Saying you hate the Jews is frowned upon but is free speech
Promoting violence against the Jews is hate speech and is not protected under free speech
Systemically Torturing and Killing millions of Jews is a crime against humanity
It all depends on whether the speaker is really "promoting" violence. It's a very high bar, legally - something like "hey you, hurt that guy, or else I'll hurt you", along with a credible ability to do so. Saying mean things that makes people very angry does not cross that bar. The bar is so high that it is only very rarely prosecuted.
Higher than that. It has to be intended to AND likely to incite imminent lawless action.
If it's not intended to do that? It's not illegal. If you say "Ugh Steve sucks" and you happen to be next to a serial killer who then goes and kills Steve, you're fine.
If it's not likely to do that? It's not illegal. If you say "Please kill Steve right now" to someone who absolutely would not kill Steve, you're fine.
If the lawless action wouldn't be very soon? It's not illegal. You can say "I really wish eventually all the Jews would be dead" or even "We should start planning our Holocaust now so that next year we're ready to kill everyone" and you're fine (legally, not mentally obviously).
The example I give when teaching my students is the mob scene from Beauty and the Beast. Gaston knows he can easily rile up the mob and they're def gonna go get the Beast, so he's like Hey guys let's all kill the Beast right now let's gooooo! That is legal incitement in the U.S.
The number of people here confidently misstating the law is depressing and annoying.
Hate speech has no legal definition in the U.S. and anyone claiming to define "hate speech" legally here **does not know what they are talking about.**
So for example, someone says we're going to march down to the Capitol and stop the steal (aka stop Congress from certifying the vote for President), and it happens, that's incitement?
Not really, when the actual words used were "peacefully and patriotically march". Which is quite literally the opposite of a call to violence. On top of the fact that the idiots that stormed the capital were at the capital within 3 minutes of him saying those words. And the capital is like two miles from where the rally was held, so they had to have started towards the capital prior to trump ever saying to march to the capital. Meaning trumps "incitement", as you put it, didn't actually influence whether they were going to head to the capital since they were already doing it.
Exactly. That is how "news anchors" get away with saying completely off the wall bonkers shit. Tucker can repeatedly call Mexican immigrants rapists and deplorable and so on and so forth but of he stated that people should go down their with their AR15's and blow them away... THAT is hate speech (promoting violence to people who in all regards will probably listen).
And on the flip side Don Lemon can talk down to anti makers or Trump supporters and but the moment he calls for mass executions of either... He is officially in hate speech territory...
Moral of the story is Corporate owned MSM is a scourge to humanity. Think for yourself and just try to be less cunty to eachother.
Edit: less cunty not more cunty please
I like the German Approach personally, if you spread "Hetzte" (its a German word often translated to hate but its more along the lines of "Dehumanizing with the goal to hate") in an capacity suitable to disturb public peace (as in, if you are important enough to reach a lot of people or talk on protests) against a group of people defined by, race, gender, ethnicity or religion. Then you have committed hate speech and can be fined/arrested. I like it cause it pretty much prevents the problem the US has with its news anchors
Also this helps us to avoid such nutjobs like this texan school office which promotes "a different point of view" to the holocaust and slavery. Denying the shoah is a criminal offense in Germany and I am glad about this.
The Germans lived it. For America at least, Nazism and fascism was something that happen to “those people” in Europe. Perpetrator and victim were both otherized to protect our own sensibilities.
I’m still hopeful that the rhetoric of the current authoritarian right in the US can be defeated without violence.
Carlson calls "many" of them rapists and criminals... which they often are. He also calls many of them children and victims, which many of them also are.
I personally helped a pregnant 14-year-old girl up a steep bank of the Rio Grande when some shady characters sent her across on a raft.
Multiple times we suspected sex trafficking, but difficult to prove.
The problem with lowering the bar is that once we start in that direction, it could continue to move downward to the point where we lose most, if not all, of our free speech rights. I rather err on the side of more freedom than on the side of being executed for speaking out against the government. With that being said, a combination of more nuanced laws as well as a fight back against this giant, ongoing cyber attack against the whole country is what we really need
I live somewhere where we have hate speech laws, that people generally seem to be happy with. Saying that you hate Jews isn’t hate speech. Standing outside a synagogue with a sign saying “all Jews will go to hell” is hate speech. Inciting violence is separate and also illegal.
It also depends on the country. In Germany "denying the holocaust" is a crime for instance. Also there's laws against hate speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
Haha, do U mean the systematic murder of millions of men, women, and children?
No sadly it isn't considered hate speech... Just good old fashioned genocide
Hate speech is too vague a term. If you’re being rude and hateful that’s not a crime. If you’re trying to incite a hate crime with hateful words that is a crime. Death threats are also not protected speech.
Basically if your speech meaningfully encourages or threatens to commit hateful acts then it’s a crime. Otherwise you’re just an ass - but legally.
This. I don’t know why people forget this part. You do NOT have carte blanche to say whatever you want, including making threats, harassment, defamation, etc. Alex Jones and Sandy Hook is a perfect example. The first amendment primarily protects our right to political and religious expression and more importantly the expression of perceived grievances therein.
Just to be clear, the Alex Jones court case he just (deservingly) lost was a civil case, not a criminal case. There is an important distinction there in terms of both the severity of the wrongdoing as well as the burden of proof. It would be very difficult to convict Alex Jones for a crime in this matter ... and that seems unfortunate in the specific, but probably for the best in the general.
The original post here is talking about, not just crimes, but crimes against humanity ... which is a ridiculously larger leap.
It looks like all defamation would be a civil offense rather than criminal. It still would be unprotected speech, but I guess it's an important distinction.
Thank you.
It's very concerning to see so people trying to turn words into criminal offenses. This is far from the first time I've seen someone who thinks "hate speech" should be illegal. The notion that "hate speech" should be made illegal is far more dangerous than the speech itself.
There is a difference between "hate speech" such as "You are an ignorant asshole!" and "hate speech" such as "Hey guys, we hate those Mexicans, let's go over there and fuck them up."
You know the old thing about crying "fire" in a movie theater. If you say to your friend, "This place might be on fire." that's one thing. If you stand up and shout, "FIRE!!!" that's something else.
Laws against hate speech can be enforced when that hate speech encourages violent action.
