4 ms·

No "Hate Speech" is not a form of assault, nor should it be treated as such Further the entire concept of "hate Speech" is rife for abuse and is antithesis of

• specialist 9y ago
  What's the most hateful thing someone ever told you? Or that you heard (witnessed)? How did it make you feel?
  • Inconel 9y ago
    There's no point in me repeating the most hateful things that have ever been directed at me, but they certainly were hurtful and made me feel bad. With that being said, having been the victim of assault multiple times in my life, once needing extensive hospitalization due to the injuries sustained, I can comfortably say that I don't view these two things as being remotely analogous and wholly reject the notion that speech, even speech that I find hurtful or distasteful, is assault.
    • specialist 9y ago
      I'm just as comfortable, certain that hatespeech is assault. Same lessons, different conclusions.
      • Inconel 9y ago
        Well I think this illustrates how difficult it is to come to any consensus on these kinds of issues. Even people that have had similar experiences can come to wildly different conclusions. Edit: I'll also add that while I personally disagree with your premise that speech can be categorized as assault, I don't think that your position is necessarily unreasonable. Again, I'm not in agreement but it isn't so outrageous a view that I think well meaning and thoughtful people couldn't hold those same views. However, when you start off your argument by stating that anyone holding a contrary opinion must be puerile(I'm not very smart so I had to make sure I remembered the correct definition) it doesn't lend itself to any meaningful discussion.
  • cookiecaper 9y ago
    "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me". This old cliche is underappreciated in our day and age. Individuals are free to choose the way they process the information and commentary they receive. When someone physically assaults you, there is no choice involved, and your life is legitimately and immediately threatened by such activity in the real, physical, and non-abstract sense. It is great that we are all thinking about what we say, but speech is unequivocally not the same as physical assault, and it's farcical to suggest it should be.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • logicchains 9y ago
      >Individuals are free to choose the way they process the information and commentary they receive. Some individuals fight tooth and nail to silence this idea because they're threatened by the implication that their own choices have any role to play in their misery. Life requires a lot less effort when everything bad is somebody else's fault.
    • aninhumer 9y ago
      >"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me". This old cliche is underappreciated in our day and age. Because it's false. Words can and do hurt people, and it's not necessarily a result of their choices. You can argue that this harm is less severe, or that preventing it isn't worth limiting speech, but to suggest it doesn't exist is just myopic.
      • cookiecaper 9y ago
        To clarify, I am not saying that words cannot be hurtful. I am saying that they are not equivalent to physical assault, as someone else in the thread asserted. Physical assault presents a much more immediate personal danger, and deserves to be distinguished from verbal exchange.
    • Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      If only this were in any way true. There is a such thing as mental abuse, after all. Some folks lived through this growing up. Gaslighting is just words too. Folks kill themselves due to harassment. That harassment? Yeah, it can be nothing more than daily messages and/or phone calls and/or letters. Widespread, open racist speech generally signals an environment where racist actions are well-tolerated, I'm assuming (I have no links to back it up at the time). Oh, and this mental distress from words can produce physiological symptoms. But hey, they are nothing more than words, right? The old cliche you speak of only works in a few situations. Someone calling you names or saying mean things on the street don't really hurt you if they are isolated incidents. This is the usual context when this is used. But in a broader sense? It simply doesn't pan out. It isn't the same thing, no, but I'm not sure why that matters. A slap on the rear someone should be able to get over, a punch maybe not. I'm pretty sure both can be prosecuted as physical assult in some situations yet in others, be perfectly acceptable courses of action. Same with words, it depends on how you use them to how much damage it will do.
• TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  "Government" in this context is not some well-defined cohesive autocratic whole. The liberal democratic nations have separation of powers: legislature, courts, law enforcement, civil society. Through these institutions we attempt to develop laws, regulations, and codes of conduct, that attempt to define acceptable behaviour, rights and responsibilities, protections, and punishments. This is all in a constant state of flux, there is no end-point, no "this is how it is, for all time and places and circumstances". We should probably, at a minimum, be vocal about what we believe and support. There is no right answer here, only opinions, and attempts at persuasive argument. That's all we have.
  • syshum 9y ago
    >>Through these institutions we attempt to develop laws, regulations, and codes of conduct, that attempt to define acceptable behaviour, rights and responsibilities, protections, and punishments. This is where I disagree. I am proponent of Lockean natural or self evident rights. Government's sole purpose it is protect my individual rights that I have simply because I exist. These rights are an extension of my Self Agency or Self Ownership. Government is not to define what is "accptable behaviour" or to define what my rights are, or what codes of conduct is to be. Law should simply be the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. This common force is to only protect persons, liberty and property.