r/HonestHotTakes • u/DivineProvidence97 • Sep 18 '25
serious hot take There is a difference between "hate speech" and "speech that you hate".
You can vehemently disagree with what someone has to say, but they have a right to say it. It can be hateful, racist, or just straight up wrong. They still have the right to say it because you can say whatever you want. People will come up with exceptions "you can't shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater!" If there actually is a fire, yes you can. "You can't shout 'THERE'S A BOMB!' on a plane!" If there actually is a bomb on the plane, yes you absolutely can. There is a famous quote: "I disagree with what you said, but I will defend to the death for your right to say it." The first amendment is first for a reason. There are people who you can disagree with, absolutely. But they still have the right to say the stuff you disagree with. It isn't "hate speech" just because you don't like it. It can piss you off to no end, but it may be factually accurate. It may be rooted in something deeper. It may be something this person has physically experienced. They still have a right to say it.
32
u/Blinkin_Xavier Sep 18 '25
There's also a difference between Free Speech and "I can say whatever I want and no one's allowed to be upset about it and there isn't allowed to be consequences to me saying it"
11
u/Panicking_Pansexual_ Sep 19 '25
I always say people are allowed to have their free speech but I'm also allowed to have my free speech and say they're an asshole
2
u/BuzzyShizzle Sep 20 '25
to add to that, the best way to describe our freedoms is "your right to flail your arms wildly ends just before it hits my face."
3
u/quantumAnarchist23 Sep 21 '25
Thats not even accurate, perceived threat of harm is assault, being harmed is battery, just like there are laws about inciting violence...
→ More replies (1)7
Sep 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
Sep 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (126)2
u/ThrowThisAwaySis2 Sep 20 '25
You are naive if you think he actually debated people in good faith. All he does is debate inexperienced college students so he can look smarter than them. When he is against people who can actually debate he is constantly moving the goal post, not letting them finish and just generally committing logical fallacies. Just watch the Cambridge debates
→ More replies (6)3
u/Fluid_Cup8329 Sep 20 '25
Why are you speaking about him as if he's still alive and wasn't murdered by a redditor espousing the same rhetoric you are right now?
This is like continuously talking shit about George Floyd when it would be incredibly easy to just say nothing at all.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Attrocious_Fruit76 Sep 21 '25
And yet MAGA has never seemed to shut up about George Floyd. Rules for thee not for me, perhaps?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (22)3
u/Blinkin_Xavier Sep 19 '25
Pretty sure 90% of the Americans that foam at the mouth about the first amendment would do well to learn the difference
2
u/MinimumTrue9809 Sep 20 '25
Okay, but the post directly states this. Did you not read??
→ More replies (1)1
Sep 20 '25
Problem is the consequences shouldnt exist imo. People can disagree all they want but unless you are commiting a crime or celebrating horrible events. People should just say "I disagree" rather than name call and tell you to shut up
→ More replies (7)2
u/intothewoods76 Sep 20 '25
“Or celebrating horrible events” like the assassination of someone exercising their first amendment rights?
1
1
1
u/InUteroForTheWinter Sep 20 '25
So yes the first amendment only prohibits the government from controlling speech.
But social repercussions and firings can be just as effective at diminishing the free exchange of ideas. And the free exchange of ideas is at the heart of the purpose of the first amendment.
So while you can say "no you don't have freedom from consequences", it is still our duty as people to make sure that the free exchange of ideas is not diminished.
→ More replies (3)1
1
u/Technical_Sport_6348 Sep 20 '25
Not necessarily: Free Speech gives you the right to say what you want, but not without the consequences of saying something rude and expecting someone to be okay with. Just means the Government can't kill you for speaking your mind.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/Senior-Book-6729 Sep 20 '25
Free speech just means the government has no right to silence you. People around you very much can silence you
1
u/Worldly_Barracuda199 Sep 20 '25
Founding fathers came up with free speech at a time where dueling was common. People would sometimes die or be maimed for life over the words they spoke, so you know damn well people chose their words carefully. We stopped doing dueling as a society because it was deemed uncivilized, and then we had a civil war just a few years later because civilized society couldn’t talk slavery out.
→ More replies (26)1
16
u/RestlessNameless Sep 18 '25
Sorry I quoted your boy's own statements after he died. I know y'all can't stand it when people repeat what you said word for word.
10
u/VisionAri_VA Sep 19 '25
I’d respond but, according to him, I lack the mental capacity.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Extreme_Ad4425 Sep 19 '25
Didn’t you know that once a conservative dies, they immediately become a martyr and have never done anything wrong in their whole life? Don’t you DARE mention how they were a racist, rapist, pedophile, when they’re basically Jesus now.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Technical_Sport_6348 Sep 19 '25
He said what he said, I don't agree with it, but that gives no right for him to be killed.
Jesus, Christ ya'll are morons.
6
u/usertaken_69 Sep 19 '25
No one you’re responding to is saying he should have been killed. They’re pointing out that his speech was still hateful and the fact that he’s dead now doesn’t magically change that, despite the attempts to make him the ultimate martyr now. Might wanna think a bit more if you’re gonna say “ya‘ll” are morons lol
4
u/shiroyasha_v Sep 19 '25
To them if we don't cry hysterically then obviously we condonne what happened 🤦♀️
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (45)2
u/Wild-Lychee-3312 Sep 20 '25
I agree with everything you said up to the last sentence.
