Study Finds Majority of U.S. Respondents Favor Revising the 1st Amendment to Restrict “Hate Speech”

mtcapri · 2019-10-25T22:47:00+00:00

Curious as to what people here think of this. Personally, I’m very pro-1st-amendment/pro-free-speech, even if it protects hate speech. I don’t trust the public to decide what’s hate speech and what isn’t, much less enforce the law in an unbiased manner.

eldred2 · 2019-10-25T23:25:42+00:00

The whole point of free speech is to protect speech that is considered offensive or objectionable. "Nice" speech is by default free.

J-Unleashed · 2019-10-25T23:47:39+00:00

"Hate speech" is a subjective term.

It's absurd to advocate for policy based on subjective standard. What may be considered "hate speech" to one person, won't necessarily be considered as such to others.

It's absurd that "adults" are advocating to have the state punish people who hurt their feelings. These people need to grow up.

The point of being pro-free speech is that you're not required to like or agree with the speech. These people are too stupid to understand that their blend of fascism isn't new, and it will be used against them.

Egalitarianwhistle · 2019-10-26T00:02:37+00:00

This is horrifying to me.

Next thing they'll try to stop people from using swear words.

insane_gravy · 2019-10-26T04:27:02+00:00

Not sure I'd trust anything coming from a libertarian magazine like Reason.

LacklustreFriend · 2019-10-26T12:10:00+00:00

What I've noticed over time is how much people just give lip service to the idea of freedom of speech/freedom of expression without actually supporting it in practice or understanding the implications of it. I believe this is part of a bigger problem of people holding beliefs (even "correct" ones) without ever actually thinking critically about those beliefs, and instead they just hold those beliefs because it's what family, friends or school told them was right.

The most obvious example of how people pay lip service to free speech is when the topic of censorship on social media, or by private companies or otherwise non-government entities. You'll hear all the time people who claim to support free speech say censorship is fine because "it's not the government" and non-government entities can ban or censor whoever they want. While this is true from a legal standpoint, it is clearly against the idea or spirit of free speech. Free speech as a principle is not just about government censorship - it is the idea people should be able to express their ideas without fear of reprisal of any kind. Besides, the law is meant to be a reflection of values. If we erode the principle of free speech where it falls outside the limit of the law, it will still ultimately erode the law itself.

SirSourPuss · 2019-10-26T12:15:57+00:00

It's a kind of "death tax" vs "inheritance tax" ordeal. The language used to describe the issue decides how people think about it and the outcome of the study. If the study asked whether being rude should be outlawed then the result would be completely different in spite of how both "hate speech" and "being rude" are very similar, arbitrary and fuzzy categories.

Death tax vs estate tax - I couldn't find the original article I've read which talked about manipulating public opinion more broadly, but this quote from this article describes what I mean:

Whatever underlying shifts there may have been in public opinion, our analysis here shows that the dramatic disparities in publicly reported polling results over the past few years depended principally on framing and phrasing rather than timing. For instance, a December 1999 poll by the Democratic Emily’s List found that only 37 percent of voters felt favorably when asked, “When you hear that George W. Bush wants to eliminate the inheritance tax, is your reaction to that favorable, neutral, or unfavorable?” One month later, a poll by the Republican consultants McLaughlin and Associates found that 79 percent of likely voters approved when asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of abolishing the estate tax, also known as the ‘death tax’?” In yet another contrast, a

8neutral Gallup poll that was conducted within three days of that poll found that only 41 percent of adults felt the estate tax was too high when asked: “Thinking about the federal inheritance tax, do you consider this tax too high, about right, too low, or don’t you know enough to say?” Though each of the questions is simply worded, they differ via invoking “George W. Bush,” delivering negative connotations with the words “abolish” and “death,” and encouraging respondents to be comfortable saying they don’t know.

manbaby1769 · 2019-10-26T12:17:56+00:00

Punishable by a punch to the gut from whoever you “hate spoke” against

jobobicus · 2019-10-30T13:30:55+00:00

It’s terrifying. The practicality of implementing this will require someone in the government to determine hate speech, “fake news,” and whatever else. Do we REALLY want to trust some of these assclowns with that? A world where a Donald Trump Administration can’t just call out a news outlet, but now has legal authority to go after them??? Yeah, sign me up for that /s

pyramidsingular · 2019-10-26T02:46:22+00:00

Free speech sounds good in theory but I've noticed that most people who whine about "muh free speech and censorship" are usually just racist assholes who can't follow basic human decency. For example the Watchredditdie sub, they're like "I got banned from Aww for saying the N word and making death threats, people are so oversensitive!"

heimdahl81 · 2019-10-26T02:02:33+00:00

I agree with restricting hate speech provided that the type of speech is very tightly defined. I dont think advocating for the removal of constitutional rights of a group due to their race, sex, sexuality, or religion serves any purpose deserving of protection under the 1st Amendment.

This is consistent with the application of the fighting words doctrine established in Chaplinski v. New Hampshire in 1942 which held:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Subsequent decisions have relaxed the restrictions on obscenity and profanity, specifically in the area of allowing profanity directed at police officers and the public display of obscene language in bumper stickers. The core principle of language that does not deserve 1st Amendment protection persists.

Iaboveall · 2019-10-26T07:56:03+00:00

Congratulations, everyone. You have officially been fucked with a life.

Title	Study Finds Majority of U.S. Respondents Favor Revising the 1st Amendment to Restrict “Hate Speech”
Author	mtcapri
Upvotes	12
Comments	45
Date	October 25, 2019 10:45 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/dn55bt/study_finds_majority_of_us_respondents_favor/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/study-finds-majority-of-us-respondents-favor.1064431 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064431

Comments