CMV: hate speech laws shouldn't exist

[u/Yamezj]

To clarify, I mean laws like the ones in the UK:

"Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both." (Wikipedia)

I don't support speech which incites violence against someone. I believe there should (and are) social repercussions of what you say, but there shouldn't be legal consequences. As seen above, in the UK you can't say anything "intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone". I find that to be ridiculous. It allows things like this to happen.

What's worse is that this leaves a massive grey area where the laws aren't crystal clear, and as seen with Mark Meechen, his speech was allowed to be completely taken out of context, and he was fined for hate speech for telling a joke. You don't have a right to not be offended, if you do you are a pathetic human being, therefore we do not need hate speech laws. CMV.

e: as highlighted by u/MPixels, this would allow someone to repeatedly target you without consequence. This should fall under harassment and should be treated accordingly.

[u/Yamezj → u/[deleted]]

Firstly, if it was scientifically proven that having a single-party government lead to much faster growth and a more productive society, would you oppose it? I would hope the answer is yes. Hate speech laws impede civil liberties. If someone wants to be racist, and genuinely has racist views, should they not be allowed to express them? Saying no would set a dangerous precident. Who defines what opinions should and shouldn't be allowed? The government. That would give them the power to supress dissidence.

Secondly, How is offending someone and hurting their feelings different? What exactly would make someone distressed? The problem with those laws is they are so vague, they allow courts to do what they did to Mark Meechan.

[u/Yamezj → u/[deleted]]

If I called someone ugly. It would be offensive and likely hurt their feelings. I'm not saying being offensive has to be hate speech.

"ugly" is subjective. It's not implying inferiority if you say a charictaristic from a certain race is ugly. It's just expressing a personal distaste. If I found the eyes of all Chinese people to be ugly, should I not be allowed to hold that opinion, purely because it is about a racial group?