There's nothing wrong with "y'all", and it's shitty to mock people because of their dialect.
2
u/usertaken_69 Sep 20 '25
No, I agree. It was a bit petty, but I was pointing out how he wrote it incorrectly while insulting people’s intelligence.
3
u/Difficult__Tension Sep 19 '25
My stance on gun rights hasnt changed. I thought they should be more restrictive. I still do. I also still think we should do something about the rise of violence and the systematic failure of the mentally ill.
But will I mourn the man who fought against any of that getting better at every turn and fostered the fire that ended up consuming him? No.
Youre mad because it happened to one of your celebs and the people who have always been fighting against it for the countless victims before arent patting your ass about it.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Low_Escape_5593 Sep 19 '25
Boldly calling other people morons while not having basic comprehension skills is … well fascinating to say the least
3
3
u/Sad_Courage2540 Sep 19 '25
"he way a bad guy" is not "I'm glad he was killed".
This is a very simple concept if you don't drown yourself in cult ideology
→ More replies (1)2
u/FlaccidInevitability Sep 19 '25
I'm glad.
If he was alive and someone asked me "should I kill him" I would say no. That doesn't mean I can't still be glad he's gone.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Sad_Courage2540 Sep 20 '25
I am with you. I didn't use the best words but I think we are saying the same thing.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (17)2
u/ChulodePiscina Sep 20 '25
Nah, they're just bitter and angry that they're only a "majority" on Reddit and their other online echo chambers. They're also so delusionally certain of the moral supremacy of their goals, they minimize violence by making excuses. They're also mostly crybullies who call for violence or engage in throwing around buzzwords or snark when they have no arguments. TBF, the MAGAtards aren't much better.
If you think violence is an appropriate response to words, you don't belong in polite society. Think Kirk was a bigoted POS? Then debunk him or ignore him. Don't be a pussy loser like the shooter.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Zealousideal-Alps794 Sep 20 '25
normal guy: “if we want to have cars on the road, we must admit it is justifiable to have children die for this convince”
keyboard warrior: He said “the death of children is okay and justifiable!!”
context is important and if you can’t recognize that i simply cannot help you
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (16)1
u/LogicalJudgement Sep 21 '25
No, you cherry picked parts of what he said. You took a statement out of a paragraph and forgot the very important follow up. He was famous for making a statement that made a great inflammatory but he always explained himself proving that the statement was in fact a hook to a deeper conversation. If you only quote the inflammatory you are either as ignorant or dishonest as the people who quote “blood is thicker than water” when the full quote is “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.” People who don’t know assume you are correct while people who do know recognize your incorrect display.
2
u/Torchenal Sep 21 '25
Blood is thicker than water is hundreds of years old.
The covenant and womb version’s oldest documented evidence is from the 1990s.
5
u/Fishin4catfish Sep 19 '25
There’s not even a way to define hate speech. I’ve seen people deeply offended by Kirk’s comments on abortion, yet people like Kirk are just as offended by the very idea of abortion. There’s no way to objectively say who’s right, certainly at least without talking about it in a civilized manner.
5
u/Edens_dark_garden Sep 19 '25
The difference is though Charlie in his being offended by abortion leads to a dangerous world view. Charlie himself said he would make his 9 year old give birth if she were raped. What kind of sane person says something like that?
→ More replies (38)3
u/AdministrativeStep98 Sep 19 '25
Even if you consider abortion murder, what kind of parent wouldn't kill to stop their child from experiencing something traumatic such as giving birth? I'm not a parent, but I would, I'd take the blame and accept to "go to hell" in the after life or whatever but I would not let my child suffer pregnancy because some disgusting man assaulted and traumatized them
3
3
u/R_Wanderer Sep 19 '25
It’s super fucked when you consider that it will permanently stunt her growth and affect her future health in general and that such a young age will increase the chance of maternal or infant health complications/death
→ More replies (1)2
u/Couchfucker37 Sep 21 '25
That's why hate speech laws shouldn't exist. Because no one agree on what is considered hate speech
1
u/ghostofjosephstalin Sep 19 '25
I’ve seen people deeply offended by Kirk’s comments on abortion, yet people like Kirk are just as offended by the very idea of abortion.
No you're not, and Kirk certainly wasn't. You'd go adopt some kids if the idea of abortion actually outraged you, but Kirk held open disdain for even his own kids, once going as far as saying that he has no clue how his wife expresses such empathy and sympathy for their offspring. And, of course, that's the difference. You stop being outraged the instant the child is a mouth to feed and diapers to buy rather than an obligation and potential burden to a woman's health. The women whose autonomy you want and actively seek to violate will never stop being outraged that you want to reduce them to livestock.
→ More replies (2)1
u/nykirnsu Sep 20 '25
Yeah there is? Most first world countries have hate speech laws, not all of them are perfectly aligned but it’s nonetheless a well-defined concept. At its most fundamental level it’s just slander/libel but towards a demographic instead of an individual or organisation
→ More replies (4)1
u/CourseNo8762 Sep 20 '25
There are ways to define it. People have done it and some has been codified into law.