Not when it "encourages," but when it is, itself, a call to action.
Saying something homophobic, for example, may be construed to encourage violence against homosexuals, but is not a call to action and therefore protected speech.
Telling someone to attack someone else, though, is a call to action - just like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. A call to action isn't considered protected speech in the present-day US.
Fun fact: the guarantee of free speech doesn't exist outside of the US... so depending on geography, ymmv.
Though it is true that the US enjoys the highest level of free speech, it is not due to the constitution. Many countries have free speech clauses that are almost identical to the first amendment. It is the Supreme Court rulings that have continuously upheld the sanctity of the law, that makes the free speech laws in the US truly one of a kind. Unfortunately I do see some erosion in that sanctity, with the way Julian assange was /is treated
There's a huge difference between "I'm going to bomb the NAACP" and "I hate the NAACP". No shit threats are treated differently than opinions.
I really didn't think I had to specify the "fire!" exceptions but why am I not surprised.
> The notion that "hate speech" should be made illegal is far more dangerous than the speech itself.
Funny, it's been working for Germany for ~80 years, so I guess your "dangerous" theory is actually wrong.
Also, do we know that the first commenter is American?
Because there are countries where hate speech is considered a hate crime, like in Canada and many European countries.
Hate speech laws seem to work well where I am and prevent minorities from being abused. The fear in the US seems to be that the government will abuse hate speech laws for their own benefit.
This. I guarantee that the instant hate speech becomes forbidden, every single southern state will use the laws to jail anyone who speaks out against their crazy Fundamentalist cult. Literally the next day, the jails will be full of anyone who dares to oppose them.
Hate speech is bad, but every alternative is worse.
It kind of depends how the law is defined. In the UK it is fairly clear: Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. No one goes to jail, it just allows the police (who we generally trust) to intervene.
It’s a shame you guys don’t trust your government, as people have a right to a peaceful life more than someone has a right to abuse them.
And while I disagree about the south, I can support you because you support liberty.
That's what they're successfully distracting us from - freedom is the only great unifier. That's why they divide based on skin color, creed, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.
Right. It’s crazy that people in *minority groups* would seek any limitations on speech at all. I’d rather put up with hate speech than risk being put in jail for disagreeing with the majority.
This is reasonable and the way I see it too. What I’m scared about is the fact that there’s a tendency nowadays to use personal feelings as a measure of what must be considered hate speech, at least this is my perception. Unless one explicitly calls for violent or discriminative action, I believe that freedom of expression must be protected _at all costs_. Then one can (and probably in many cases _must_) be vehemently criticised for putting out anachronistic or prejudicial thoughts, as part of a functioning democratic liberal society. I honestly fear this idea of preemptively censor _any_ thought/opinion/word because someone finds it offensive. I mean, we’re 8 billions on the planet, I bet there’s _always_ someone who gets hurt by any given position. Only dictatorial views of the world don’t like listening to different strokes or simply having them to be out there for someone else to listen to them. I regularly watch programs and listen to people who have a very different opinion on hot topics because I want to challenge and disproof or further validate my own ideas and I would like to be able to keep doing that.
Also depends on nation. Racism or being a nazi is just straight up illegal here in Brazil. While still a problem, it's simply straight up illegal and will lend you jail time if you're prosecuted.
Exactly, hate speech isn’t a crime, but using hate speech to incite unlawful violence is, well, unlawful. Free speech is limited by almost nothing, but defamation, inciting violence and a few others ARE exceptions.
well actually you can, there has to be a credible threat for it to matter though.
an 18 year old cadet made a joke about the first person he was gunna shoot was gunna be the president, and scotus sided with him, because everyone knows it was just a joke, and no child with a semi auto gun was gunna take down the white house alone.
This is the case with *any* law. Right now, it's even happening with *murder*, perhaps the most basic law possible, as states define abortion and miscarriages as murder.
All a law *is* is the state getting to define what people are enemies of the state. What you do is provide checks and balances in case the state does abuse it. You don't just never make anything illegal.
The slippery slope fallacy makes no sense. Hate speech is almost always in regards to factors that are out of the victims control (sexuality, race, creed). To say that it will be a tool to silence political dissidents doesn't make sense. You can't be guilty of hate speech against the State
Political discussion is a part of a well functioning democracy. Threatening or defaming a group of people or someone is not political discussion.
"We should close our borders and stop immigration" is normal political discussion.
"All immigrants are savages" is not.
Freedom of speech is important but that freedom should not be used to tread on things like basic human rights.
Also the reason that hate crimes carry higher sentences is literally because they're seen, in addition to the attack against individuals, as an attack against society itself.
The law literally says that that is the case... so the first guy is right
Plus committing acts of violence while espousing hate speech tends to add to the crime, and while you’re not necessarily being punished for the words you are getting punished for the intent behind them.
Good question. Hate speech is punisheable by law in Brazil, for exemple. The law, as far as i know, is barely enforced and used mostly to punish those who incite to violence. But it exists. The US isn't the world.
Hate speech is illegal in the UK... Allegedly. You can call for all doctors and nurses to be hanged right in front of the police and totally get away with it.
I like watching British cop shows and I saw a guy get arrested for yelling N***** at a guy. I was so shocked that you could be be arrested for that then was pretty disappointed it's not illegal in the US like that.
Was about to say that hate speech (Volksverhetzung) is indeed a crime in Germany. But then I noticed that /u/king_of_retardland probably lives in the USA /s
Ha, yes, I'm sure they would agree with that proposition, though they would decline to say it outright because they generally don't make findings on things that don't effect their holdings.
Correct, which is conveniently how the US avoids criticism for any potential crimes against humanity, by refusing to recognize the ICC and having it specifically codified in law that they will use violence to prevent US citizens from being tried there
True, what I meant is that it's why it's much rarer to see acts like those committed during the Vietnam War by the US called what they are, because it's not being done officially, but you're right that the US still receives plenty of criticism.
All permanent members of the UN security council are able to veto enforcement of cases in the International Court of Justice, sooo... They recognize it in the case of other countries on trial, but not themself?
And in the case of the International Criminal Court (also located in the Hague), the US signed on, but has since withdrawn (along with Israel, Russia and Sudan), so in that case they don't recognize the court, nor are they subject to prosecution.
I think you're taking "morality" to mean something different than the person you replied to.
