4 ms·

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said, and I suspect you know that. Why on earth would they be able to burn crosses on anyone's lawn? Hate spee

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said, and I suspect you know that. Why on earth would they be able to burn crosses on anyone's lawn? Hate speech is currently protected by the First Amendment by decades of well-settled jurisprudence. Where are they permitted to burn crosses on people's lawns? And please provide a link to where the KKK is given a free hour of television every day. > We can know what these groups are, who their members are and what they believe while also limiting their ability to spread those harmful beliefs. How would we know if they aren't allowed to publicly say what their beliefs are? I submit that we know that only because their hate speech is protected.

krapp 4y ago
Your claim was that "Hate speech laws are dangerous because hate groups are far more dangerous when their true motives are hidden from view" If it's true that hate groups are more dangerous when their motives are hidden from view, it must also be true that hate groups are less dangerous when their motives are in plain view. And since the context of this discussion is hate speech, the implication of your argument is that hate groups are less dangerous the more freely they are allowed to express their hate speech (for example, through cross-burning or a weekly television broadcast) as a result of your original claim that hate speech laws make such groups more dangerous. >(...)And please provide a link to where the KKK is given a free hour of television every day. You didn't read my comment well enough to understand the context, because it's obvious that i never made a literal claim that the KKK was given a free hour of television every day, rather it was an example of an instance of a hyperbolic example of giving them a platform. You can substitute television for Facebook and Youtube if you like, it doesn't matter. >How would we know if they aren't allowed to publicly say what their beliefs are? I submit that we know that only because their hate speech is protected. Because such people try to spread their beliefs regardless of what the laws say, but at least limits on speech can limit the scope of the damage they can do.
- valar_m 4y ago
  My point was that hate speech is currently protected, and yet none of the hyperbole you mentioned actually exists in reality. Obviously you knew that those things don't happen. So were you perhaps under the mistaken impression that hate speech is not currently protected and were suggesting what you believe may happen if it were allowed? If that is not the case, then what point were you making with the use of hyperbole that addresses my original assertion that banning hate speech allows hateful people to hide? > it was an example of an instance of a hyperbolic example of giving them a platform. At no point did I ever suggest anything about "giving them a platform" so I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it isn't me.

krapp 4y ago

Your claim was that "Hate speech laws are dangerous because hate groups are far more dangerous when their true motives are hidden from view" If it's true that hate groups are more dangerous when their motives are hidden from view, it must also be true that hate groups are less dangerous when their motives are in plain view. And since the context of this discussion is hate speech, the implication of your argument is that hate groups are less dangerous the more freely they are allowed to express their hate speech (for example, through cross-burning or a weekly television broadcast) as a result of your original claim that hate speech laws make such groups more dangerous. >(...)And please provide a link to where the KKK is given a free hour of television every day. You didn't read my comment well enough to understand the context, because it's obvious that i never made a literal claim that the KKK was given a free hour of television every day, rather it was an example of an instance of a hyperbolic example of giving them a platform. You can substitute television for Facebook and Youtube if you like, it doesn't matter. >How would we know if they aren't allowed to publicly say what their beliefs are? I submit that we know that only because their hate speech is protected. Because such people try to spread their beliefs regardless of what the laws say, but at least limits on speech can limit the scope of the damage they can do.

valar_m 4y ago
My point was that hate speech is currently protected, and yet none of the hyperbole you mentioned actually exists in reality. Obviously you knew that those things don't happen. So were you perhaps under the mistaken impression that hate speech is not currently protected and were suggesting what you believe may happen if it were allowed? If that is not the case, then what point were you making with the use of hyperbole that addresses my original assertion that banning hate speech allows hateful people to hide? > it was an example of an instance of a hyperbolic example of giving them a platform. At no point did I ever suggest anything about "giving them a platform" so I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it isn't me.