Iv not seen anyone object to protesting or boycotts. People have an issue with speakers at University's being no platformed or turning protests violent which then results in that speaker not being able to speak.

Banning hate speech is a terrible idea and at odds with liberal value. There are a few problems with it.

Who decides what hate speech is? You may trust a certain administration to judge hate speech fairly but can you trust any administration after that?

It can be abused to easily just to shut down speakers you dont agree with as we saw when Ben Shapiros appearance was banned at De Paul university.

I would go far as to say that offensive ideas are actually important for our society to move forward.

Yes, speech that offends us has often proven valuable, even if only that it helps us better work out why and how to explain the bad ideas are wrong and immoral.

Hitch gives a nice speech on this:

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com...eedom-to-hate/

Right, insofar as they are advocating for government bans they are being illiberal. I doubt that is actually what they are advocating for, but no point in arguing about that.

They are. Go read the Milo thread if you can take it. Read the couple pages I've argued in the resistance thread in P. Plenty of regs here and in P want to ban hate speech or stifle it with intimidation tactics. Where have you been?

Hitchens is worth your time to listen to.

Sure, you responded to me in the Resistance thread. I didn't see anyone in that part of the conversation advocating banning hate speech even though you kept implying they were. Notice that even Max's view was that public universities should be regarded as like private institutions and hence able to control who speaks at them. This is inconsistent with the First Amendment as currently interpreted, but plausibly consistent with other free speech formulations (for instance, no one objects to charter schools having this control). "Stifle it with intimidation" will require elucidation.

We generally allow a lot more censorship of things our children are exposed to, and I'm not particularly worried about that from a civil liberties perspective. Many rights are reserved for adults. That said, I'm sure you remember Mary Beth Tinker's protest of the Vietnam War.

Max's view was to allow the state (school) to ban Milo, plain and simple. I disagree that state schools should be allowed to censor adult students' political speech (or a student group's choice of speaker) and I don't believe any school should do so, private or public, on principle; however, private schools should have the right to if they choose.

I think you are familiar with The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, who fight for college student rights, and they reason that private schools should be honest. For example, if a private school advertises a commitment to religious principles, and does not guarantee free speech, then that's fine, but if a school commits to free speech and academic freedom, advertising as such in their brochures, webpages, etc., then they should honor that commitment. I think that is a reasonable position to take. Apparently FIRE have even sued private schools for breach of contract in certain cases.

I suppose you'll just have to pay attention to posters' views on the matter of hate speech legislation. Here is not really the place to name names, and I can't remember each poster's specific views...perhaps some have even changed - let's hope. I know I've argued this issue plenty of times, and several posters have argued against me, expressing the view hate speech should be illegal, esp Eurolanders.

As far as stifling speech with intimidation, that's not hard to understand, is it? It ranges from explicitly advocating violence against bigots, fascists, etc. (or gays, women, any group), to cheering organizations and individuals who do, to excusing or refusing to condemn such violence, all while haphazardly naming people "fascists", among other things.

lol, calling fascists fascist stifles your free speech?

If someone advocates violence against fascists, and then calls me a fascist, that is clearly an attempt to intimidate me into shutting up. There are posters in the Milo thread who won't even deny that's why they do this.

So your free speech is threatened by.... other people exercising their free speech? Didn't think this through, did you, my dude.

I'm really sorry, my dude, but you are the one who doesn't seem to be doing much thinking here.

Twas ever thus: "free speech" means no one is allowed to criticize racists.

Lol, You're confused, as always, but you're here, so perhaps there's hope. You are allowed to call people racist, and even to try to intimidate them, but I condemn such tactics as deplorable and illiberal.

For example, a religious person attempting to persuade me to repent my sins and accept the Holy Spirit into my heart lest I burn for eternity in hellfire is using intimidation tactics, and I condemn that as horrible and illiberal, especially when done to little children. Nevertheless, that speech should be protected, because it does not actually represent a credible threat. Same with your intimidation tactics online. No matter how much you may rant and rave about beating up fascists, while simultaneously calling me one for defending their civil liberties, no court would find a specific credible threat there, I assume.

If we run into each other on the street, and you're holding a sign that reads "kill fascists" in one hand, and a club raised in the other while shouting "fascist" at me, I think we're getting closer to unprotected speech.

Protests and boycotts go beyond punishment in relation to hate speech otherwise too.

One example, defiance, is a response to punishment that drives actions like protests and boycotts. Defiance seems a just response to an observation that some hate speech is itself punishing or has a punishing potential. In that regard, hate speech as such may be determined an unjust punishment in jurisdictions.

A question is how and how much will a racist or bigot argue that hate speech isn't punishing?

How deep does the urge to stop fascism really go. Best wishes on that adventure!

A vantage point to consider is when fear-mongering is curbed, a whole flank of the fascism front collapses. They cant do it without trying to make you afraid they are going to try to **** your wife or that the immigrants are raping and taking. Look at them bluffers.