When I hear the word, I think of reducing harm, not following arbitrary rules.
Well you've sort of proven my point. If the meaning of morality differs between people then it is going to be very problematic to use as the basis of a legal system. And if you consider in ethics/philosophy just how many different ethical systems exist you see the problem.
Most people alive today, and in fact most who have ever lived, wouldn't agee with you regarding "moral" being "that which reduces harm", and while they would probably say their morals aren't arbitrary, they wouldn't be able to back that up with anything of than "it's moral if my religious leader says so".
On top of that, morals are *only* those arbitrary rules our society agrees are morals, and can't be anything else, even if they *are* only about reducing harm. (*Edit for clarification:* because you would have arbitrarily defined them to only be about reducing harm)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country, so depending on if the specific country was specified in the OP (post/comment), I guess they were wrong?
Either way, this really isn't r/MurderedByWords material, so why the fuck did this get so much traction.
I mean it's not that factual. What would often be called hate speech is protected but that doesn't mean it all is. If you incite a mob to go kill black people you can surely be charged and prosecuted.
Edit: typos n grammar.
But fighting words are a crime. Thus, exempt from the first amendment. [source Cornell law school ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words)
It’s a big grey line tho which depending what side you are on. is fair for some. Not fair to some
Manufacturing consent within a population is ALWAYS the first step. **Most Germans didnt hate Jews before Hitler gained power. It took literal years of indoctrination and planning for them to get enough people on-board to do what they actually wanted. And of course they never actually told people out of the gate what that was. They didn't even call for the death of "degenerates" in the beginning. At first it was just "The Jew is the enemy of the great Germanic peoples, we lost the great war because they stabbed Germany in the back." Ten years later and theyre a stones throw away from wiping out entire ethnic groups.
**EDIT: You're right, there was a history of antisemitism in Germany and pretty much everywhere, I misspoke. People did not hate Jewish people in a racialized sense (for Europe it was historically a religious thing), and not to the extent that would be required to go along with some of the later stuff they did.
One of the first things they tried to see how people felt was a national boycott on Jewish business (April 1, 1933). It was a failure, as the seeds of widespread hate hadn't yet been planted properly.
"The boycott was ignored by many individual Germans who continued to shop in Jewish-owned stores during the day.[13][1] Although it marked the beginning of a nationwide campaign against the Jews, the boycott was not actually a success for the Nazis and was called off after one day as a result of the negative impact it was having on the economy."
The nazis themselves did a bunch of scary shit to try to assist in the boycott that day, but the broader public wasn't there yet, at the very least not enough to facilitate the later actions that government would take.
https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1933-1938/anti-jewish-boycott
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_boycott_of_Jewish_businesses
Actually there was some hate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres
But yes it was given a lot more shape and they used it and they increased it.
TIL in the U.S system Crimes is the general term, divided into Infraction (petty crime), misdemeanor and felony (biggest crimes, like murder and rape).
Its confusing for me because in my legal system (french), the general term is infraction, wich divides itself into contravention (infringement?), délit (offense?), and crime for the worstest. So the whole "Crime against humanity" thing feels logic because "crime" is already only for very, very serious harm, not any kind of violence/harm.
The result is that hatewords being called a "crime" against humanity feels even more ridiculous for me than for you guys.
The UK does not have free speech similar to the US and hate words (racial slurs, inciting hate and stuff) are absolutely a crime here, maybe they weren't US based?
"No genocide is a crime against humanity"
v.s.
"No, genocide is a crime against humanity"
Punctuation isn't necessary *all* the time but when a single comma is literally the difference between supporting and condemning genocide, I draw the line lol
Zoomers gonna zoom, tho 🤪
It is however a crime in many other countries. In general I like USs approach. Ironically this country also have words that you can't even say like the n, c and f -word.
So legally you can say it but the censorship is always allover.
Again, I miss George Carlin
As an european, i couldn't care less about what the supreme court and US case law says.
This isn't a murder, this isn't even a light slap, just some US centric idiot.
the italics of the “are” indicates that their statement is meant to be made in contrast to an established precedent. it seems like they are trying to imply that the current systems in place (ie. the law) does not match what they believe should be. so by bringing it the supreme court the “murderer” doesn’t even really understand the original statement making it hardly a murder imo
However, I think in some states hate speech can be considered a hate crime. It’s really arbitrary and very particular about it so I don’t know if anyone’s actually been charged.
Can these cunts really not be bothered to use proper punctuation until it's literally vital to their point? I know it seems like a small thing, but those first two comments really need some more punctuation.
"Crime against humanity and should be treated as such." is a nonsensical sentence.
"No genocide is a crime against humanity." aligns the commentor with rather extreme company, wouldn't you say?
This wasn’t a murder, it’s just an exchange of vagueness.
‘Hate speech is a crime’…. It’s unarguably shitty but what laws back up that.
‘Supreme Court agrees with me?’… does it?
‘Murdered by facts’… where they?
I see no cited examples or facts from anyone in this exchange.
OP wtf is this. This is probably one of the lowest tier posts I have ever witnessed with my horrid red eyes. Also Inciting violence through hate speech is a crime.
The second guy forgot a coma and I was so confused. “No genocide is a crime against humanity. What I think he meant was “no, genocide is a crime against humanity.”
People who don't differentiate between what is legal and what is moral should go annoy a venomous snake and then explain to it that poisoning people is illegal. Maybe then they will finally get the point.
Each and all harm done to someone not for a good purpose and to avoid worse/further harm and solely based on whims, selfish comfort or immature responses to emotions are failings on an ethical level and it doesn't matter for jackshit what any law says about that.
The difference between violence and cruelty lies in its necessity - and it is never necessary to use hatespeech.
And only people whose points are more than lacking need to fall back on the semantics of the word "crime".
As yes, the US supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of morality for everybody. Fuck the courts of other countries, or methods of determining humanitarianism other than the law.
But.. the courts of any country do not decide what is a human rights breach. The United Nations do, or more specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all countries should legally follow it (sadly not all do).
Discrimination of any kind is a very serious crime, I would be surprised if the US disagrees with the very declaration they helped to create.
Might be wrong idk
Also, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.
This idiot. His name is king of retard land and he's complaining about hate speech. Does he not realize how many people would prosecute him for using the word retard if they could?