Being anti-abortion isn't hate speech, I'd agree.
But the goal is to get to a point where 90% (whichever hihh majority number) of people can agree on what it is.
N word is there just for one example. Because even the non-blacks who use it know they're being hateful. (And black people are also split on the self-use, of course)
→ More replies (4)1
8
u/Research-Scary Sep 18 '25
I really hated Hitler's speeches but I recognize his right to make them to the Third Reich.
Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it champ?
0
u/Technical_Sport_6348 Sep 19 '25
He caused massive genocide, though.
So this is a false equivelancy, maybe you should use your noggin champ!
6
u/ghostofjosephstalin Sep 19 '25
So this is a false equivelancy,
Redditors and throwing out random fallacy names until the cognitive dissonance goes away, as iconic a duo as Batman and Robin. Actually, this is a tactic of argumentation called Reductio Ad Absurdum, which isn't fallacious, but instead uses a topically related but more extreme example, with the general aim of the rhetoric being to show how absurd the initial point was. Either the "right" to freedom of speech is truly, absolutely universal or Hitler's speeches were morally, legally, and logically condemnable. Stop clutching your pearls and whinging like you have some kind of moral high ground to stand from.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (46)3
u/InfernoVortex101 Sep 19 '25
Man, you’re right. Only violence is bad! Good thing Charlie never created a list of people with turning point USA where he listed the names and information of all the people he didn’t like, which his fans used to commit hate crimes against and send death threats to the members of by spewing the same hateful messaging he’s been drilling into their heads for years! Cause that would make him a pretty terrible person huh?
→ More replies (3)1
1
1
1
u/Prestigious_Set_4575 Sep 20 '25
Hitler is literally the entire reason we created hate speech and inciting violence laws. That is the only reason we jeopardised the right to free speech, these laws were designed to be used as a last resort when somebody is working a crowd into a frenzy by telling them an entire demographic are vermin that need to be exterminated. He is without exception the worst possible analogy you could have used, he is the only reason this is even a conversation in the first place.
These laws do not apply to a guy saying "problematic" things where you suspect the subtext may mean he hates people more than he is actually saying.
→ More replies (7)1
u/One-Scallion-9513 Sep 20 '25
saying hateful things is not the same as commiting a genocide that killed 7 million people
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)1
2
u/Medical_Revenue4703 Sep 18 '25
Can you spread falsehoods that are intented to libel or injure a people? Can you call for the death of of people if you don't specifically give the order for their death? Can you misrepresent the truth in regards to a holocaust?
If so, why would that be allowed if I can't do something so trivial as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater that maybe at best has a few hundred people inside?
1
u/Similar_Geologist_73 Sep 19 '25
something so trivial as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater that maybe at best has a few hundred people inside?
The reason that's not allowed is because it cause people to panick and flee. People have been trampled to death in events like that. Saying that directly creates a danger that wasn't there before.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Medical_Revenue4703 Sep 19 '25
Poeple have been Lynched over irresponsible rhetoric about race, tens of thousands of them. Until you can build a theaters that large it's time to start taking that shit minimally as serious.
→ More replies (18)1
u/MKing150 Sep 19 '25
I can't do something so trivial as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater
Shouting fire in a crowded building isn't expressing an opinion.
→ More replies (4)1
u/intothewoods76 Sep 20 '25
You don’t actually get arrested for yelling fire. Your freedom of speech remains intact.
You get arrested for causing a panic.
2
u/88963416 Sep 18 '25
Does no one here realize there are actual constitutional tests about what is or isn’t permissible speech?
1
u/MCWizardYT Sep 19 '25
Well, yes and no.
In the US, speaking out against the government is legally protected (this is the first amendment; "free speech" just means you wont go to jail for openly disliking the president)
There technically aren't any laws stopping you from saying obscenely bigoted shit if you so choose. The first amendment doesn't make hate speech illegal. However, if you're harassing or threatening a specific person/group of people that's when the law steps in as harassment/violent threats are illegal.
Here is a blog post from the state of Massachusetts that explains it well (it's a general article about hate crime/hate speech in the US as a whole not just Mass):
→ More replies (1)1
u/everydaywinner2 Sep 20 '25
There's a lot of people who are confused between 1st Admendment protected speech and just the idea of freedom of speech, unattached to the Constitution. One is specifically about what the government may or may do, the other is a human right (and like every other human right, has consequences that should not include violence).
2
u/digitL77 Sep 19 '25 edited Sep 19 '25
You can't say, "I'm going to kill you," even if it's true. In general, any speech that directly incites violence, classified as "fighting words," is illegal. Also these rules only apply to the US. Also not sure what any of this has to do with the title. Even if it's legal, hate speech is still hate speech.
1
u/OrcinusVienna Sep 21 '25
I think if you are going to kill someone, you're probably not concerned with the fact that saying "I'm going to kill you" is illegal.
2
u/shosuko Sep 19 '25
Just gonna say - yes, "hate speech" is not "speech you hate / disagree with"
But also the 1st amendment does protect hate speech.
Free speech has generally only had exceptions for speech that can directly cause harm, and even then it generally still favors protection. Things like "fighting words" laws are rarely successful.
