Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

[Greatest I am]

Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

God seems to think correcting hateful thoughts or actions is good and correction often times includes showing hate for what is though or done.

I have tested the notions of and concepts of hate and love and find both to be quite useful.

There is a time to love and a time to hate even in these days where Google and others who control the net are actively censoring us?

Should we allow ourselves to hate and speak against those things that deserve to be hated or should we allow the censors to muzzle us?

Are censors coming to take away our freedom of speech if it has a hate component?

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Does hate serve a good purpose for us?

For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.

Regards
DL

[philosopher]

Humans are like sheep. They follow the herd.

Hate-speech can (and will) make some people follow the speaker. When the group is large enough, they can intimidate the out-groups and cause them to follow the group.

We've seen this countless times. In Turkey in recent years, in Russia, China, North Korea, Syria.

The history of the 20th century was full of such stories and so was the 19th century and the 18th century revolutionary France where the angry mob brutally executed peaceful harmless people. Robespierre was the most popular leader of his time.

Stalin too was very popular like Putin.

This is the reason free speech not always works, and definetly cannot be used against hate-speech against disabled, immigrants etc.

I'm all in favor of free speech - to a degree. Even to a large degree, but there must be limits, for the reasons above.

[henry quirk]

Speak freely, but remember: if you insist in pokin' at a hornets nest, don't be surprised when they *swarm and sting the fuck out of you.









*so, have a flamethrower on hand to burn the lil bastids right out of the air

[Greatest I am]

Humans are like sheep. They follow the herd.

Hate-speech can (and will) make some people follow the speaker. When the group is large enough, they can intimidate the out-groups and cause them to follow the group.

We've seen this countless times. In Turkey in recent years, in Russia, China, North Korea, Syria.

The history of the 20th century was full of such stories and so was the 19th century and the 18th century revolutionary France where the angry mob brutally executed peaceful harmless people. Robespierre was the most popular leader of his time.

Stalin too was very popular like Putin.

This is the reason free speech not always works, and definetly cannot be used against hate-speech against disabled, immigrants etc.

I'm all in favor of free speech - to a degree. Even to a large degree, but there must be limits, for the reasons above.

Good.

I think I covered immigrants and the disabled with the following.

For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Speak freely, but remember: if you insist in pokin' at a hornets nest, don't be surprised when they *swarm and sting the fuck out of you.

*so, have a flamethrower on hand to burn the lil bastids right out of the air

I believe that reciprocity is fair play.

If I show my hate, I would hope and welcome hate against my views to be shared so that hopefully a consensus could be reached between myself and my interlocutor.

Regards
DL

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

God seems to think correcting hateful thoughts or actions is good and correction often times includes showing hate for what is though or done.

I have tested the notions of and concepts of hate and love and find both to be quite useful.

There is a time to love and a time to hate even in these days where Google and others who control the net are actively censoring us?

Should we allow ourselves to hate and speak against those things that deserve to be hated or should we allow the censors to muzzle us?

Are censors coming to take away our freedom of speech if it has a hate component?

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Does hate serve a good purpose for us?

For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.

Regards
DL

Do you really think bullshit 'hate-speech' laws would have stopped Hitler or Stalin? Stalin was a huge fan of 'hate-speech' laws. Shouldn't that be a clue?? 'Hate-speech' laws are designed to control ordinary people and destroy free speech. It was already illegal to incite others to murder and persecute.
Now, if you murder a heterosexual it's called 'murder'. If you murder a gay person it's called a 'hate crime'. I still say murder is murder. We are surrounding by humbug wankerisms.
Getting 'faux offended' on behalf of others (can't those imaginary others speak for themselves?) has become a global political pastime.
If humans didn't hate other humans then we wouldn't have wars. That's not going to change any time soon, least of all because of ''PCProgressive'' phonies and their desperate need to be thought of as virtuous and morally superior. They are oddly silent when 'members of protected groups' are being blown to bits.


''Modern hate speech leg­islation was born from World War II. There was a feeling that hatred needed to be curbed to prevent another outburst of fascist hysteria. But it wasn’t Western governments calling for laws against hate speech — it was the authoritarian Soviet Union.

In 1948, world leaders gathered to construct a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Soviet representatives argued that the section on free speech should be qualified by strictures against hate speech. They proposed an amendment making it a crime to advocate “national, racial or religious hostility”. “(We cannot) allow advocacy of hatred or religious contempt,” they said.

