OK. But we do agree that the threat itself is still a speech act? — Echarmion

There are speech acts that are threats, but what I'm describing isn't just, or even necessarily, a speech act.

I wasnt responding to your points, your not really making any anymore. I was responding to your shameful behaviour and hypocrisy.
Also I, like you, will respond to posts as I see think proper and if you dont like it then you can just not respond to me. I assure you, I will give up responding as soon as I get the sense you are ignoring me.

UK members should remember and be proud of the long history of free speech advocacy in their country—JS Mill, John Milton, George Orwell, Christopher Hitchens, mr. Bean. Wait...Mr. Bean?

Yes, Rowan Atkinson helped remove the insult clause in section 5. His defence of free speech and repudiation of censorship applies not only to the insult clause, but to hate speech.

It's true, and it's part of U.K. law, incorporated into the first clause of the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10. Cherry picking won't help you. It's a fallacy.

Okay, well I'm effectively going to ignore you by dismissing your ad homs as irrelevant. This kind of reply will be all you'll get from me, unless you decide to get back on topic.

Funny how you jump to the defence of someone who speaks up for Nazis and their anti-Semitic hate speech and decide to focus your attack on me, though. Yeah, I'm the one who should be ashamed here...

There are speech acts that are threats, but what I'm describing isn't just, or even necessarily, a speech act. — Terrapin Station

But it seems to follow that "speech acts can never be illegal" is not a tenable position then. The question that follows is what benefit does a dogmatic adherence to "free speech absolutism" have?

But it seems to follow that "speech acts can never be illegal" is not a tenable position then. The question that follows is what benefit does a dogmatic adherence to "free speech absolutism" have? — Echarmion

Indeed, it isn't tenable. It's contradictory. That's more than enough reason to reject his stance, however he answers your question.

Those are not ad homs. It is me noticing you are being hypocritical and calling you out for it.
If all you are getting from NOS is that he is “speaking up” for Nazi’s and Anti-Semetic hate speech, then this further evidences how little you are paying attention to what he is saying. It is irrational for you to be so dismissive of the points he is making. They are not nonsense. Maybe he is a neo nazi type, I dont know or care. What I care about is the arguments being made, and thats what you should be concerned with as well but you are ignoring them, and acting like there is no legitimacy to what he is saying. There are very good arguments on the opposing view to yours, of which you seem ignorant.
Defending free speech includes the unfortunate and yes hateful things people might say. Its a worthwhile trade off for some and if you disagree then disagree but this dismissive engagement is pretty clearly your bias on display. If it isnt, explain how I have that wrong instead of using the overused “ad hom” deflection.

I'm going to stop responding now. I've given you enough of a chance.

This problem of "hate speech" is yet another problem of projection and scapegoating: people who themselves hate accuse others of hating.

If a person who worships lies (ie. "believes" something that is not true) hears a truth that undermines their "belief", they will hate the person speaking the truth and accuse them of hate speech because it is how they themselves feel: hatred.

The bigger problem is who is allowed to define what is "hate speech". Once people who hate facts that undermine their "beliefs" get power, you get something like Islam and/or Nazism.

It is coming back on the planet again because the problem never left. The problem is humanity failing to understanding where Nazism comes from and why.

But it seems to follow that "speech acts can never be illegal" is not a tenable position then — Echarmion

Again, criminal threatening as I describe it isn't a speech act. It can be accompanied by a speech act--as can murdering someone, raping someone, etc. But the speech act is neither sufficient nor even necessary.

You’ve given me nothing. What is it you imagine im addressing here? Your free speech arguments? Ive been fairly specific about what Im addressing. I mean, why would I bother making points you simply ignore when others make it?
Before any headway on free speech can be had you need to stop dogmatically dismissing the opposing view. Get your head out of your ass, to put it in an S kinda way.

Again, criminal threatening as I describe it isn't a speech act. — Terrapin Station

You're clearly describing speech acts. With specific circumstances, sure, but telling you to repudiate your views is speech, regardless of whether or not I am holding a gun while saying it. It's speech that is usually considered to fall outside of protected speech, but I was under the impression that you reject that distinction.

It can be accompanied by a speech act--as can murdering someone, raping someone, etc. But the speech act is neither sufficient nor even necessary. — Terrapin Station

Unlike with rape or murder, speech is a central elements when making threats. Indeed one can understand implied threats as a form of nonverbal speech.

You're clearly describing speech acts. — Echarmion

So this, for example:

"it's an immediate, 'physical' threat in the sense of potential victims being within the range of the threatening instruments (whether just one's body, or weapons, or causally connected remote devices or substances, etc.), which are actual and not simply claimed,"

Is explicitly describing something that's not speech.

It seems weird that a lot of arguments here are just doubling down on an objection that makes no sense in light of what someone is actually saying.

Hate speech cultivates the conditions of/for war.
— creativesoul
Just as well equipped, effective armed forces give the ability for politicians to go to war in distant places. — ssu

False analogy.