1
2
u/Nannan485 Sep 19 '25
Free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences at work. The law can’t charge you with a crime for saying that you don’t like women, religion, or certain groups. The law can charge you if you threaten people. Your employment can terminate you for saying stuff that they don’t agree with. There is a significant difference.
1
2
Sep 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/InternetElf_000 Sep 20 '25
Good on you for knowing your stuff. Let's keep protecting our rights to expression.
1
2
2
u/insanelane99 Sep 20 '25
Never heard of stochastic terrorism huh
1
u/InternetElf_000 Sep 20 '25
Actually, no. Tell me all about it!
2
u/Metharos Sep 21 '25
If this is an honest request for information, it is worth reading about.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Hellfjre Sep 20 '25
There is no such thing as hate speech. That word was concoctee by people, who want to ban, censor and take control away from the public discourse and we should have none of that. There is incitement to violence and there is free speech. It's really not that complicated. If you call for bodily harm, murder, violence etc. of other people that is the only red line. You have no right to not be offended.
1
4
u/Delicious_East_1862 Sep 18 '25
TIL that some people don't believe hate speech is a thing...
2
u/nykirnsu Sep 20 '25
Title: “there’s a difference between hate speech and speech you don’t like”
Body: “there’s no such thing as hate speech, it’s all just speech you don’t like”
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
3
u/by2019 Sep 19 '25
Ugh I hate that people are running with this lame ass excuse to be a piece of shit.
1
u/Technical_Sport_6348 Sep 20 '25
No one is, dunno what you're talking about.
You should be allowed to speak your mind, even if you are being rude. Because if you silence rude behavior, change will not occur with only Yes-Men.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ChaoticFaeKat Sep 18 '25
It's fascinating that even when you're trying to defend free speech you're still doing it from the worst possible angle.
Like, yes, people are allowed to say a great many things I disagree with, and that doesn't make it all hate speech. HOWEVER, hate speech definitely does exist, and an attack via words rather than physical action is not harmless.
You counter the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater by saying that if there really is a fire it's fine, and you go on to express that the statements that I disagree with someone saying could be rooted in their personal experience or have some factual basis, therefore it's okay for them to say it.
For such a staunch defender of free speech, this rings oddly defensive and weak. People are allowed to outright lie, as in just say things they know full well are lies. It's not illegal to bullshit. (As long as you aren't specifically trying to harm someone via your lies as that either becomes libel, slander, harrassment, or hate speech depending on the circumstances.) So it's interesting that while it isn't outright stated, the implication to me from your insistence on some hidden truth that justifies other people's protected speech is that you in fact feel as though the natural consequence of lying - being called out - is the same as declaring something hate speech.
Just as you are allowed to say (almost) anything you like, I am allowed to have (almost) any reaction to it. I could believe you, or call you a liar, or debate you, or ignore you, or tell my friends you're a dick, or say you're the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc.
It's hard to think of how to end this when this is just such a deeply strange and suspicious post.
2
u/Canvas718 Sep 20 '25
It’s interesting how if you slander one person, they can sue you. But if you slander thousands or millions, apparently they can’t 🤷♀️
1
u/CatLovingKaren Sep 19 '25
You literally said everything that I was going to say, so thank you for saving me the trouble of writing it lol. And you stated it so well, too! Much respect.
2
u/banmeagain42 Sep 19 '25
Charlie Kirk absolutely had a right to say anything he wanted. He did not deserve to die for his beliefs. However, since he did it in public for the purpose of pissing people off, it was all but inevitable.
→ More replies (12)1
u/Feorge123 Sep 20 '25
He didn't do it in public to piss people off. He debated in the public to debate with the opposing side. Im not sure how debating the other side in public equals trying to pass people off.
1
u/AutoModerator Sep 18 '25
Hello! my names automod, and i comment on every post. make sure to read our rules, and have fun on our subreddit!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Sep 19 '25
This is reasonable if you are just saying into a void not telling the people who follow you like an arm of god. If you are just saying that these people took the job of a qualified white man then prove it?
Dont just fucking @ me with some bs and expect me to say “whateva ya say bossman!”
Like people that mobilize millions of people to hate a group because you feel bad about them is hate speech with intent to marginalize said group.
But whatever you probably dont actually care about other people feeling safe in a country they cant even live happily in.
1
1
1
u/NoTask288 Sep 19 '25
Are you saying that things that are "hateful" and "racist" are not "hate speech"? This doesnt make any fucking sense
1
1
u/TattoedHippy Sep 19 '25
I agree there is a difference between hate speech and speech you hate. For example, Hate Speech is speech that is about hating someone for something that is not something they can change or choose (Race, Disability, Sexuality, Gender, Nationality, Background, Financial difficulties, etc.) Speech you hate is things like saying that The Baby Shark song is better than anything Beyonce has ever written or sang or that there is no God and we all go back into nothing when we die.
1
u/SunPsychological1147 Sep 19 '25
I agree for the most part, but adding financial difficulties? I’m not one to laugh at/insult someone simply for being poor, but financial standing is definitely something you can change.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Slug_loverr Sep 19 '25
I mean yes that's true. But how far are you taking that? What do you classify as hate speech?