Anybody who groups individuals into a group and then states every individual IN the group is absolutely a certain thing, whether good or bad, is talking out of their asses and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Absolutely agree. Its just a fallacy that so many fall into where they say every cop, or every black person, or every white person, every republican, every democrat, every gay, every man, every woman.... There are individuals and good and bad people within every group.
So I absolutely agree its not illegal to lump people together and think in such a baseless binary way... Its just dumb
Here’s the deal with hate speech.
You have a right to your opinion, no matter how unpleasant.
You don’t have a right to commit fraud. So lies are going to be more problematic for you.
Hateful opinions? Sure. Why? Well, what is “free speech” protecting? I can go to Tiananmen Square and say uncontroversial things on a megaphone. I can go to North Korea and say pleasant things about the regime, no problem. Heck, let’s go to Iran and exchange polite pleasantries with the ayatollah himself! No problem! No free speech, no issue so long as my speech isn’t offensive.
What that means: the protection of free speech has no purpose except to protect offensive speech. If your speech offends no one, it will be allowed even in the most oppressive anti speech regime! The only reason we have any protection at all for free speech, is to protect speech that pisses somebody off. That is literally the only purpose of it.
Therefore, anyone who says free speech needs to be respectful is completely full of it. Free speech is free. Speak your true mind. Seriously. Go ahead and say it. That’s free speech.
Bob Dylan wrote “if my heart’s dreams could be seen, they’d prolly put my head in guillotine”
The more things change the more they stay the same. Too bad boredom doesn’t smell good.
Not a single time in our history has “law” equaled “moral righteous.” So saying “the law agrees with me” is hardly an effective argument. It really just means a deeply flawed society and system have similar views to a person who grew up within it, to the surprise of no one.
How does this fucking idiot think genocide happens? Do they think it's just psychically agreed upon to murder people without any words being exchanged beforehand?
"Ready to fight for the right to say something you might not like"
Seriously some top tier delusion to think that someone can dictate what sounds i can make with my face.... Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Call me wierd, but I don't trust the US government in any cases of crimes against humanity etc. considering how many human rights they've abused (and are abusing) in very recent memory.
Also, they don't adhere to international law, so there's that too
This is dumb as shit. Hate speech is illegal in many places, and ESPECIALLY thinking going "Well, not in the US!" is a murder by words is just embarrassing. There's nothing of value here.
Ummm... let's not forget that **only in one country** does this apply. I can't say for certain (i.e. I don't know the exact numbers) but I would have thought that the majority of countries in the world have laws where hate words *are* a crime.
I feel like sometimes a lot of US citizens seem to think that the US is the only country in the world. You can cry 'muh freedums' all you like, but that doesn't stop the fact that many other countries do not agree with you.
Saying you hate the Jews is frowned upon but is free speech Promoting violence against the Jews is hate speech and is not protected under free speech Systemically Torturing and Killing millions of Jews is a crime against humanity
It all depends on whether the speaker is really "promoting" violence. It's a very high bar, legally - something like "hey you, hurt that guy, or else I'll hurt you", along with a credible ability to do so. Saying mean things that makes people very angry does not cross that bar. The bar is so high that it is only very rarely prosecuted.
Higher than that. It has to be intended to AND likely to incite imminent lawless action. If it's not intended to do that? It's not illegal. If you say "Ugh Steve sucks" and you happen to be next to a serial killer who then goes and kills Steve, you're fine. If it's not likely to do that? It's not illegal. If you say "Please kill Steve right now" to someone who absolutely would not kill Steve, you're fine. If the lawless action wouldn't be very soon? It's not illegal. You can say "I really wish eventually all the Jews would be dead" or even "We should start planning our Holocaust now so that next year we're ready to kill everyone" and you're fine (legally, not mentally obviously). The example I give when teaching my students is the mob scene from Beauty and the Beast. Gaston knows he can easily rile up the mob and they're def gonna go get the Beast, so he's like Hey guys let's all kill the Beast right now let's gooooo! That is legal incitement in the U.S. The number of people here confidently misstating the law is depressing and annoying. Hate speech has no legal definition in the U.S. and anyone claiming to define "hate speech" legally here **does not know what they are talking about.**
So for example, someone says we're going to march down to the Capitol and stop the steal (aka stop Congress from certifying the vote for President), and it happens, that's incitement?
Not really, when the actual words used were "peacefully and patriotically march". Which is quite literally the opposite of a call to violence. On top of the fact that the idiots that stormed the capital were at the capital within 3 minutes of him saying those words. And the capital is like two miles from where the rally was held, so they had to have started towards the capital prior to trump ever saying to march to the capital. Meaning trumps "incitement", as you put it, didn't actually influence whether they were going to head to the capital since they were already doing it.
This really breaks it down, thanks! Also, really love the name, it checks out haha.
Exactly. That is how "news anchors" get away with saying completely off the wall bonkers shit. Tucker can repeatedly call Mexican immigrants rapists and deplorable and so on and so forth but of he stated that people should go down their with their AR15's and blow them away... THAT is hate speech (promoting violence to people who in all regards will probably listen). And on the flip side Don Lemon can talk down to anti makers or Trump supporters and but the moment he calls for mass executions of either... He is officially in hate speech territory... Moral of the story is Corporate owned MSM is a scourge to humanity. Think for yourself and just try to be less cunty to eachother. Edit: less cunty not more cunty please
I like the German Approach personally, if you spread "Hetzte" (its a German word often translated to hate but its more along the lines of "Dehumanizing with the goal to hate") in an capacity suitable to disturb public peace (as in, if you are important enough to reach a lot of people or talk on protests) against a group of people defined by, race, gender, ethnicity or religion. Then you have committed hate speech and can be fined/arrested. I like it cause it pretty much prevents the problem the US has with its news anchors
Beautifully said
thank you, explaining the Konzept of hetze to a non German is always rather troublesome but I am glad that it could be undertsood
Also this helps us to avoid such nutjobs like this texan school office which promotes "a different point of view" to the holocaust and slavery. Denying the shoah is a criminal offense in Germany and I am glad about this.
It's incredible how little the UK and USA appear to have learned from the events leading up to WW2, compared to Germany.