Such efforts to water down freedom of speech in the name of combating hate were opposed by Western delegates. From the US, Eleanor Roosevelt said a hate speech qualification would be “extremely dangerous” since “any criticism of public or religious authorities might all too easily be described as incitement to hatred” (how prescient she was). In later discussions, British representative Lady Gaitskell said a hate speech amendment would “infringe the fundamental right of freedom of speech”.
The Nazis turned their prosecutions for hate speech to their advantage, presenting themselves as political victims and whipping up public support among aggrieved sections of German society, their future social base. Far from halting Nazism, hate speech legislation assisted it.

It is surely time every hate speech law was repealed. They are a menace to free thought and speech, and the worst tool imaginable for fighting real hatred.''

[philosopher]

Do you really think bullshit 'hate-speech' laws would have stopped Hitler or Stalin? Stalin was a huge fan of 'hate-speech' laws. Shouldn't that be a clue?? 'Hate-speech' laws are designed to control ordinary people and destroy free speech. It was already illegal to incite others to murder and persecute.
Now, if you murder a heterosexual it's called 'murder'. If you murder a gay person it's called a 'hate crime'. I still say murder is murder. We are surrounding by humbug wankerisms.
Getting 'faux offended' on behalf of others (can't those imaginary others speak for themselves?) has become a global political pastime.
If humans didn't hate other humans then we wouldn't have wars. That's not going to change any time soon, least of all because of ''PCProgressive'' phonies and their desperate need to be thought of as virtuous and morally superior. They are oddly silent when 'members of protected groups' are being blown to bits.


''Modern hate speech leg­islation was born from World War II. There was a feeling that hatred needed to be curbed to prevent another outburst of fascist hysteria. But it wasn’t Western governments calling for laws against hate speech — it was the authoritarian Soviet Union.

In 1948, world leaders gathered to construct a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Soviet representatives argued that the section on free speech should be qualified by strictures against hate speech. They proposed an amendment making it a crime to advocate “national, racial or religious hostility”. “(We cannot) allow advocacy of hatred or religious contempt,” they said.

Such efforts to water down freedom of speech in the name of combating hate were opposed by Western delegates. From the US, Eleanor Roosevelt said a hate speech qualification would be “extremely dangerous” since “any criticism of public or religious authorities might all too easily be described as incitement to hatred” (how prescient she was). In later discussions, British representative Lady Gaitskell said a hate speech amendment would “infringe the fundamental right of freedom of speech”.
The Nazis turned their prosecutions for hate speech to their advantage, presenting themselves as political victims and whipping up public support among aggrieved sections of German society, their future social base. Far from halting Nazism, hate speech legislation assisted it.

It is surely time every hate speech law was repealed. They are a menace to free thought and speech, and the worst tool imaginable for fighting real hatred.''

In Denmark we have had the hate-speech law since 1939, especially to protect the jews from the propaganda.

I assume other countries had similar laws prior to WW2, so it is bullshit the hate speech laws are Soviet inventions.

The reason I am against the Danish hate speech law is because it covers everyone from nationality, ethnicity, religious etc. but not disabled. It is fully legal in Denmark to say "disabled people are leechers and deserve no right to life". Unfortunate, but true. Talk about discrimination here...

Btw. the hate speech law, that today protects ie. immigrants from hate speech, certainly does not keep the Danish government or its supporting party Danish People's Party from racist speeches.

Other laws/regulations in Denmark exists to suppress free speech, but the hate speech law is not the reason.

[Greatest I am]

Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

God seems to think correcting hateful thoughts or actions is good and correction often times includes showing hate for what is though or done.

I have tested the notions of and concepts of hate and love and find both to be quite useful.

There is a time to love and a time to hate even in these days where Google and others who control the net are actively censoring us?

Should we allow ourselves to hate and speak against those things that deserve to be hated or should we allow the censors to muzzle us?

Are censors coming to take away our freedom of speech if it has a hate component?

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Does hate serve a good purpose for us?

For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.

