Take Jefferson. Take Mandela. Take Walesa. Take Aquino. Take Havel

Except, none of them used hate speech to my knowledge.
In the context of arguments before, we were arguing against letting leaders get away with inciting violence under the banner of free speech.

Free speech rights are rights granted to people as protection against government restrictions. The government does not need such protection. They have the power.

Commands can also be ordered by cult figures, religious figures. Government is just one form of power that may not need the protection but in most of the cases, people who issue commands are not immune to prosecution. Right before elections, some politicians may resort to extreme speech ( arguably hate speech ) to win a certain fraction of people as in case of Trump in America or Modi in India. Nuff said .

Except, none of them used hate speech to my knowledge.
In the context of arguments before, we were arguing against letting leaders get away with inciting violence under the banner of free speech. — Wittgenstein

You call it "hate speech" and it appears you want to give the government the power to both define it and enforce it. In the late 1790s, Congress passed the Sedition Act which severely restricted protest against the government. That's what happens when you give the government the power - it restricts legitimate speech. It's true everywhere and always. That's how governments work. That's why we need the Constitution and the will not to let it be eroded.

Commands can also be ordered by cult figures, religious figures. — Wittgenstein

The subject at hand is military commands, commands with the backing of the government, not commands by Charles Manson.

You call it "hate speech" and it appears you want to give the government the power to both define it and enforce it. In the late 1790s, Congress passed the Sedition Act which severely restricted protest against the government. That's what happens when you give the government the power - it restricts legitimate speech. It's true everywhere and always. That's how governments work. That's why we need the Constitution and the will not to let it be eroded. — T Clark

Right, what always happens is that people want increasing restrictions. They keep pushing the envelope on what they think is okay speech to prohibit.

No hate speech should not be allowed. There is no more room for it in this world, and truly there never was.

Should all forms of hate speech be allowed, including the racist ones. Should hate speech which instigates violence be allowed ? If we ban a certain type of offensive speeches and usually the arguments are oriented around feelings being hurt. We may also argue against criticizing a religion or an ideology. I know one of the group isn't a choice and the other is but does it matter. — Wittgenstein

I have to agree with @Terrapin Station on this one. It isn’t a matter of stifling subjective expressions of opinion (deemed hateful or not). It’s a matter of educating people to be aware that these are subjective expressions of opinion, and their own thoughts, words or actions in response are their own responsibility. This is the case regardless of the power, influence or control we may have handed over.

The problem is that society currently doesn’t work this way. When we say that the speech of one human being instigates violence in another, we separate the responsibility from the right or capacity to act. Cause and effect then retains all rights but passes all responsibility up the chain of command. It seems like there is no choice, but the truth is that the alternatives are freely rejected - and yes, death is always an option.

When we start to accept speech as a source of power over the actions of human beings, which must then be controlled by another external power, then I think we’re going backwards, not forwards.

When we start to accept speech as a source of power over the actions of human beings, — Possibility

Not to be crass but this is almost laugh out loud funny. "Can you imagine if other people's speech were to be influences on other people? My gosh, no, however could we 'accept' that? It's never happened, ever, we better not start 'accepting' it now!". Like - which planet does this line of thinking come from? It's certainly not Earth.

Do you really believe that the words someone says have a power over you that you cannot control?

There's even scholarship on it (e.g. Freedom of Speech: Words are Not Deeds, Harry M. Bracken); legal cases as well (e.g. Cohen v. California)

Do you really believe that the words someone says have a power over you that you cannot control? — Possibility

'Control?' Like one 'controls' a toy car? That's not how the power of speech operates - at least not except under the most restricted and terrible conditions. The vocabulary of the question is wrong from the beginning. The point is simply that to say that 'we can't accept speech as a source of power over other people' is like saying 'we can't accept the sky is blue'; human history to a large degree the results of the power of speech and action over and with others. One can try to not 'accept' reality - but the loser here won't be reality.

uman history to a large degree the results of the power of speech and action over and with others. — StreetlightX

Which is the reason it's so important to protect free speech rights.

On the "I don't like Mondays" thread currently active, there has been a discussion of the differences between the US's and other country's attitudes toward violence. There has been talk of a "warrior culture" of hero worship. I am skeptical of that sort of explanation, but I do recognize there are cultural differences and that the US is at one extreme, at least among liberal democracies. I wonder if the differences in opinions on free speech is related.

