What's the Difference Between Free Speech & Hate Speech?

--Caller inquiries about the distinction between free speech and hate speech

--On the Bonus Show: Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi resigns, Chinese media mocks Trump for his Twitter use, US cities look to Finland to reduce infant mortality and much more...

24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP

Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!

Broadcast on December 9, 2016 --Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj

--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930

--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt

--Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj

--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930

--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt

[tonygomez]

I am all for free speech but I also think it is important to promote decency and good manners in social interaction.

[_A_D_]

YouTube search: Why Hate Speech Doesn't Exist

[moqui]

I don't agree with the concept of hate speech. We have a first amendment for a reason and even unpopular "hate" speech should be protected. Read some of Nat Hentoff articles on the concept of hate speech and why we should be against criminalizing that type of speech.

[victorbergman]

"Hate speech" is free speech; free speech makes you able to espouse unpopular ideas which include hateful words

[kimboslice]

Incitement to violence is it's own criminal violation. So are direct threats of bodily harm. Neither of which are hate speech.

[fazedelete]

Yes. We already have those laws. It is illegal to threaten someone with violence or incite violence already.

[victorbergman]

Simply saying racist things is not incitement to violence, I loathe when racists say racist stuff but they must have the right to say what they want

[okaro]

Hate speech is not a legal term. It refers to racist and otherwise bigoted speech. In the U.S. that us generally legal. In other Western countries it typically is illegal at least to some extent.

[Adeon]

David, you're talking about incitement of violence, not "hate speech". Those laws already exist, and they have nothing to do with "hate speech".

Essentially, "hate speech" IS free speech in America. As long as it _doesn't_ fall under other laws, such as libel, slander, threats or incitement of violence, it is protected speech. Not in Canada where, for example, they are attempting to criminalize the intentional misuse of preferred transgender pronouns. Or much of Europe where, for example, it is a criminal act to deny the Holocaust.

[LadyUnicornEJG]

legally there is no "hate speech" in the US, it's just speech. Horrible speech people shouldn't use as much as they do, arguably even harmful in some cases (sometimes deliberately), but legal free speech. What restrictions we have fall there for reasons other than simply being hateful or denigrating people.

[GordonGarvey]

''If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.'' - Noam Chomsky

[nejtilsvampe]

I agree with everything David just said. I'd add this; yelling hate speech at somebody, perhaps at a college campus, to silence them, is not something that should be done. If you truly believe someone is exercising hate speech, then the proper response is to call the police and explain to _them_ how their speech is endangering people.

[biplav]

I am so confused. I thought hate speech was still covered under freedom of speech. If you threaten someone, police might question and put you under surveillance. I doubt they can jail you for it.

[realtalk]

Hate speech is insults and threats directed at a particular group based on their religion, ethnicity or sexuality. I believe the distinction is drawn when that speech leads to physical harm. You can't yell fire in a crowded room and cult leaders cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility of how they incite their followers.

[thelesbomancer]

Anything can be hate speech. I hate Mondays!

[MrLazloKaveevee]

Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Threats are NOT hate speech. Threats are a different form of speech. To confuse threats with hate speech is misleading and I would expect nothing less from David Pakman.

[Marconel]

Hate speech is when they are directly insulting you for what ever reason, if its race, culture, intellect, what ever they say, if they directly demean and insult you with intent to insult you, that is hate speech, free speech is when they can disagree with your opinion and give you the reasons/facts why they disagree with you. Hate speech and free speech are two very different terms.

[TheGelatinousSnake]

I will accept "the advocacy of hate crimes" as "hate speech" but other than that... I will need some convincing. I don't agree that all hateful speech ("god hates gays") qualifies as "hate speech."

[Jeddas]

You have to make a distinction between the content of speech and the mode of speech. First amendment protections cover the content of your speech, regardless of what it is, until the mode of that speech takes place in a way that places others in imminent danger.

[PhatGirlLuvrComix]

I don't care what anyone says because I have a few choice words of my own.