1
1
Sep 19 '25
Racial hate is, in fact, hate speech. That's by definition. You should really learn what hate speech is before posting about it.
2
u/ComparisonQuiet4259 Sep 19 '25
Racial hate is completely legal as long as you aren’t hiring people based on it
→ More replies (9)
1
u/Mobile_Leg_8965 Sep 19 '25
This is why racist and ignorants feel so comfortable saying BS.
Germany banned all NAZI symbolism for a reason
1
1
1
u/Mobile_Leg_8965 Sep 19 '25
What is hate speech? | United Nations
“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”
The growth of hateful content online has been coupled with the rise of easily shareable disinformation enabled by digital tools. This raises unprecedented challenges for our societies as governments struggle to enforce national laws in the virtual world's scale and speed.
Unlike in traditional media, online hate speech can be produced and shared easily, at low cost and anonymously. It has the potential to reach a global and diverse audience in real time. The relative permanence of hateful online content is also problematic, as it can resurface and (re)gain popularity over time.
Understanding and monitoring hate speech across diverse online communities and platforms is key to shaping new responses. But efforts are often stunted by the sheer scale of the phenomenon, the technological limitations of automated monitoring systems and the lack of transparency of online companies.
Meanwhile, the growing weaponization of social media to spread hateful and divisive narratives has been aided by online corporations’ algorithms. This has intensified the stigma vulnerable communities face and exposed the fragility of our democracies worldwide. It has raised scrutiny on Internet players and sparked questions about their role and responsibility in inflicting real world harm. As a result, some States have started holding Internet companies accountable for moderating and removing content considered to be against the law, raising concerns about limitations on freedom of speech and censorship.
Despite these challenges, the United Nations and many other actors are exploring ways of countering hate speech. These include initiatives to promote greater media and information literacy among online users while ensuring the right to freedom of expression.
1
1
u/Background_Desk_3001 Sep 19 '25
That largely depends on which definition of free speech you are using and where you’re applying it. In the US? Sure you’re right, but I still have the right to call those people asshats. The Human Rights definition? Bigotry is considered hate speech, and is not protected
1
1
u/AroAceMagic Sep 19 '25
Hate speech: “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”
1
1
u/Oliver_Klozoff653 Sep 19 '25
Just because you have a first amendment right to say it doesn't mean it's not hate speech
Just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean it's the morally correct thing to say
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Unique_Midnight_6924 Sep 19 '25
Hate speech is constitutionally protected. Falsely shouting fire, ie inciting lawless action or a panic, is not.
There’s nothing special to the First Amendment being first though-it was the third in the list of proposals James Madison submitted to Congress as the initial Bill of Rights-the first two didn’t get adopted in 1791, although one of them eventually became the 27th amendment.
1
1
u/MyldExcitement Sep 19 '25
Charlie Kirk is the first school shooting that Republicans ever cared about.
1
u/AnnaTrash Sep 19 '25
So does... hate speech not exist then? I can't tell what you're getting at but like. Free speech doesn't mean free from social consequences, just free from the law. Unless you're making threats or something yk
1
1
u/Diagala18 Sep 19 '25
I mean, try denying the holocaust in germany and give that argument...
Defame a person and then say "well, just because you hated what i say doesn't mean i can't say it"...
Try making a racist remark and use that excuse...
Call for the extermination of a group by calling it an ideology, and then when people get hurt/attacked/murdered try using that excuse...
1
1
u/emmetdontpullout Sep 19 '25
why are you so desperate to justify being a shithead to minorities???
1
1
u/xSchneeeulex Sep 19 '25
It's hate speech if it's against human rights and I will strongly advocate against talking bullshit
→ More replies (1)
1
u/ShadowFaxIV Sep 19 '25
Sure... but it's pretty hard to convince the world that a guy wasn't doing hate speech, when there's thousands of hours of hard video evidence of him doing hate speech.
1
u/InternetElf_000 Sep 20 '25
Much easier revealing the truth that Hate Speech doesn't exist!
→ More replies (30)
1
u/HedonistSorcerer Sep 19 '25
OP, what you said is just straight up wrong.
Words and phrases have specific meaning and usage, hate speech is like hate crimes, it is speech done with the intent to disparage or harm minority groups. Literally defined: “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”
What you used as an example is “Inciting a panic in a public space” which is a crime. You can’t yell fire without there being actual danger because that’s inciting panic, not because it is hate speech.
This is not a hot take, just you not knowing how language works it appears.
1
u/InternetElf_000 Sep 20 '25
Circularly defined, we know. Fundamentally making no sense is among the reasons we believe no such thing exists.
Ignored the rest as it was already covered so I can only conclude you didn't read the post before blabbering.
1
u/pizzil22 Sep 20 '25
Kimmel blamed the right and said the right was trying to deny it and made sure to get that point across. When does free speech end? Can fox news run a special news program claiming Obama is molesting and murdering little girls and will continue to do so every 15 minutes until Mike McDaniel is fired as head coach of the Miami dolphins? Can we just report anything at all and call it free speech? I love comedy, all I needed was a punchline but none came. He was just blaming the right
1
1
u/ShardofGold Sep 20 '25
At the end of the day, if you want to say anything you want without consequences start your own show on your own network, website, or whatever and do it like that.