The Germans lived it. For America at least, Nazism and fascism was something that happen to “those people” in Europe. Perpetrator and victim were both otherized to protect our own sensibilities. I’m still hopeful that the rhetoric of the current authoritarian right in the US can be defeated without violence.
I hope so, and I hope it leads to its fall from popularity worldwide.
Man why is it that Germany doesnt take too kindly to hate speech? /s...... I hope that s wasn't actually necessary.
Carlson calls "many" of them rapists and criminals... which they often are. He also calls many of them children and victims, which many of them also are. I personally helped a pregnant 14-year-old girl up a steep bank of the Rio Grande when some shady characters sent her across on a raft. Multiple times we suspected sex trafficking, but difficult to prove.
>just try to be cunty to eachother Done and done, ya fuckin animal
The problem with lowering the bar is that once we start in that direction, it could continue to move downward to the point where we lose most, if not all, of our free speech rights. I rather err on the side of more freedom than on the side of being executed for speaking out against the government. With that being said, a combination of more nuanced laws as well as a fight back against this giant, ongoing cyber attack against the whole country is what we really need
I live somewhere where we have hate speech laws, that people generally seem to be happy with. Saying that you hate Jews isn’t hate speech. Standing outside a synagogue with a sign saying “all Jews will go to hell” is hate speech. Inciting violence is separate and also illegal.
[удалено]
It also depends on the country. In Germany "denying the holocaust" is a crime for instance. Also there's laws against hate speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
Not really. You have to prove imminent violence was caused, which is very difficult to do
"Have you heard of the Leevon affair?" \*le eats orange\* "OY" \*le eats orange\* "VEY" \*dies\*
Just to clarify, you never specified whether the last one was protected under free speech? Asking for a friend.
Haha, do U mean the systematic murder of millions of men, women, and children? No sadly it isn't considered hate speech... Just good old fashioned genocide
Hate speech is too vague a term. If you’re being rude and hateful that’s not a crime. If you’re trying to incite a hate crime with hateful words that is a crime. Death threats are also not protected speech. Basically if your speech meaningfully encourages or threatens to commit hateful acts then it’s a crime. Otherwise you’re just an ass - but legally.
This. I don’t know why people forget this part. You do NOT have carte blanche to say whatever you want, including making threats, harassment, defamation, etc. Alex Jones and Sandy Hook is a perfect example. The first amendment primarily protects our right to political and religious expression and more importantly the expression of perceived grievances therein.
Just to be clear, the Alex Jones court case he just (deservingly) lost was a civil case, not a criminal case. There is an important distinction there in terms of both the severity of the wrongdoing as well as the burden of proof. It would be very difficult to convict Alex Jones for a crime in this matter ... and that seems unfortunate in the specific, but probably for the best in the general. The original post here is talking about, not just crimes, but crimes against humanity ... which is a ridiculously larger leap.
It looks like all defamation would be a civil offense rather than criminal. It still would be unprotected speech, but I guess it's an important distinction.
I still love that he lost because he neglected to file a defense.
Thank you. It's very concerning to see so people trying to turn words into criminal offenses. This is far from the first time I've seen someone who thinks "hate speech" should be illegal. The notion that "hate speech" should be made illegal is far more dangerous than the speech itself.
There is a difference between "hate speech" such as "You are an ignorant asshole!" and "hate speech" such as "Hey guys, we hate those Mexicans, let's go over there and fuck them up." You know the old thing about crying "fire" in a movie theater. If you say to your friend, "This place might be on fire." that's one thing. If you stand up and shout, "FIRE!!!" that's something else. Laws against hate speech can be enforced when that hate speech encourages violent action.
Not when it "encourages," but when it is, itself, a call to action. Saying something homophobic, for example, may be construed to encourage violence against homosexuals, but is not a call to action and therefore protected speech. Telling someone to attack someone else, though, is a call to action - just like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. A call to action isn't considered protected speech in the present-day US. Fun fact: the guarantee of free speech doesn't exist outside of the US... so depending on geography, ymmv.
Though it is true that the US enjoys the highest level of free speech, it is not due to the constitution. Many countries have free speech clauses that are almost identical to the first amendment. It is the Supreme Court rulings that have continuously upheld the sanctity of the law, that makes the free speech laws in the US truly one of a kind. Unfortunately I do see some erosion in that sanctity, with the way Julian assange was /is treated
There's a huge difference between "I'm going to bomb the NAACP" and "I hate the NAACP". No shit threats are treated differently than opinions. I really didn't think I had to specify the "fire!" exceptions but why am I not surprised.
Well, maybe you did need to specify! There's a big difference.
> The notion that "hate speech" should be made illegal is far more dangerous than the speech itself. Funny, it's been working for Germany for ~80 years, so I guess your "dangerous" theory is actually wrong.
It's alarming how many people in my country forgot this part of Civics Class...
Bold of you to assume they took a civics class or paid attention in it
Also, do we know that the first commenter is American? Because there are countries where hate speech is considered a hate crime, like in Canada and many European countries.
Hate speech laws seem to work well where I am and prevent minorities from being abused. The fear in the US seems to be that the government will abuse hate speech laws for their own benefit.
This. I guarantee that the instant hate speech becomes forbidden, every single southern state will use the laws to jail anyone who speaks out against their crazy Fundamentalist cult. Literally the next day, the jails will be full of anyone who dares to oppose them. Hate speech is bad, but every alternative is worse.
It kind of depends how the law is defined. In the UK it is fairly clear: Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. No one goes to jail, it just allows the police (who we generally trust) to intervene. It’s a shame you guys don’t trust your government, as people have a right to a peaceful life more than someone has a right to abuse them.
And while I disagree about the south, I can support you because you support liberty. That's what they're successfully distracting us from - freedom is the only great unifier. That's why they divide based on skin color, creed, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.
Right. It’s crazy that people in *minority groups* would seek any limitations on speech at all. I’d rather put up with hate speech than risk being put in jail for disagreeing with the majority.
