Scribble Hub Forum

persecution of hate speech is necesary for a civil socity where people don't constantly feel in danger

I feel like you need to elaborate more than that for it to sound meaningful.

@Reinaislost be lost


And...well, you are correct daughter, correct for extreme cases, but lack of a proper distinction between hate speech and just expressing opinion is bleh

I suppose you meant to say 'get lost,' but I'll ignore this for the sake of argument.
Well, sure, there's a subjective line between free speech and hate speech—most things do—but opinions can be shared in a civil manner rather than threatening and intimidating the person or group they belong to. The aim is to hurt and discriminate more than share an opinion, even if unconsciously. However, I note your point.

Second, the distinction between hate speech and free speech is well-defined and upheld by law. Meaning that while the distinction between the two can be nuanced and complex at times, it is rooted in legal precedent and is not arbitrary or subjective.

I do reckon that you aren't talking about how to tackle hate speech here, but rather that the distinction is too vague to have any effect.

@Reinaislost, Agentt did indeed mean "be lost",
They saw your words as an expression of confusion, and asked you to continue being confused,

@Aaqil Oh, my bad. I wasn't confused, but I was politely letting him know that those words, without clarifying the angle, don't mean anything and can be particularly harmful as many tend to blur the line between them for their own self-interest. Yet another instance of opinion vs. hate speech.

Threats should be persecuted, but hate speech is subjective and not a crime.
It is important to know who thinks what. Censoring speech is political tool for enforcing agendas. It's not the governments job to police speech.
The less power a government has over individuals lives, the better.

The last bit is your opinion, and I don't believe government policing or not is part of the discussion. What I merely said is that the distinction between free speech and hate speech isn't as blurred as people make it out to be, while also supporting gogo7966's point. Additionally, whether hate speech is a crime or not depends on the context and the jurisdiction where it occurs.

Government intervention and punishment is the logical next step of persecuting hate speech.

And the best way to have a civil society is for laws to be enforced and criminals to be imprisoned. We're all actually safer then.

What you are failing to see is that we, as functioning members of society, persecute individuals all the time. Society itself would frown on or isolate individuals it deemed to have negative qualities. You'd maybe distance yourself from people you find toxic.
Similarly, if your child is getting harassed, depending on the intensity and the laws, you are within your rights to file a legal case.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the government bit is a whole other discussion. The unfair practice of free speech and hate speech is not something I propose. This is also why understanding the distinction between them both as members of society and as citizens is very important.

Now we put into question the definition of persecution.

You are right. Persecution is not even the right term here.

Oh, i think it's better to persecute ideas rather than individuals.
We prosecute criminals and lawbreakers.

One keeps us good, the other keeps us safe.