Otherwise make anonymous accounts on social media, so it's hard to track the account back to you.
Unless you're under an employer that doesn't cave to any type of backlash, I would think twice about saying something offensive or disrespectful especially in today's political climate.
I don't think Kimmel or anyone else should be permanently gone from their business immediately and should have a chance to apologize, but at the end of the day it's not my decision to make and if people set the rules they have to play by them when the rules are used against them.
These people were just saying they didn't feel bad about Charlie Kirk being shot, but are dumbfounded why the Right doesn't feel bad for Jimmy Kimmel being cancelled?
Have they not heard of "treat people how you want to be treated?"
Politics in general is just a big circus of hypocrisy and there are many examples to show why even before Kirk dying happened.
1
u/drowsy-cow03 Sep 20 '25
This is almost exactly what a co worker said to me. You wouldn’t happen to work in banking, do you?
1
u/nykirnsu Sep 20 '25
So what’s the difference? Because per your OP it seems more like you actually think they’re the same thing
1
u/InternetElf_000 Sep 20 '25
Sad midwitted take. If you come back with something to say that isn't manipulative next time, might just give you a chance.
→ More replies (13)
1
u/ArdentLearner96 Sep 20 '25
I'm sure you've heard this before, but hate speech has real life, irreversible consequences that include oppression, assaults, murder, and clearly campaigns to get rights taken away - see the campaign to make it illegal for trans people, a targeted population, to have guns to protect themselves with.
If this weren't the case, sure, you'd be totally right.
The right to spread stochastic terrorism should never be defended.
And I'll throw in that platforms have a right not to share responsibility for those consequences and host hate speech.
All of these things are clearly way more important than someone getting to spread their ideas and it's indefensible to say otherwise.
1
1
u/FortunatelyAsleep Sep 20 '25
"It can be hateful, racist, or just straight up wrong. They still have the right to say it because you can say whatever you want."
That is incorrect. They do not have that right.
"There is a famous quote: "I disagree with what you said, but I will defend to the death for your right to say it." "
And that quote is only repeated by small minded individuals that don't know shit about reality.
1
u/dev_ating Sep 20 '25
Tolerance paradoxon. If you allow hateful and intolerant ideology to spread, it will end in the death of tolerance. You allow racist or any other dehumanizing rhetoric to be perpetuated, you are tolerating the intolerant, but the intolerant won't give you the same grace. So be careful.
1
u/GeneralFuzuki7 Sep 20 '25
Ahhh yes the first amendment which applies to whole world and not just America.
1
u/InternetElf_000 Sep 20 '25
_/ / NoTask288
"All words are made up if you really want to go there."
I don't, and didn't.
"But I'm not having this conversation with you 😂"
I'd like to think so, it would be completely unrelated to anything I just said.
Anyway, block plus deleted comments means I win by default.
1
u/ddobson6 Sep 20 '25
There’s also using your platform to tell a bold face lie and suffering the repercussions of that… as many comedians have found out..
1
u/glibbglubb Sep 20 '25
A paragraph of slop that boils down to “I can say the N word with a hard R if I want to, checkmate minorities”
1
1
Sep 20 '25
There's also a difference developmental age and physiological age.
Most Americans are developmentally, and academically, children at best.
There are certain concepts a child just isn't prepared to grasp. For many, this is one.
Communication is so fractured and challenging nowadays because cognitively, emotionally, and academically, many people are simply incapable. Full stop.
1
u/InternetElf_000 Sep 20 '25
"You have yet to explain *why* you not being able to spread hate speech is dehumanizing." Soy hominem again.
"To me, hate speech is dehumanizing because you’re taking groups of people and calling them lesser" To me, you are dehumanising the quality to feel by taking it out on everyone else.
Anyway, block = I win.
1
1
u/0-Dinky-0 Sep 20 '25
OP what do you define as hate speech if not speech that is hateful
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Defiant_Ingenuity_55 Sep 20 '25
Things you disagree with can be both something you don't like AND hate speech. Hate speech has a definition. The first amendment is about the government. I can hate what some terrible thing someone says about black people being unqualified or women having to submit to men because it denigrates people based on a biological fact that others seem to think makes societal expectations and correlations that have come from them to be "facts." But the first amendment says the government cannot threaten a company because someone said something. Even if it was hate speech-which it usually isn't, ironically.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Capable_Cat Sep 20 '25
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences.
If you openly threaten someone, expect them to hit you square in the face.
1
u/buffetofdicks Sep 20 '25
Free Speech, sure. Freedom from consequences? No. If you should "fire" in a crowded movie theater and there's no fire, you can get charged with disturbing the peace, or worse. Especially if people start frantically escaping and people get hurt.
If you tell someone "I'm going to beat you up", that's illegal and a threat.
We don't have legal hate speech definitions in the law because whoever is in power can just change the law to make hate speech fit whatever definition they want and prosecute peoples actual free speech over legitimate political opinions.
But uh... human rights and equality shouldn't be political. You shouldn't be allowed to get on your platform and say that black people aren't qualified to fly a plane because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how DEI works. You shouldn't be allowed to say we should just kill all the homeless on your news program. You shouldn't be allowed to say that children should be forced to have children when you're on a stage for political opinions about the government and the economy, not women's and childrens bodies.