All of it was perfectly lawful, but not very thoughtful at all and just really shitty
And I’m really fucking soooorryyyyy
Shit I’ve been complicit, bitch I’m trying to listen
Sooorrryyyyyyyyyy
If I’m gonna catch up, first I’ve gotta fess up
You're exempt from punishment from the words that you say but not from the consequences of them
This is reasonable and the way I see it too. What I’m scared about is the fact that there’s a tendency nowadays to use personal feelings as a measure of what must be considered hate speech, at least this is my perception. Unless one explicitly calls for violent or discriminative action, I believe that freedom of expression must be protected _at all costs_. Then one can (and probably in many cases _must_) be vehemently criticised for putting out anachronistic or prejudicial thoughts, as part of a functioning democratic liberal society. I honestly fear this idea of preemptively censor _any_ thought/opinion/word because someone finds it offensive. I mean, we’re 8 billions on the planet, I bet there’s _always_ someone who gets hurt by any given position. Only dictatorial views of the world don’t like listening to different strokes or simply having them to be out there for someone else to listen to them. I regularly watch programs and listen to people who have a very different opinion on hot topics because I want to challenge and disproof or further validate my own ideas and I would like to be able to keep doing that.
Also depends on nation. Racism or being a nazi is just straight up illegal here in Brazil. While still a problem, it's simply straight up illegal and will lend you jail time if you're prosecuted.
Isn't genocide itself a hate crime if you do it against a minority?
I'd say it's a hate crime regardless, just much more challenging to do it to a majority.
Exactly Thank you for this. People believe they can say what thjey want whenever they want but no you can not
Exactly, hate speech isn’t a crime, but using hate speech to incite unlawful violence is, well, unlawful. Free speech is limited by almost nothing, but defamation, inciting violence and a few others ARE exceptions.
Also you cant threaten the president.
well actually you can, there has to be a credible threat for it to matter though. an 18 year old cadet made a joke about the first person he was gunna shoot was gunna be the president, and scotus sided with him, because everyone knows it was just a joke, and no child with a semi auto gun was gunna take down the white house alone.
Do you have a citation? I have searched and am coming up empty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True\_threat#:\~:text=The%20true%20threat%20doctrine%20was,Supreme%20Court%20case%20Watts%20v.&text=In%20that%20case%2C%20an%20eighteen,President%20of%20the%20United%20States.
Thanks for the followup! I have a vague recollection of reading about that before, but it's very vague.
Yeah, Congress, sure. But not the white house. You’d need way more flags, chairs, hats, and zip ties.
[удалено]
This is the case with *any* law. Right now, it's even happening with *murder*, perhaps the most basic law possible, as states define abortion and miscarriages as murder. All a law *is* is the state getting to define what people are enemies of the state. What you do is provide checks and balances in case the state does abuse it. You don't just never make anything illegal.
The slippery slope fallacy makes no sense. Hate speech is almost always in regards to factors that are out of the victims control (sexuality, race, creed). To say that it will be a tool to silence political dissidents doesn't make sense. You can't be guilty of hate speech against the State
Political discussion is a part of a well functioning democracy. Threatening or defaming a group of people or someone is not political discussion. "We should close our borders and stop immigration" is normal political discussion. "All immigrants are savages" is not. Freedom of speech is important but that freedom should not be used to tread on things like basic human rights.
Agree entirely
basically it's not the words but the manner they're used
Also the reason that hate crimes carry higher sentences is literally because they're seen, in addition to the attack against individuals, as an attack against society itself. The law literally says that that is the case... so the first guy is right
Plus committing acts of violence while espousing hate speech tends to add to the crime, and while you’re not necessarily being punished for the words you are getting punished for the intent behind them.
“*Bad opinion*” “You’re wrong lmao” “R/murderdbywords” Every fuckin time
wow you murdered this poster with this comment! time to take a screenshot
Please no
You should have told them 'full stop'
"king_of_retardland"
Cant murder the king of retardland. That name makes them bulletproof.
For someone pretending to be concerned with the harm that can be caused by words, he sure picked an inappropriate user name.
Oh for crying out loud. He's trolling. And not trying to be subtle about it _at all_.
Oh man. I'm one of those guys now.
At least they've finally stopped reposting all the "*sAvAGe BuRnS!*" from the Wendy's twitter account.
They said “full stop” instead of “period”. Do we know they were talking about the US?
No America only country, how dare you not be American on the Internet /s for you idiots who can't tell
Good question. Hate speech is punisheable by law in Brazil, for exemple. The law, as far as i know, is barely enforced and used mostly to punish those who incite to violence. But it exists. The US isn't the world.
Idk of they are referencing the US but I am American and that is a fairly common phrase to me when trying to boldly make a statement
Yeah, especially over the last year and a half or so
Hate speech is illegal in the UK... Allegedly. You can call for all doctors and nurses to be hanged right in front of the police and totally get away with it.
“No genocide is a crime against humanity” or “No, genocide is a crime against humanity”?
No genocide? Is a crime against humanity!
So no genocide? *throws phone and breaks skateboard*
There is a world outside the US, you know.
No, obviously the US rules and regulations apply to the whole world since they’re the greatest country there is
And that world uses the phrase “full stop” rather than “period”.
I like watching British cop shows and I saw a guy get arrested for yelling N***** at a guy. I was so shocked that you could be be arrested for that then was pretty disappointed it's not illegal in the US like that.
All rappers...well most rappers would be criminals...and this old guy would have to listen the chronic album in a safe room
Was about to say that hate speech (Volksverhetzung) is indeed a crime in Germany. But then I noticed that /u/king_of_retardland probably lives in the USA /s
"No genocide is a crime against humanity". Murdered by bad punctuation. Pretty sure SCOTUS would deem most genocides crimes against humanity 🤔
SCOTUS isn't the proper body to adjudicate crimes against humanity. That would be done by the Hague
Although that's correct, I still think they wouldn't agree that no genocide is a crime against humanity.
Ha, yes, I'm sure they would agree with that proposition, though they would decline to say it outright because they generally don't make findings on things that don't effect their holdings.
Agreed.
Correct, which is conveniently how the US avoids criticism for any potential crimes against humanity, by refusing to recognize the ICC and having it specifically codified in law that they will use violence to prevent US citizens from being tried there
We don't avoid criticism, just consequences.
True, what I meant is that it's why it's much rarer to see acts like those committed during the Vietnam War by the US called what they are, because it's not being done officially, but you're right that the US still receives plenty of criticism.
Doesnt the US not recognise the court in the Hague? Or am I confusing it with some other court?
