Should incitement to hatred be a crime?Or would that trample on freedom of speech.
>>17086219>Should incitement to hatred be a crime?Yes.>Or would that trample on freedom of speechYes.
Any society that polices speech (in-person or online) but lets other forms of crime run rampant is unworthy of respect
There can be no justice without hate of injustice.The freedom to speak derives from the freedom to think and to act. These freedoms must be preserved if people are to be thinking for themselves.
>>17086219If they outlaw hate speech, they will use it to effectively outlaw all dissenting discussion. Its the requirement for a totalitarian government. You just need to look at china to see where this leads. Everybody will be a brainwashed drone. There will be no innovation and innocent fun would be disallowed. Sites like 4chan would be entirely banned. Society would loose its mechanism of self-correction and engage in incredibly destructive acts
>>17086219So all of that grounds my stand in calling you a nigger faggot, as you probably deserve for even suggesting the viability of censure. Could be a bait, but its still gay
>>17086219What is "incitement to hatred"?You used words to convince another person something is bad?
>>17086429>You just need to look at china to see where this leads.At least China has low crime rates
>>17086219>Should incitement to hatred be a crime?As long as there is a credible threat, then yes, incitement to hatred is the first step towards worse crimes. E.g. "shut up faggot" is not incitement to hatred, "cut the tall trees, kill all cockroaches, the graves are not full yet" is.>Or would that trample on freedom of speech.Of course. So what? Freedom of speech is not the ultimate good.
>>17086219No. Some people deserve to be hated (through no fault of their own)..
>>17086219Whose actions are so abhorrent that they currently are being hated and why do you want to stop people from talking about it?tldr: no is the answer to your question, and yes to the second part.
>>17086400Every society ever policied speech in some ways, and it's good. You wouldn't want to live in a society where defemation or death threats are legal and child pornography is readily available.
>>17086469Any kind of anti semitism. They kikes are trying to tiptoe to making hating them publicly illegal. If they could they would strap a device to you that makes you physically unable to dislike them.
"hatred" is a weasel word. They want hate speech laws.
>>17086502>You wouldn't want to live in a society where defemation or death threats are legal and child pornography is readily available.???
>>17086486Anecdotally violent crime like homicide seems to be somewhat low. But corruption and scams are absolutely rampant from what I've heard.
>>17086219wtf does "incitement" and "influencing" people even mean? people either have agency or they don't. you can't go around claiming people have freedom and agency then whine about "incitement" and "influencing". advertising only works on stupid people. "we need to protect the people from 'misinformation' that we 'fact check' because otherwise the people will be 'influenced' and 'incited'. even though we also claim people have agency, free will, and personal responsibility."
>>17086219>Should incitement to hatred be a crime?only for a public servant i.e. a government official>Or would that trample on freedom of speech.public servants are vassals to the People. they are no longer free men.
>>17086347fpbp
>>17086502>but lets other forms of crime run rampant
>>17086347This.Something can be "criminal" in an abstract sense, and still be very much permissible in practice when you have a look at the greater picture and appeal to natural rather than positive law.Think of how America was founded through a rebellion, which is of course a crime in and of itself
>>17087039okay but no, because making enticement to hatred illegal would allow people to do things that deserve hatred while protected from discussion of their abhorrent acts. Nobody's actions should be illegal to discuss, especially when those acts make them worthy of being hated.
>>17086219>Should incitement to hatred be a crime?No because forceful suppression of opinions is as hateful as it gets, so you're automatically failing at your stated purpose.More in general in regards to freedom of speech, censorship has its place but it's a big gamble: if you need force to defend your opinion, you're basically admitting that you're weaker than your opponents communication wise.If you're weak at soft power, what are the chances you're actually strong at hard power? Very low to nonexistent, I'd say.It's blood in the water. Might be better than just rolling over and giving up, but you're calling every shark in the sea to come and have a go at you.
>>17086219Blacks and jews are inciting hatred. Should that be illegal? Mayne we should just be safe and kick them out of our countries?
>>17086347holy fucking based
>>17086429>>17086599I'm purple-haired woke but I'm also American enough that the Chinese approach to controlling speech would probably be intolerable to me. Even the European ways of doing things would probably be annoying to me in some ways. The U.S. system doesn't run perfectly but one of the interesting things about it is that it (in theory) allows people with radically different opinions and lifestyles to exist in the same country without destroying each other. Part of the "deal" is that you will encounter other people with opinions which will set your hair on fire and the government isn't allowed to do anything about it.This relates to a small "l" liberalism with its belief in self-reliance from our past as homesteaders. If I'm out in the middle of nowhere, the next person might be a mile away, and who the fuck knows who this person is but we better figure out some way to cooperate or build a barn together, or we're not going to survive. At the same time, it's necessary to "do my own research" because that's how I'm going to figure out how to cut through the trees to build a road to the main road which connects the farm to the market. That was revolutionary in contrast to feudalism and a master-servant relationship. In terms of American culture wars, it seems to go awry when people go around demanding "tolerance." Like I'm a fag but if I demand people "tolerate" me then people who don't like homos can flip that around and say that I should "tolerate" them and then demanding the sovereign make you "tolerate" me or vice-versa. But the point isn't about "tolerance" and to expect that is not freedom or liberty. You don't beg for tolerance. It's a fundamentally different kind of relationship.
>>17086520The first two are literal speech and the third, since it's "self-expression", has to be considered speech for legal purposes just like a novel or film or television program or normal porn would be. In other words you already believe in limiting free speech, every society needs to put limits on speech just to function.
>>17087159Your skull is just too fucking dense.NTA
>>17087050>things that deserve hatredLike crimes?
>>17087428Not an argument. Unironically fire in a crowded theater is a decent point, if you consider any form of speech too harmful to be allowed then you are by definition not in favor of free speech. The debate is over what constitutes harm and where the threshold is for when the harm becomes enough that a legal restriction of speech is required. But almost nobody actually believes in removing all restrictions on every kind of speech.
>>17087545Anon that's not what I'm talking about. Your skull is still too dense. What do you think he means by "???" especially considering where we are
>>17087545The current standard of imminent lawless action is good I think
>>17086219I love "incitement to hatred" in combination with that image
>>17087558Oh right
>>17087715It's not important.
>>17087842>I am Genocide
>>17086219Why'd this game get demonized by the media again?
>>17086599>Ayo them Chinese don't got niggas running cars into jewelry stores or randomly young niggas just running around terrorizing cities, but they do be corrupt n shit, in invisible ways, but real ya feel?The delusion of the Nigmerican
>>17087875Mainly because it's a mass murder simulator, but there's more to it than that.One of the developers had some vague ties to the far-right of Poland and the media used this as a justification to say that all of the devs are "literally Nazis", but the developer says you must be German to be a Nazi therefore he calls himself "neo-fascist" instead of Nazi lolIt's one of those rare times where media slander actually had a half-truth behind ithttps://youtu.be/Mu8kJrtffGc?si=eDTZ3VflufTkCUMN&t=9>I was asked to say something about him so here it goes:>He makes games, and is a person, sometimes