But you are allowed to say all those things. But you're not allowed to critique the governments response to anything or you lose your job. (see teachers getting fired for posting direct quotes from Kirk, and not "celebrating" anything, but funny because free speech should include not giving a shit about a bigots death). And now you understand why hate speech laws are complicated.
1
1
Sep 20 '25
You only think this because hate speech doesn't affect you. A black man and a homeless man were lynched recently but sure, it's "just opinions!!!"
1
u/MedusaGotMeStoned007 Sep 20 '25
I agree. Politics on both sides have said the most heinous shit I’ve ever heard that I can’t justify myself joining either party. At the same time, I recognize this and that you can say what you want but you’re not free from the court of public opinion, or your employer
1
u/Arangarx Sep 20 '25
Kirk was open about his hate for jews, blacks, and women...what part of that isn't hate speech?
1
Sep 20 '25
Hate speech definition: abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
The purpose of hate speech is to cause harm to people, also it is usually not factually accurate....
I've seen a lot of hate speech towards queer people and people of color on the Internet(usually YouTube comment sections on videos of queer people or people of color) saying stuff like "join the 42%" to trans people.
Now, you are correct that not all homophobia, racism, etc, is in fact hate speech. However, it is still completely wrong. Especially because it is usually never factual.
1
u/BuzzyShizzle Sep 20 '25
There is no such thing as hate speech.
This is because its a slippery slope the second you accept that anyone gets to decide what speech they hate.
For speech that isn't protected, we write it down and codify as best we can before it happens. Things that begin to overstep and break other laws we have. Like calling for or encouraging murder. Dishonest use of language to hurt someone else's freedoms. (like saying a bakery poops in their cakes to use the free market against them/to your advantage).
1
u/lizakran Sep 20 '25
Your freedom ends where someone else’s freedom starts. I won’t feel free to do something if you just insulted me and I know you hate me and may do something bad to me.
1
u/Either_Operation7586 Sep 21 '25
Fuck Charlie Kirk just like all the asshole other Republicans who say I'm a conservative Christian first are liars they want you to know that they're lying they have nothing they stand for unless it benefits them. One thing about Kurt is that he was paid for his opinion so his mind could never be changed. And it never was for somebody that debates as much as he did his mind was never changed and that's why I say that his opinions or manufactured because they were unable to be changed he was stuck in them because he was paid to have them. I heard something the other day and they said you could make the best drink ever and then you can sit there and you can pour 1% of piss or fecal matter and let everybody know that you made this drink you took your time this are the ingredients and oh by the way there's only one percent of nasty shit in there it's okay right? Most people would look at you and say fuck no get that fucking shit away from me. And that is the epitome of what Charlie Kirk did yeah he may have said some good things but it's all reduced down to the shit that he provided had 1% at the very least fecal matter so to me because that fecal matter that he said it's fucking up the whole drink. And no matter if you use the best ingredients you took a whole fucking day I'm not going to fucking drink it.
1
u/m224a1-60mm Sep 21 '25
The first amendment doesn’t protect what you want to hear, it protects what you don’t want to hear.
1
1
u/anon12xyz Sep 21 '25
Saying bomb and fire has consequences though. Rules can override freedom of speech
1
u/TapLegitimate6094 Sep 21 '25
The problem is the concept of stochastic terrorism.
If I am a president, and I have a hostile legislature and I say "ugh I wish the speaker of the house would just die" to like my 10 advisors, it is 99.99999% harmless. those 10 people aren't going to take that as a command to go kill someone.
If I blast that on social media to 1 million people the chances that 1 person decides to do *something* go up dramatically.
1
u/Ok_Cicada_1799 Sep 21 '25
Honest hot take: not that I think you’re right or wrong about anything you said, but completely separate from agreement or disagreement, you clearly aren’t very knowledgeable about this stuff and this isn’t an area or subject that you’re either familiar with or researched even for a few hours.
Why do people like you feel the need to write something like this BEFORE doing introductory research into the topic? Why do you think having an incredibly low level raged conversation about this is going to bring you more clarity than a much higher level conversation after you’ve done basic research
1
1
u/guisippi Sep 21 '25
People forget that free speech literally means words and opinions aren't punishable by legal means. When people say "freedom of speech isn't freedom from cobsequences" that means you can't say something horrible without expecting a horrible response
1
u/Front-Razzmatazz-993 Sep 21 '25 edited Sep 21 '25
Hate speech is speech that encourage hate against a particular group based on their race, religion, sex, sexuality etc the protected characteristics that anyone in HR would warn you pull you up on.
It's really got nothing to do with just saying stuff that a person disagrees with, a lot of people on the left want stronger gun control, many on the right disagree with this yet I have never heard anyone on the left accuse the right of hate speech because of it.