Which is the reason it's so important to protect free speech rights — T Clark

This doesn't follow and is also really dumb on the face of it. "X is really, really important, which is why we should under no circumstances, in any way all all, do anything about it".

dumb — StreetlightX

Knowing the deep respect and admiration you feel for me and my ideas, I'll interpret your response as "I disagree with your point of view."

Νο, no. You must take advantage of your free speech rights and answer 'Fuck you, you dumbfuck'! By the way, on another thread, fellow Americans argued that the U.S. is not a democracy, it's a republic!

You're a dangerous person, you want to ban hate speech - and criticism of religion and ideologies? Criticism is hate speech?

This is the heart of the issue about hate speech, I argue, that speaking about something can only serve to increase its prevalence, the opposite effect is very unlikely. So by uttering words of hate, you spread hate. However, many people do not simply wish to ban hateful words but characterise honest and fair criticism as hate. If you've spoken simply and you're not such a person, fine but there are many who want to abuse and weaponise this power to silence people by saying they're uttering hate. Who could be trusted with that power?

It is more dangerous for people to silence fair criticism by calling it hate speech than it is for hate speech to go unpunished.

You call it "hate speech" and it appears you want to give the government the power to both define it and enforce it. In the late 1790s, Congress passed the Sedition Act which severely restricted protest against the government. That's what happens when you give the government the power - it restricts legitimate speech. It's true everywhere and always. That's how governments work. That's why we need the Constitution and the will not to let it be eroded.

I think the gist of your argument is ; when we restrict hate speech and give government the power to do so, we may end up restricting legitimate speech. That's clearly a slippery slope argument. It is the responsibility of the people to oppose government policies that aim to take away their human rights as in any democratic state.
Taking us back to 1790s and using an example from over 200 years ago and applying it to 2019 won't strengthen your case. Constitution doesn't really help since the judges can interpret it differently. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution. In the west it may be a strong pillar and a cornerstone but if you take a closer look around the world, when people partake in revolutions, they tend to overthrow the constitutions and replace. It is the collective consciousness of society that prevents those in charge from committing immoral acts. That's precisely why dictators try to brainwash people because a piece of paper cannot prevent violation of human rights, it's the people who prevent and raise a voice.

I don't think l am dangerous and banning hate speech isn't even new. I won't even claim that it's my idea, l am here for discussion only and frankly l am neutral on the issue. German government has banned neo-nazi parties and all the gestures, symbols associated with the nazi party. Last time l checked Germany wasn't a dictatorship, it's a democratic government and they haven't forgotten their history , particularly the harm that can be caused by hate speech.

you want to ban hate speech - and criticism of religion and ideologies? Criticism is hate speech?

I categorically state that we should never ever ban criticism of religion and ideologies. Are you happy now.
Would you ban a neo-nazi ideology or an ISIS ideology in your country ?

Who could be trusted with that power?

If the question is raised in the context of a democratic government. The people have the power and no one should be trusted with authority except under the observation and the support of general public. I don't see how this could happen in a democratic government unless the people were blind and sheeps. Obviously in an authoritarian government, such Bills which deal with speech acts will always restrict legitimate criticism too and no one in their right mind would argue for that.

It isn’t a matter of stifling subjective expressions of opinion (deemed hateful or not). It’s a matter of educating people to be aware that these are subjective expressions of opinion, and their own thoughts, words or actions in response are their own responsibility. This is the case regardless of the power, influence or control we may have handed over.

The transfer of power and responsibility is the key aspect of this conversation. If a leader of an extreme group continues to inspire his followers to commit crimes and he cannot be convicted, that would give him even more authority. Where is the thin gap between ordering and instigating and should it matter ? If a soft stance towards hate speech causes chaos and disruption of order in society, will you revoke it or clutch to it stubbornly ?
The keen problem with almost all social theories is, they tend to ignore ground realities and tend to fail miserably when applied. More than often, hateful preachers do not tolerate other people's opinions. The demographic which tends to argue for allowing hate speech is usually the one unaffected by it. People don't really need to be educated about how responsibility works cause the society is based on rights and duties. There are other rights which are not usually talked about. As individuals in society we have a duty to spread peace and stop acts of violence and hate, otherwise we may end up on the receiving end. The problem with your stance is that the world cannot behave in such a way, it would wipe itself out. Could you imagine leaders starting nuclear war over extreme nationalism and ending up destroying the human race. That is a far fetched comparison but it applies to even basic social units like towns.