Regards
DL

Do you really think bullshit 'hate-speech' laws would have stopped Hitler or Stalin? Stalin was a huge fan of 'hate-speech' laws. Shouldn't that be a clue?? 'Hate-speech' laws are designed to control ordinary people and destroy free speech. It was already illegal to incite others to murder and persecute.
Now, if you murder a heterosexual it's called 'murder'. If you murder a gay person it's called a 'hate crime'. I still say murder is murder. We are surrounding by humbug wankerisms.
Getting 'faux offended' on behalf of others (can't those imaginary others speak for themselves?) has become a global political pastime.
If humans didn't hate other humans then we wouldn't have wars. That's not going to change any time soon, least of all because of ''PCProgressive'' phonies and their desperate need to be thought of as virtuous and morally superior. They are oddly silent when 'members of protected groups' are being blown to bits.


''Modern hate speech leg­islation was born from World War II. There was a feeling that hatred needed to be curbed to prevent another outburst of fascist hysteria. But it wasn’t Western governments calling for laws against hate speech — it was the authoritarian Soviet Union.

In 1948, world leaders gathered to construct a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Soviet representatives argued that the section on free speech should be qualified by strictures against hate speech. They proposed an amendment making it a crime to advocate “national, racial or religious hostility”. “(We cannot) allow advocacy of hatred or religious contempt,” they said.

Such efforts to water down freedom of speech in the name of combating hate were opposed by Western delegates. From the US, Eleanor Roosevelt said a hate speech qualification would be “extremely dangerous” since “any criticism of public or religious authorities might all too easily be described as incitement to hatred” (how prescient she was). In later discussions, British representative Lady Gaitskell said a hate speech amendment would “infringe the fundamental right of freedom of speech”.
The Nazis turned their prosecutions for hate speech to their advantage, presenting themselves as political victims and whipping up public support among aggrieved sections of German society, their future social base. Far from halting Nazism, hate speech legislation assisted it.

It is surely time every hate speech law was repealed. They are a menace to free thought and speech, and the worst tool imaginable for fighting real hatred.''

Not too shabby. Thanks for this.

I would not rid ourselves of all free speech restriction, --- yelling fire in a theatre and causing harm etc.---, but like you, I think, would have the least restrictions that we can tolerate.

Regards
DL

[bahman]

We have four things: Right, wrong, good and evil. Love is good and hate is evil. Both love and hate could be right or wrong depending on situation.

[Greatest I am]

Other laws/regulations in Denmark exists to suppress free speech, but the hate speech law is not the reason.

I found out I have Viking blood in me not too long ago. A bit of useless information for you.

What do you think the Danes would say of Trump and his racist comments?

Would you like him as your head of state?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

We have four things: Right, wrong, good and evil. Love is good and hate is evil. Both love and hate could be right or wrong depending on situation.

Indeed, and that can only be gleaned after the speech is heard..

I agree that it is all subjective and dependent of the listener.

Regards
DL

[philosopher]

Other laws/regulations in Denmark exists to suppress free speech, but the hate speech law is not the reason.

I found out I have Viking blood in me not too long ago. A bit of useless information for you.

What do you think the Danes would say of Trump and his racist comments?

Would you like him as your head of state?

Regards
DL

I hope not.

Danish People's Party would probably like him (Trump). They are amongst the largest and most powerful political parties in the Parliament.
The Danish People's Party is also the party with the least educated voters (according to surveys).

I'm leftist though, I'm voting red-green and I dislike virtually everything about Trump.

[Greatest I am]

Other laws/regulations in Denmark exists to suppress free speech, but the hate speech law is not the reason.

I found out I have Viking blood in me not too long ago. A bit of useless information for you.

What do you think the Danes would say of Trump and his racist comments?

Would you like him as your head of state?

Regards
DL

I hope not.

Danish People's Party would probably like him (Trump). They are amongst the largest and most powerful political parties in the Parliament.
The Danish People's Party is also the party with the least educated voters (according to surveys).

I'm leftist though, I'm voting red-green and I dislike virtually everything about Trump.

Not surprising and I share that dislike.

There is one issue I am watching closely though to see if he is just an idiot or an idiot savant.

The savant part is that the best route to survival is to cooperate instead of compete and he seems to be trying to cooperate with our worst enemies, so to speak, of China and Russia. I think glasnost was a decent idea in Regan's day and could be just as useful and profitable for both sides today. Making an enemy a friend is better than a war of violence as trade is better for all.

Regards
DL

[philosopher]

I found out I have Viking blood in me not too long ago. A bit of useless information for you.

What do you think the Danes would say of Trump and his racist comments?

Would you like him as your head of state?

Regards
DL

I hope not.

