendment says it is legal, but it does not make it all right to do something like that.

 @9FM28JS from New York  disagreed…3yrs3Y

I believe in the 1st amendment which is freedom of speech. However, hate speech is making it harder for others to live their daily life. If I were subjected to hate speech, my freedom of expression could then be tainted

 @9G8TDMF from Maryland  disagreed…3yrs3Y

I don't think hate speech should be allowed in any situation. It is wrong and not the best way to handle a problem.

 @9FM4WTWdisagreed…3yrs3Y

Hate speech always encourages violence by nature of degrading and enforcing a negative social perception of a person or group of people

 @9GPX2V8 from Pennsylvania  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Hate speech is unacceptable on many levels. Going on racist or homophobic tirades and calling that "freedom" is quite ridiculous.

 @B8ZZJWTNo Labels  from Texas  disagreed…6mos6MO

The 1st amendment exists, yes, that's true, freedom of speech, whatever. BUT.. that doesn't mean there won't be any consequences to what someone says. You can't just call someone a filthy queer and expect them to not do anything about it. Y'know?

 @B8P5Z27 from Minnesota  disagreed…7mos7MO

No, because even if it doesn't threaten violence, it could still cause emotional and psychological damage.

 @B8LXXC9Libertarian from North Carolina  disagreed…7mos7MO

Hate speech shouldn't be allowed under most circumstances, it invokes violence and hatred, it shapes young people's minds, creating more hateful people

 @B853SRV  from Ohio  disagreed…8mos8MO

I think this is an extremely dangerous stance because hate speech can still cause real harm even without direct threats if violence. It can dehumanize groups, spread fear, and create and environment where discrimination and violence become more likely and acceptable. Allowing hate speech and trying to justify it under the context of free expression ignores the psychological and social damage it causes to the communities targeted the most.

 @B7LBWXL from Illinois  disagreed…8mos8MO

Majority of hate speeches impose violence or start rage within somebody which will inevitably lead to violence.

 @B5CBX9W from North Carolina  disagreed…1yr1Y

Hate speech itself is violent. Its sole purpose is to instill fear in others, just as physical violence would.

 @B9ZZGX8Republican from Louisiana  disagreed…4mos4MO

Hate speech still hurts the community as a whole. Even though, someone might not be injured or endangered, it still hurts the person's esteem and differs the connection between the two people.

 @9GFV8P4Taxpayers from Georgia  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Hate speech, hate crime, hateful conduct, libraries, hateful conduct, First Amendment, free expression, bias, behavior, conduct, target, race, religion,

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies