*punches face* Say that again, Nazi! *punches face*

I'm sure we haven't got it right but I think we have achieved the more modest aim of it being better than no hate speech law.

Do you not like an extra punishment or do you dislike the categorical reference quality of some particular state definition?

One thing I've learned on this site from arguing pretty extensively with jalfrezi and marty in the I/P thread is that Americans and you folks in England/Ireland/Scotland/Wales/etc whatever you want it called, only understand each other up to a point.

I accept that you (and other Euros I think) feel differently about free speech than Americans (than Americans should feel anyway) and no amount of discussion on the subject is going to really make us come to an understanding.

Yeah but punching nazis is like that episode of young ones where neal became the cops. Plus if the nazi paid a cohort to punch him and instigated a bunch of chatter about punching nazis, you did what the nazis wanted.

Well, that's a debate on tactics. And I agree that punching Nazis can backfire.

Free speech is not unbridled or irresponsible free speech . The triviality is that you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Somewhere there are laws which speak to inciting riot .

Seditious speech , slander, defamation and contempt of court are other restrictions on "free speech".

In a real way many "rights" are in fluid movement and quite often settled, temporarily, within the legal process. If the rights were as fixed as one would believe then the ACLU would be moot.

I suspect that the idea of "responsible" speech would and could be one's guide with "responsibility" not fixed in time or space, again, a concept within a movement of the dynamic(i.e. not so fixed ).

It can't prosecute people for yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about hate crimes?

Fire in a crowded theater and unlimited campaign donations are both such obvious exceptions that it's essentially trolling. It doesn't at all speak to the real point of free speech.

There are restrictions, but we must be careful, and err on the side of more speech. Zeno talked about opening a hate speech thread, and I hope he does soon. Or simply a thread on the philosophical principles of free speech, regardless of laws. There would be a lot of JS Mill, Locke, and other dead white oppressors like this guy:

No true free speech?

You're arguing the constitution like it's a religion, no critical thought need apply.

Either I don't understand you, you don't understand me, or both.

Also referencing this:

Not sure if intended as tongue in cheek

That was not tongue in cheek.

I'm understanding your posts now though and was confused about why the two sentences didn't go together.

Is my feeling that Americans should feel a certain way the same as saying they aren't truly American if they don't? I don't think so, but maybe.

The second part is just wrong. My belief in free speech has nothing to do with the constitution really. And I don't think I'm treating it without critical thinking and hence allow for exceptions which may appear to be free speech, but are harmful without really being examples of what is important about protecting speech.

That's not what "fighting words" means. It means that governments can pass laws against fighting words and prosecute the people who use them. The words have to be personal and intended to incite, IIRC.

There is no exception from assault because someone used "fighting words," though in the real world sometimes police don't charge, DAs don't prosecute and juries nullify.

hate speech and hate crimes both have the same and similar range of hate involved.

Do you dislike the punishment for the hate or do you think some particular definition or another of hate is wrong?

Holy run-on sentence Batman! So, you're saying exceptions to total free speech should be allowed? Does this include political speech or no?

I do think his speech should be considered criminal in public spaces. I don't think the government needs to raid Trump's bedroom and confiscate his book of Hitler speeches (yes, Trump did/does keep such a book in his nightstand). However, I have come to see the reason behind limiting some speech.

Fundamentally, we have rights but often only so much as the exercise thereof does not impinge on the rights of others. So anyone should acknowledge that rights are not absolute. I think people have some basic right to equanimity, to be free from harassment. I could follow you down the street pointing in your face and waiving dog crap under your nose, perhaps without (technically) breaking the law. Should I be able to? I would say no, by way of a simple comparison between what is gained by the person expressing their right and what is lost by those in their sphere. I shouldn't have the right to drudge up what I can reliably predict as intense emotional pain in you just to exercise my right to advocate insane theories discredited through the deaths of 10s of millions of people.

Similarly, I am convert on safe spaces. An AA student (or Asian or any minority) should be able to attend college without the harassing effects of white nationalists being given voice on their campus. Particularly when the ideology of the speaker affirms real and horrible movements of the memorable past, the speaker is using that injustice to continue to intimidate and suppress their target. The mere act of planning how to react to the sanctioned visit of white nationalists is an extra burden on minority students which other students don't have to bear, and is inherently discriminatory on that basis.

I like the idea that "fighting words" means that if someone pisses you off with the wrong words then you can legally kick their ass. That might not be true, but I don't know the details and I want to enjoy my ignorance here. On this one issue I am knowingly placing my head in the sand

Well you've brought something else into this which I'm not going to let go. So either the conversation has to be dropped or you have to explain how that was a run-on sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-on_sentence

"and hence" makes the second clause dependent on the first

", but" is a coordinating conjunction with a comma separating the second and third clauses.

If we were all punished for hate, there would be no one left to fill the jury. My objection is to punishment for the content of speech, non-physical expression, thought. Hatred is a perfectly legitimate thought, even if I may hate it the most.

Any sorts of extra punishment for actual crimes, like violence based on racism, doesn't bother me. Motive can be taken into consideration when assigning a sentence, imo.

I don't consider Hitchens an oppressor and I admire him for being able to talk **** about Oliver Wendell Holmes, whom I despise, and who is certainly an oppressor. Nice find.

Ok, I will address the other stuff.

Why are you being difficult?

The intent of protecting free speech is to allow people to express their opinions; especially political opinions. Restricting people from yelling fire in a crowded theater is a clear benefit to society and absolutely no threat to the important aspect of allowing free speech.

I meant the campaign finance part to be controversial. I think it's essentially yelling fire in a crowded theater on a much bigger scale as it's a threat to freedom/democracy/etc.