Danish People's Party would probably like him (Trump). They are amongst the largest and most powerful political parties in the Parliament.
The Danish People's Party is also the party with the least educated voters (according to surveys).

I'm leftist though, I'm voting red-green and I dislike virtually everything about Trump.

Not surprising and I share that dislike.

There is one issue I am watching closely though to see if he is just an idiot or an idiot savant.

The savant part is that the best route to survival is to cooperate instead of compete and he seems to be trying to cooperate with our worst enemies, so to speak, of China and Russia. I think glasnost was a decent idea in Regan's day and could be just as useful and profitable for both sides today. Making an enemy a friend is better than a war of violence as trade is better for all.

Regards
DL

I find it very surprising that Americans haven't yet figured out Trump is supported by Russia. Even long before Trump was elected, there was news at least in Denmark and other european countries I guess, that Trump was supported by Russia. So was Le-Pen in France, but the Russian attempt in France failed, luckily, for now.

I don't think Trump is stupid. He is a genious and he knows how to manipulate the public. The suprising thing though, is that normally you would try to do it in a more "hidden" way, not that obvious as Trump does. To make enemies his friends, is so obvious it should call for a martial court against Trump.

But it seems not. I read in the news recently that the vast majority of Americans support Trump and his approval ratings are skyrocketing.

Which is sad news. Because Trump is the worst hate-speaking Head of State in the western world, since WW2.

As a Dane I am very much scared of this fact, because I fear Trump/U.S. will sell the baltic nations to Putin and abandon NATO.
After all, Trump is not doing anything good for America or American interests. Trump is serving Russia.

Please throw Trump administration in the trash. I do not want to be part of Putin's reign of terror.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Do you really think bullshit 'hate-speech' laws would have stopped Hitler or Stalin? Stalin was a huge fan of 'hate-speech' laws. Shouldn't that be a clue?? 'Hate-speech' laws are designed to control ordinary people and destroy free speech. It was already illegal to incite others to murder and persecute.
Now, if you murder a heterosexual it's called 'murder'. If you murder a gay person it's called a 'hate crime'. I still say murder is murder. We are surrounding by humbug wankerisms.
Getting 'faux offended' on behalf of others (can't those imaginary others speak for themselves?) has become a global political pastime.
If humans didn't hate other humans then we wouldn't have wars. That's not going to change any time soon, least of all because of ''PCProgressive'' phonies and their desperate need to be thought of as virtuous and morally superior. They are oddly silent when 'members of protected groups' are being blown to bits.


''Modern hate speech leg­islation was born from World War II. There was a feeling that hatred needed to be curbed to prevent another outburst of fascist hysteria. But it wasn’t Western governments calling for laws against hate speech — it was the authoritarian Soviet Union.

In 1948, world leaders gathered to construct a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Soviet representatives argued that the section on free speech should be qualified by strictures against hate speech. They proposed an amendment making it a crime to advocate “national, racial or religious hostility”. “(We cannot) allow advocacy of hatred or religious contempt,” they said.

Such efforts to water down freedom of speech in the name of combating hate were opposed by Western delegates. From the US, Eleanor Roosevelt said a hate speech qualification would be “extremely dangerous” since “any criticism of public or religious authorities might all too easily be described as incitement to hatred” (how prescient she was). In later discussions, British representative Lady Gaitskell said a hate speech amendment would “infringe the fundamental right of freedom of speech”.
The Nazis turned their prosecutions for hate speech to their advantage, presenting themselves as political victims and whipping up public support among aggrieved sections of German society, their future social base. Far from halting Nazism, hate speech legislation assisted it.

It is surely time every hate speech law was repealed. They are a menace to free thought and speech, and the worst tool imaginable for fighting real hatred.''

In Denmark we have had the hate-speech law since 1939, especially to protect the jews from the propaganda.

I assume other countries had similar laws prior to WW2, so it is bullshit the hate speech laws are Soviet inventions.

The reason I am against the Danish hate speech law is because it covers everyone from nationality, ethnicity, religious etc. but not disabled. It is fully legal in Denmark to say "disabled people are leechers and deserve no right to life". Unfortunate, but true. Talk about discrimination here...

Btw. the hate speech law, that today protects ie. immigrants from hate speech, certainly does not keep the Danish government or its supporting party Danish People's Party from racist speeches.

Other laws/regulations in Denmark exists to suppress free speech, but the hate speech law is not the reason.

Who the hell said it was a Soviet Invention? Go back and read it.