Should 'hate speech' (racism, something-phobia etc...) be legal?

It's based on courts determining thing changes from being one thing to being another thing. In other words, when something crosses the line.

E.g. when is force used against a burglar in your home unreasonable force? What effect does the burglar having a weapon have on the judgement. There is a line the court needs to find.

So, sticking with the same theme, would you argue that there's no such thing as 'unreasonable' force when encountering a burglar?

Big difference between ending a life/seriously affecting one and promoting hate that you don't act upon.

Racism, homophobia, etc, are not good things and should be stamped out of society. Compared to 20-30 years ago things are much better, and I'd expect that legislation like this has helped that.

You don't want to answer the question?

It's based on courts determining thing changes from being one thing to being another thing. In other words, when something crosses the line.

E.g. when is force used against a burglar in your home unreasonable force? What effect does the burglar having a weapon have on the judgement. There is a line the court needs to find.

You don't think people should be able to say hateful things towards others? Where does that end, though? Do you really want the government to be able to legislate on every negative opinion you share? Are you comfortable with that? Well, of course you are, because your speech hasn't landed you in trouble yet. People like you will completely support laws which can put people in jail for telling jokes or saying unflattering things about religion based on how they are interpreted (that's a big problem), but in doing so you set a precedent that one day the government could come after your speech. The mechanisms are there - they just happen to favour your politics at the moment.

Banning "hate" speech doesn't solve social problems. It just hides them and breeds contempt. Not to mention these tactics are dangerously illiberal and vulnerable to political abuse. Racism in the US and elsewhere declined without the same draconian speech laws the UK has.

And I know the difference between hate speech and causing offense. I even separate the two subjects into different paragraphs. But let's not forget the man in Scotland convicted under hate speech laws for being "grossly offensive" the other week due to a joke video involving a pug and Nazi references.

You can't stamp any of these things out of people's minds though. people will think what they think and have prejudices and opinions. eveyrone should have that right.

You're making a stupid comparison...

I haven't insulted your reasoning. This is the problem with entertaining the far-right in debates, they want us to answer all their questions but indulge in side-stepping and insults rather than answer ours. It was a simple question too.

People here seem to be assuming that words don't constitute actual harm... It's like "you can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't lead to physical violence", which is just wrong. If your mother dies and a person makes fun of that, surely the feelings of inadequacy and profound sadness you get as a result of missing a parent you loved, and some asshat poking fun at it, constitutes suffering. So clearly, words can be harmful. In a similar way, if your entire life is centred around a belief -- like that of God looking down upon homosexuals -- and somebody tells you that everything you stand for is bigoted, that you're disgusting for believing it, and that you should die, you will be harmed as a result. The point here is that speech which is directed at somebody with a primary purpose of causing injury, is not at all something we should support. Whether it should be legal is very difficult, but we must accept that there is such thing as harmful speech.

However, a point has been made in this thread which is that the injury caused by speech is largely subjective -- you can usually tell when something will land badly (like the mother thing), but there are some lines which although not intended injuriously, will be perceived that way. Those uncertain lines should be left alone, a great example being the Hammond "Stop Lesbianism Stop Homosexuality" sign. On the other hand, if you walk around with a swastika on your arm and a burning flag with a Star of David on it, perhaps you should be pulled aside and be incentivised to stop being a god damn lunatic.

How about a hammer and sickle, or a picture of Che Guevara, or Mao, or Lenin, or Trotsky?

Peterson's making a change I see..

The intention behind the hammer and sickle is not one of murdering millions; while that may or may not be the inevitable outcome, it is not the intention. With the swastika, on the other hand, the contrary is necessarily true.

No, Peterson has nothing to do with it. This is basic knowledge of history, which I was well acquainted with prior to his rise in popularity.

I would think using the hammer and sickle, or bearing "icons" who were basically mass murders - including Che - should be seen on par with the swastika irrespective of the supposed "intentions" behind each insignia. One could argue that the communist fetish of "equality" entailed the methods adopted by virtually every self-proclaimed "communist" regime so far, but knowing what these symbols are associated with regardless of their intentions... why bear them? Of course, I don't think these things should be banned or made illegal, even if I think they're in incredibly poor taste, but I must wonder why it's always all about the Nazis, and not the other bunch of murderous maniacs.

I have the feeling we're heading down a bit of a tangent but I always do love a good argument about Communism.

The difference between bearing a swastika and bearing a communist emblem lies, despite what you say about the murderousness of both which I agree with to an extent, in intention. A person will never march down the street with a swastika trying to spread messages of compassion, societal progress, or social justice (or if they do, they will be met with genuine bewilderment). On the other hand, the hammer and sickle does nowadays have an association with these qualities; while the symbol belongs to the communists (much in the same way the swastika initially belonged to Hinduism), its connotations have changed. Individuals who have no knowledge of Marxism walk around waving it proudly, in the hope of gearing the world towards equality.

A swastika will never be waved with an intention to generate good; a hammer and sickle on the other hand, might.

As far as a commie or nazi are concerned, they're both doing "good", so I think this is a red herring/non-starter. I don't hold equality to be a "good" in and of itself, so much as a fetish/preference.

Neither considers that they have an intention to do ill, on their view, and bear in mind that that equality, whilst an abstract ideal, is to be realised through whatever means necessary, particularly when it comes to dealing with recalcitrants. I don't see the intentions as significant or material in distinguishing what they ultimately stand for. I'm not giving people who wear the hammer and sickle, or the images of various mass murderers, a free pass, simply because they've not bothered to do their research. Any communist who does not endorse the regimes associated with those symbols would be best served abandoning them.

Also, no need to mention the proletariat's fight against the bourgeoisie, since the ultimate goal is inclusiveness for all in the arguably blinded minds of Communist supporters; Nazis would rather extirpate their opposition.

Also sure, equality might not be a good in itself. But again, the difference in intention remains. The motivation behind seeking equality is compassion; the motivation behind seeking racial segregation and extermination of those different is disgust, contempt, and self-righteousness.

Come off it. Calling your comparison stupid is a legitimate thing to do. Comparing hate speech laws to laws on reasonable force is a stupid thing to do since they are completely different (as I explained and answered).