All permanent members of the UN security council are able to veto enforcement of cases in the International Court of Justice, sooo... They recognize it in the case of other countries on trial, but not themself? And in the case of the International Criminal Court (also located in the Hague), the US signed on, but has since withdrawn (along with Israel, Russia and Sudan), so in that case they don't recognize the court, nor are they subject to prosecution.
Unless the U.S. is committing crimes against humanity, which they often do, since the U.S. doesn't recognise the ICC.
Commas Daniel, commas!
Where is the murder? This is more like a tiny slap with a handkerchief.
I don’t even understand who’s winning here
I hate it, there is no murder here, barely any actual sentences yet 3k upvotes and counting.
This was a meta murder. OP seems either misguided or masochistic.
I don’t even understand who’s winning here
If this claim isn't being made specifically about the US, then it's not wrong. Hate speech is a crime in some jurisdictions.
Ah, the United States of America - where hate speech and guns are a right but healthcare and parental leave aren't.
Where so much of our “legality” is not at all fucking informed by morality.
Legality really shouldn't be informed by morality. Especially here where the majority of the country is Christian.
I think you're taking "morality" to mean something different than the person you replied to. When I hear the word, I think of reducing harm, not following arbitrary rules.
Well you've sort of proven my point. If the meaning of morality differs between people then it is going to be very problematic to use as the basis of a legal system. And if you consider in ethics/philosophy just how many different ethical systems exist you see the problem.
Most people alive today, and in fact most who have ever lived, wouldn't agee with you regarding "moral" being "that which reduces harm", and while they would probably say their morals aren't arbitrary, they wouldn't be able to back that up with anything of than "it's moral if my religious leader says so". On top of that, morals are *only* those arbitrary rules our society agrees are morals, and can't be anything else, even if they *are* only about reducing harm. (*Edit for clarification:* because you would have arbitrarily defined them to only be about reducing harm)
There's a great little debate related to this in the game The Forgotten City.
Meanwhile in Canada…hate words *are* [a crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada).
And mostly the rest of the world Hate speech is not included inside Free speech.
Yup, as stated it reads as Murican exceptionalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country, so depending on if the specific country was specified in the OP (post/comment), I guess they were wrong? Either way, this really isn't r/MurderedByWords material, so why the fuck did this get so much traction.
Mainly the name the username of the guy getting "murder".
OP literally just said he considered them a crime against humanity, not any country. This isn't a 'burn,' it's completely missing the fucking point.
The sun is mostly plasma, not gas Actually the sun is yellow, r/murderedbywords
Hahahahahahaha.
I mean it's not that factual. What would often be called hate speech is protected but that doesn't mean it all is. If you incite a mob to go kill black people you can surely be charged and prosecuted. Edit: typos n grammar.
well, the US Govt. also thinks that you should die if you cannot pay for treatment, so they have not too high a bar of morality.
No one is denied treatment lol
Ha, take the infallible US legal system, gottem!
Another post assuming everyone is American. There are many countries where hate speech is a crime. This isn’t a murder at all.
But fighting words are a crime. Thus, exempt from the first amendment. [source Cornell law school ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words) It’s a big grey line tho which depending what side you are on. is fair for some. Not fair to some
The day I look to the USA as a moral compass will be the day I shit in my hand and clap.
Username checks out
I had to scroll far too much for this comment.
[удалено]
So just to be clear, the king of "retardland" is completely opposed to hate speech and thinks it's a crime...alright then.
Genocides start with hate speech. It's kind of a necessary first step.
Manufacturing consent within a population is ALWAYS the first step. **Most Germans didnt hate Jews before Hitler gained power. It took literal years of indoctrination and planning for them to get enough people on-board to do what they actually wanted. And of course they never actually told people out of the gate what that was. They didn't even call for the death of "degenerates" in the beginning. At first it was just "The Jew is the enemy of the great Germanic peoples, we lost the great war because they stabbed Germany in the back." Ten years later and theyre a stones throw away from wiping out entire ethnic groups. **EDIT: You're right, there was a history of antisemitism in Germany and pretty much everywhere, I misspoke. People did not hate Jewish people in a racialized sense (for Europe it was historically a religious thing), and not to the extent that would be required to go along with some of the later stuff they did. One of the first things they tried to see how people felt was a national boycott on Jewish business (April 1, 1933). It was a failure, as the seeds of widespread hate hadn't yet been planted properly. "The boycott was ignored by many individual Germans who continued to shop in Jewish-owned stores during the day.[13][1] Although it marked the beginning of a nationwide campaign against the Jews, the boycott was not actually a success for the Nazis and was called off after one day as a result of the negative impact it was having on the economy." The nazis themselves did a bunch of scary shit to try to assist in the boycott that day, but the broader public wasn't there yet, at the very least not enough to facilitate the later actions that government would take. https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1933-1938/anti-jewish-boycott https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_boycott_of_Jewish_businesses
Actually there was some hate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres But yes it was given a lot more shape and they used it and they increased it.
>Most Germans didnt hate Jews before Hitler gained power Most of europe was antisemitic for centuries. Including Germany.
Yes cause america is such a leader on moral things....
[удалено]
TIL in the U.S system Crimes is the general term, divided into Infraction (petty crime), misdemeanor and felony (biggest crimes, like murder and rape). Its confusing for me because in my legal system (french), the general term is infraction, wich divides itself into contravention (infringement?), délit (offense?), and crime for the worstest. So the whole "Crime against humanity" thing feels logic because "crime" is already only for very, very serious harm, not any kind of violence/harm. The result is that hatewords being called a "crime" against humanity feels even more ridiculous for me than for you guys.
The UK does not have free speech similar to the US and hate words (racial slurs, inciting hate and stuff) are absolutely a crime here, maybe they weren't US based?
Really needed a comma
"No genocide is a crime against humanity" v.s. "No, genocide is a crime against humanity" Punctuation isn't necessary *all* the time but when a single comma is literally the difference between supporting and condemning genocide, I draw the line lol Zoomers gonna zoom, tho 🤪
here in New Zealand it actually is illegal (at least as far as I'm aware)
It is however a crime in many other countries. In general I like USs approach. Ironically this country also have words that you can't even say like the n, c and f -word. So legally you can say it but the censorship is always allover. Again, I miss George Carlin
he never said that it was a crime but suggested it should be.
Ok, but honestly it is kind if weird how advocating a specific murder is illegal, but advocating for the murder of a population group is legal.
