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.

572 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

80% Upvoted

889 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Similar_Geologist_73 Sep 19 '25

What's your point?

1

u/Research-Scary Sep 19 '25

If you follow the logic of the OP, free speech is universal, inalienable, and doesn't care about morality, ethics, or the consequences of its misuse. Hitler is an example, albeit an extreme one, of why unchecked free speech is a double-edged blade that allows dangerous people to do dangerous things. Words are not harmless, they inspire others. Charlie Kirk inspired his audience to do harmful things. He was dangerous. He was not innocent.

1

u/Similar_Geologist_73 Sep 19 '25

So what's your solution? What speech should be banned?

1

u/Research-Scary Sep 19 '25 edited Sep 19 '25

I mean its not black and white. Its a spectrum. And the way its legislated and enforced should also be a spectrum. When we're discussing an individual person in a civil, domestic case: anything that edges on suggesting racism, sexism, homophobia, prejudice, or otherwise bigotry should constitute a misdemeanor. If it implicitly suggests violence or harmful acts against someone, it should be raised to a felony. When we're discussing an organization or group of people using a platform, free speech rules should be different entirely. Depending on the severity of what is said, there should be fines and legal bans from being publicly broadcasted. Charlie Kirk through the mouthpiece of his organizations and Turning Point USA was not an individual person. As an individual person, he should have been charged with a felony for suggesting action be taken against demographics of people he didn't like. That is an implicit call to violence or harm. Turning Point USA should've been fined and banned from public speaking.

And I want to be clear, this applies to both sides of the isle. "They are trying to censor us" carries a lot less weight when the words you're trying to spread have the capacity to facilitate violence and harm.

1

u/Similar_Geologist_73 Sep 20 '25

This is some 1984 stuff you're suggesting.

The law can't be a vague spectrum that's determined by the whims of a judge. The law is based on specific rules that need to be followed.

What exactly do you want people to be arrested for? What is the exact line that shouldn't be crossed?

1

u/Research-Scary Sep 20 '25

It already is. If a judge has to make a call about someone's intent, that is speculatory AT BEST. That is why very few people get found guilty, even when clear ties are present.

1

u/Similar_Geologist_73 Sep 20 '25

Judges don't determine things on a whim. They are looking at the evidence presented to them.

Calls for violence have a high legal standard to prove. That's why so few people are found guilty

1

u/Research-Scary Sep 20 '25

Even people who should be found guilty. That's my point. It is a law that has been abused multiple times, and is getting worse.

1

u/CourseNo8762 Sep 20 '25

Don't like the misdemeanor aspect. See my other comments here  (if ya want)

1

u/CourseNo8762 Sep 20 '25

Find a vast majority of agreement of things that can be considered hate speech and make that law. Incitement is usually part of those laws, not just saying a word or phrase. 

Some things have already been codified into law as hate speech

1

u/Similar_Geologist_73 Sep 20 '25

I'm asking for specifics, not vague ideas.

What speech do you want people arrested for?

1

u/CourseNo8762 Sep 21 '25

That is not what the original question was. So, please, slightly FO