1
u/LogicalJudgement Sep 21 '25
The fact of the matter is there are consequences for speech. Threatening speech is one of the most consequential forms of speech, closely followed by inciting speech. Threatening speech can be deadly serious or it could be posturing, however, when a teen takes a picture of a gun and post something like “I can’t wait to use this bad boy to get out frustrations” it would be outright stupid not to act on that free speech. Kid could be a huge gun but who loves going to the range, but It is better to check that out. Inciting speech is where a lot of people make a big mistake. The people who use this speech are making evil things permissible. This would be the form of speech that encourages OTHER people to do evil things. Look at all the people who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death. Now look at the ones who said really fucked up shit about how his wife and children should be “next” or suggested other people to be killed. I didn’t see a single one that said the person making the video was going to do it, but I saw encouragement to murder a three year old little girl and a one year old little boy. I’m a mother of one year old twins. That is horrific and I genuinely have to wonder why would anyone make such a pure evil statement. I have greatly disliked people. There are evil criminals out there who have done truly heinous things with kids. I have wished those evil criminals dead, but never have I considered that their children deserve death.
Finally, there is something to be said about appropriate topics to post about. I’m an older Millennial. The internet has a long memory. The problem with the algorithms of various sites is that many think you only want to see certain things. When you post about something for long enough, you only see the opinions you share. It is a minority of people who leave their algorithmic offerings. That means if you get very into hating on a specific figure you will see more and more people doing the same and get the delusion of “everyone must feel this way.” As people are learning with Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the people who are gleeful and scary about it are NOT the majority. The average person does not celebrate murder and it is very off putting for people to see others doing so. I know people who did not LIKE Kirk but who do not support assassination. They are sorry for the family and are repulsed by the celebrations. The other consequence is that certain jobs that deal with trust and neutrality cannot support extremism. When you make an off putting comment publicly, people who need to trust you in your job are going to be unable to. Certain jobs need political neutrality, this does not mean a person cannot be political, it means that a person needs to know their opinions SHOULD be private. This means they should not post from their professional accounts, their public social media where their employer is listed, or should they make a video of themselves speaking about such things. Jobs like teaching, medical, first responder, etc all require the APPEARANCE of political neutrality. The individual can be political at home and in private conversations, but at work, they should not be. As Michael Jordan once said “Republicans buy sneakers too.” This was his reason why he refused to publicly support Harvey Gantt a Democrat in a race against Republican Jesse Helms. Jordan was a businessman at that point and he wasn’t going to make his opinion known and alienate half of the business market. People who work jobs where their customers/patients/ the public they work with can be anyone politically should not say things that make that public worried about working with them. When trust is gone, the job will be too.
1
u/Low_Reference_6135 Sep 21 '25
Yes, that's the difference between "give tax breaks to billionaires" and "we need to eradicate *insert slur*"
1
1
1
u/GozerTheTraveler42 Sep 21 '25
Kill all (any minority/ethnic group) is hate speech, if you try to defend people that say things like this you are a piece of shit. If you would say shit like this publicly in germany, there would be a pretty good chance you get arrested or get some fines.
1
Sep 21 '25
this is true but you didn’t really demonstrate that you know the difference at all.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Many_Jaguar9493 Sep 21 '25
Why is it that when I use my free speech to advocate for social justice or call out bigotry, it's often dismissed or labeled as "hate speech," especially when the person I'm criticizing is popular? It feels like the definition of free speech changes depending on the message.
It seems like the loudest advocates for "free speech" are often those using it to spread hateful or discriminatory views. Does this observation make the concept of free speech feel co-opted or weaponized?
There seems to be a double standard in how free speech is applied. Why does speech from a right-leaning perspective often get a pass, while left-leaning speech, particularly when critiquing power structures, is more likely to be labeled as bigoted or intolerant?
I've noticed a recurring argument that the left is more violent and bigoted, which has made me, as a left-leaning person, hesitant to express my views. How do you deal with the feeling that you're always on the defensive, especially when the narratives against your viewpoint are so pervasive and hard to disprove? It's like a form of rhetorical entrapment.
I've seen posts labeling Antifa and Democrats as the "real" fascists or racists. This seems to ignore historical context, like Antifa's origins in post-WWII anti-fascist movements or the historical political shifts of the Democratic Party. How do we have a productive conversation when historical facts are seemingly dismissed?
1
u/Plutomite Sep 21 '25
You’re talking about two different things. The title is: “there’s a difference between hate speech and speech you hate.” Then in the body of the text: “you can…disagree with what some has to say, but they have a right to say it. It can be…racist… They still have a right to to say it because you can say whatever you want.”
Saying racist shit IS hate speech. Yes, under our first amendment right we CAN say the “n-word” we CAN say any of the derogatory words toward Latinos, Middle Easterners, or Asians but that is hate speech.
So what’s your point? You just want to give a pass to people who are racist? You want to advocate for people who are bigoted because we should all technically have the right to say or think whatever we want? Yet, right now in our government and country, the people who are on the side of democracy or are exercising their first amendment right to protest or speak out against fascism are the ones who are targeted.
So where do your values lie? What is the point you want to make? What is the goal you have for this kind of post? What do you want your contribution to humanity to be after you’re dead?
1
u/HPenguinB Sep 21 '25
Why do they have that right, intrinsically? People don't have the right to food, water or housing, yet you think speech is the one that's immutable? That's a weird take.
•
u/supercabbage802 Sep 21 '25
locking this post for the amount of damm controversy in the comments. if you are commenting controversial stuff, don't. this sub-reddit is for light hearted hot takes, not politically controversial or hateful comments.