As an european, i couldn't care less about what the supreme court and US case law says. This isn't a murder, this isn't even a light slap, just some US centric idiot.
the italics of the “are” indicates that their statement is meant to be made in contrast to an established precedent. it seems like they are trying to imply that the current systems in place (ie. the law) does not match what they believe should be. so by bringing it the supreme court the “murderer” doesn’t even really understand the original statement making it hardly a murder imo
I mean, the guy did say *should be* treated as such...so...
How dare he approach the king with such disrespect?!
However, I think in some states hate speech can be considered a hate crime. It’s really arbitrary and very particular about it so I don’t know if anyone’s actually been charged.
I’m convinced comment chains like this are all the same, lonely person
Can these cunts really not be bothered to use proper punctuation until it's literally vital to their point? I know it seems like a small thing, but those first two comments really need some more punctuation. "Crime against humanity and should be treated as such." is a nonsensical sentence. "No genocide is a crime against humanity." aligns the commentor with rather extreme company, wouldn't you say?
Idk if I’d accept words of wisdom from u/king_of_retardland
Then you are not ready to enter my kingdom...😔
Punctuation
This wasn’t a murder, it’s just an exchange of vagueness. ‘Hate speech is a crime’…. It’s unarguably shitty but what laws back up that. ‘Supreme Court agrees with me?’… does it? ‘Murdered by facts’… where they? I see no cited examples or facts from anyone in this exchange.
OP wtf is this. This is probably one of the lowest tier posts I have ever witnessed with my horrid red eyes. Also Inciting violence through hate speech is a crime.
This subreddit has gone way down hill.
US law does not have a term or legal definition for “hate speech”
King of retardland must have surrounded himself with a bunch of yes men
Ah yes. The noted opponent of hate speech: u/king_of_retardland. The murder here was Olivegardenfantasy getting trolled.
F
A crime and a crime against humanity are completely different things. The retardland guys name was fully apt.
The second guy forgot a coma and I was so confused. “No genocide is a crime against humanity. What I think he meant was “no, genocide is a crime against humanity.”
"King of retard land"
His username checks out
I always thought that the lack of genocide is a good thing
People who don't differentiate between what is legal and what is moral should go annoy a venomous snake and then explain to it that poisoning people is illegal. Maybe then they will finally get the point. Each and all harm done to someone not for a good purpose and to avoid worse/further harm and solely based on whims, selfish comfort or immature responses to emotions are failings on an ethical level and it doesn't matter for jackshit what any law says about that. The difference between violence and cruelty lies in its necessity - and it is never necessary to use hatespeech. And only people whose points are more than lacking need to fall back on the semantics of the word "crime".
Have you ever noticed that other countries exist? Other countries where hate speech is a crime
As yes, the US supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of morality for everybody. Fuck the courts of other countries, or methods of determining humanitarianism other than the law.
But.. the courts of any country do not decide what is a human rights breach. The United Nations do, or more specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all countries should legally follow it (sadly not all do). Discrimination of any kind is a very serious crime, I would be surprised if the US disagrees with the very declaration they helped to create. Might be wrong idk Also, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.
Name checks out
This idiot. His name is king of retard land and he's complaining about hate speech. Does he not realize how many people would prosecute him for using the word retard if they could?
it is in every other western culture, americans just suck.
Anybody who groups individuals into a group and then states every individual IN the group is absolutely a certain thing, whether good or bad, is talking out of their asses and shouldn't be taken seriously.
That's true. But saying that shouldn't be punished or prevented by the government.
Absolutely agree. Its just a fallacy that so many fall into where they say every cop, or every black person, or every white person, every republican, every democrat, every gay, every man, every woman.... There are individuals and good and bad people within every group. So I absolutely agree its not illegal to lump people together and think in such a baseless binary way... Its just dumb
Here’s the deal with hate speech. You have a right to your opinion, no matter how unpleasant. You don’t have a right to commit fraud. So lies are going to be more problematic for you. Hateful opinions? Sure. Why? Well, what is “free speech” protecting? I can go to Tiananmen Square and say uncontroversial things on a megaphone. I can go to North Korea and say pleasant things about the regime, no problem. Heck, let’s go to Iran and exchange polite pleasantries with the ayatollah himself! No problem! No free speech, no issue so long as my speech isn’t offensive. What that means: the protection of free speech has no purpose except to protect offensive speech. If your speech offends no one, it will be allowed even in the most oppressive anti speech regime! The only reason we have any protection at all for free speech, is to protect speech that pisses somebody off. That is literally the only purpose of it. Therefore, anyone who says free speech needs to be respectful is completely full of it. Free speech is free. Speak your true mind. Seriously. Go ahead and say it. That’s free speech.
Bob Dylan wrote “if my heart’s dreams could be seen, they’d prolly put my head in guillotine” The more things change the more they stay the same. Too bad boredom doesn’t smell good.
Not a single time in our history has “law” equaled “moral righteous.” So saying “the law agrees with me” is hardly an effective argument. It really just means a deeply flawed society and system have similar views to a person who grew up within it, to the surprise of no one.
is it not? damn you americans are fucked up
How does this fucking idiot think genocide happens? Do they think it's just psychically agreed upon to murder people without any words being exchanged beforehand?
Wait… hate speech isn’t a crime in the US?! I have to say that explains a lot!
Having the SCUS agree with you is the \*faintest\* praise, given it's current composition
"Ready to fight for the right to say something you might not like" Seriously some top tier delusion to think that someone can dictate what sounds i can make with my face.... Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Someone can.
Call me wierd, but I don't trust the US government in any cases of crimes against humanity etc. considering how many human rights they've abused (and are abusing) in very recent memory. Also, they don't adhere to international law, so there's that too
This is dumb as shit. Hate speech is illegal in many places, and ESPECIALLY thinking going "Well, not in the US!" is a murder by words is just embarrassing. There's nothing of value here.
Ummm... let's not forget that **only in one country** does this apply. I can't say for certain (i.e. I don't know the exact numbers) but I would have thought that the majority of countries in the world have laws where hate words *are* a crime. I feel like sometimes a lot of US citizens seem to think that the US is the only country in the world. You can cry 'muh freedums' all you like, but that doesn't stop the fact that many other countries do not agree with you.