Cause and effect then retains all rights but passes all responsibility up the chain of command. It seems like there is no choice, but the truth is that the alternatives are freely rejected

Generally the law holds people accountable to the degree of their involvement in a crime. No one argued that we should allow those who physically commit hate crimes to go free and chill, they should be primarily punished for their offenses but stopping justice right there won't stop hate crimes from recurring. An important principle behind law and prosecution is that implementation of law should bring more stability and lessen crimes. If we were to allow hate speech, we would end up in a vicious cycle of crimes and the law would fail to serve its purpose.

If hate speech is ever disallowed then those same people should also be disallowed a right to vote for the same reason.

Because I think the latter is never justified I think that the former is never justified, again, for the same reason. Everybody should be allowed to say what they want and vote for what they want.

The point is simply that to say that 'we can't accept speech as a source of power over other people' is like saying 'we can't accept the sky is blue'; human history to a large degree the results of the power of speech and action over and with others. One can try to not 'accept' reality - but the loser here won't be reality. — StreetlightX

I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between accepting ‘the sky is blue’ as a description of experience and accepting ‘the sky is blue’ as a statement of fundamental reality. The fact that one may experience speech having a degree of influence over their actions does not make that ‘power’ an objective reality we cannot but accept. It’s still a perception.

Understanding how we have surrendered to the words we hear and interpret this ‘power’ over our emotions, thoughts and actions, and then having the courage to take it back, is more effective and less destructive in my opinion than trying to exercise authority over what people can and cannot say. I believe human history demonstrates that.

I understand what you’re saying — Possibility

No, you don't.

The fact that one may experience speech having a degree of influence over their actions does not make that ‘power’ an objective reality we cannot but accept. It’s still a perception. — Possibility

This is a tortured and spurious distinction. Moreover, there is no question of 'taking back power' over words; one of the ways we exercise our powers and liberties is through our engagement with words (with other words and actions) and not in spite of them. The power of words is positive and constitutive of who and what we are, not a foreign object to be treated at a remove. Words without power are dead letters, worthless to anyone, and leave us diminished. If we don't put ourselves at risk in and through words, we may as well be pigs making sounds at each other - which is exactly what liberal politics would make of us.

When we start to accept speech as a source of power over the actions of human beings, which must then be controlled by another external power, then I think we’re going backwards, not forwards. — Possibility

Exactly.

Not to be crass but this is almost laugh out loud funny. "Can you imagine if other people's speech were to be influences on other people? — StreetlightX

Imagine if people couldn't understand the difference between influence and causality. That would be funny, wouldn't it?

Almost as funny as attributing words to quotes that weren't there to begin with.

That's almost as funny as your reading comprehension abilities.

But in order to have any responsibility for causing someone to do something, you literally have to physically grab their body and move it around. Kind of like puppeteering. And your emotional and behavioural responses to speech acts are just like menu items you pick and choose at your whim regardless of context. It's not like anyone can force you to do anything like they do in human puppeteering. History, psychology, and neuroscience all back this up. Like, totally.

I'll have a happy burger in response to these threats of imminent violence against my person, please.

I don't care what the state bans, what the law says and all that. Written words have no power. And the cops should not care if the judge orders them to lock me in, the judge's words have no power over them, they're just pigs who hate me and want to see me behind bars. So, I don't care if hate speech is banned. Makes no difference.

I'll have a happy burger in response to these threats of imminent violence — Baden

Feel free to send me threats of imminent violence. I'll have a similar reaction to my reaction to your poor attempt to argue via misplaced satire above.

Yes, because that's the only possible way anyone could be held responsible, to whatever extent, for another. Worth noting too that the idea that cause and responsibility are internally related concepts is itself a bogus connection: one can be responsible for the state of a kitchen, a planned event, or car tires, without being the 'cause' of a mess or a death. This is why we have civil suits, and why head chefs can be fired. Responsibility reaches far wider than some narrow understanding of 'cause', and it's an artificial fudge of language to pretend the one only follows from the other.