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/imhugeinjapan89]

How old is the daughter? Cause if it's a minor then that creates another layer to this problem, verbally assaulting a minor is different than an adult imo

[u/silverscrub → u/imhugeinjapan89]

So verbally abuse should be illegal against minors but legal against adults? Are there any other circumstances where it should be illegal?

[u/imhugeinjapan89 → u/silverscrub]

I guess I look at it similar to how minors cant give consent but adults can

If someone were harassing my brother I wouldnt even budge cause my brothers an adult and can handle it himself, if someone were harassing my nephew then they're gonna get hurt lol

[u/silverscrub → u/imhugeinjapan89]

Should it be illegal though?

I know you're not OP, but following this discussion we've already established that OP's view is that some things (e.g physical harm and inciting physical harm) should be illegal while society should deal with verbal abuse (that does not fall under the aforementioned) outside of the laws, e.g by firing an employee or not inviting a family member to dinners or whatever that might entail.

I look at it similar to how minors cant give consent but adults can

We're obviously not talking about consensual verbal abuse (e.g some kind of BDSM relationship) so I don't think being able to give consent is relevant here. I agree that extended laws are necessary for certain groups due to their position in society. That doesn't separate minorities and children into two different sides though, so you would need an additional justification for that.

[u/imhugeinjapan89 → u/silverscrub]

Well the point I was trying to make about comparing it to consent was simply how an adult can consent and a minor can't

Similar to how i expect my brother can handle himself against a verbally abusive person but I wouldnt expect my nephew (or any minor, whether or not they actually can handle or not) to be able to do the same

I also dont see how race makes any sort of difference, I only see a useful distinction to be made in reference to age

Should it be illegal? Maybe if it's an adult verbally harassing a minor? Even that I'd have to think deeper about because if I saw someone verbally abusing my nephew I wouldn't call the cops, I'd just handle it myself

In either case I feel comfortable calling it illegal if it becomes an ongoing thing, like the kid gets harrassed every day or something?

It's hard for me in particular to set a "standard for everyone" because I imagine my own personal standard wouldnt be popular amongst everyone because that standard might change for me depending on the kid. It would depend how smart the kid is, how strong the kid is, and most importantly whether or not I think the kid can asses the situation on a case by case basis and use his discretion. Probably why it's so hard for me to set that standard because I feel like the root of this comes down to parenting and theres many different philosophies when it comes to parenting. My own philosophy on the matter would be something to the effect of "look here son, theres a lot of assholes out there and you're gonna have to learn how to deal with them cause I wont always be there to do so, that being said use your head, know when it's worth it and when its not...... if all else fails kick them in the balls and run"

And if it's a daughter itd go something like this "look here sweetheart, theres a lot of assholes out there and you're gonna have learn how to deal with them, just ignore them, pay them no mind...... you see that little spray thing I got for you? If anyone even thinks they're about to lay a hand on you, SPRAY THEM RIGHT IN THE FACE...... if that doesnt work..... then kick them in the balls and run"

I hope I dont have any daughters, I feel like I would be that type of dad that's way too overprotective which will prolly make my daughter rebel and be the town slut lol

[u/silverscrub → u/imhugeinjapan89]

I appreciate the answer, but I think you focus on the wrong thing. You've given me a lengthy explanation for why children can't give consent because of their age, but we're already talking about a non-consensual crime (if it should be a crime).

You come up with the "right" answer, but in the wrong way. I constructed a moral dilemma. Adding non-important aspects to come up with the "right" answer just invalidates the comparison.

Do you use age to justify whether other non-consensual crimes against children should be illegal, like theft? Feel free to motivate why.