Well equipped armed forces are not always used in aggressive action. All hate speech is aggressive.

Yet to think that well equipped effective armed forces should then be banned is the wrong way to think about it. — ssu

I agree, but then again... I'm not the one thinking about it like that.

Africa has had poorly equipped small armed forces for a long time and that hasn't prevented genocidal wars of happening.

Hate speech was not absent.

Hate speech cultivates the conditions of/for war.
— creativesoul

Do you think the following example of hate speech cultivates the conditions for war between Britain and the US?

Too much guns, religion, celebrity, flag waving nationalism, egomaniac, warmongering, stupid constitutional rights obsession. The U.S. is like our deformed offspring.
— S

If not, is there any circumstance in which you think it could? Or maybe you think it isn't hate speech at all? — jamalrob

Looks like ridicule to me. It's related to hate speech in that they are both founded upon a personal value system which devalues others for irrational reasons.

Not hate speech though...

So then, do you agree that thought, belief, and speech has efficacy?

I do, but only on the person thinking, believing and speaking. I don’t believe they have any efficacy beyond that. — NOS4A2

Speech shares thought/belief. Then there were two...

Again, criminal threatening as I describe it isn't a speech act. — Terrapin Station

Then you describe it in a disingenuous way to avoid contradiction. It can be a speech act. If I said to you, "I'm going to fucking knife you to death!", then that would definitely be criminal threatening.

They were long steeped in censorship. Weimar Germany has the most modern hate speech laws in history. Nazis were persecuted for their speech up until the Nazis seized power. Not only did they use their sense of martyrdom to propel their cause, they turned around and used that persecution as justification for their own persecutory actions.

Censorship licensed the groundwork for war, bloodshed and genocide. — NOS4A2

There are numerous problems with the above...

Weimar Germany(The Weimar Republic) no longer exists. History has continued on. Any and all hate speech laws written and/or enacted/enforced since are appropriately called more modern.

That's one issue.

Nazi's used hate speech to wage a horrible war on all sorts of others. You're supposed to be - unless I'm mistake - objecting to my position. I'm attempting to set out first that thought/belief and speech has efficacy. I'm using actual examples. What you've said here offers support. Is that what you wanted to do?

Looks like ridicule to me. It's related to hate speech in that they are both founded upon a personal value system which devalues others for irrational reasons. — creativesoul

Lolwot? So, when you go to see a stand up comedian, and they ridicule this, that, and the other, that's "founded upon a personal value system which devalues others for irrational reasons"?

If hate speech is accepted using freedom of speech, then you've licensed the groundwork(the means) for war and bloodshed.

Pick an enemy.
— creativesoul

The enemy I've picked is the idea that speech causes actions. — Terrapin Station

That's not just an idea my friend.

Look! Wait. Go!

Yep.

Nope. They're just doing it to be funny. That's their job.

Nope. They're just doing it to be funny. That's their job. — S

Many find the deliberate belittling of another to be funny. Doesn't make it hate speech. Everyone deserves a certain modicum of respect(dignity, worth, value) simply because they are human.

Don't quit your day job. The comedy needs work.

So this, for example:

"it's an immediate, 'physical' threat in the sense of potential victims being within the range of the threatening instruments (whether just one's body, or weapons, or causally connected remote devices or substances, etc.), which are actual and not simply claimed,"

Is explicitly describing something that's not speech. — Terrapin Station

True, but then it's also not someone threatening someone else. It's a dangerous situation. Commonly also called a "threat". The two usages of the word are distinct.

It seems weird that a lot of arguments here are just doubling down on an objection that makes no sense in light of what someone is actually saying. — Terrapin Station

It seems weird that despite the fact that your own definition references speech under section a), you're now claiming that it has nothing to do with speech.

Are you saying threatening someone doesn't require communication?

Many find the deliberate belittling of another to be funny. Doesn't make it hate speech. — creativesoul

I didn't dispute that.

Everyone deserves a certain modicum of respect(dignity, worth, value) simply because they are human. — creativesoul

Everyone deserves to be ridiculed, simply because I find it amusing.

Don't quit your day job. The comedy needs work. — creativesoul

Well, it's not like I can compete with you. Your comments on "thought/belief" are some of the funniest I've ever seen.

If a person who worships lies (ie. "believes" something that is not true) hears a truth that undermines their "belief", they will hate the person speaking the truth and accuse them of hate speech because it is how they themselves feel: hatred. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Would you like to be bullied, puppet?
I will sing a nasty tune for you and you will trot in requiem.

I will tear you up and assemble you anew, and you shall moan in gratitude - won't you, Shelley?

Free speech
naked on the beach
hate speech
for the towel reach
between the towel and naked skin
something lies unseen
it's air that fills the gap
you know that, I'll clap

If I said to you, "I'm going to fucking knife you to death!", — S

No, that wouldn't be at all sufficient. I have specific conditions that need to be met that I make explicit.