[smtddr]

I probably shouldn't even bring this up. This whole thread will be knocked off the front-page shortly anyway... but I just had a heated debate with a coworker that's an Eich-supporter and found his logic disturbing and ethically broken when it expanded to views on racism, sexism, homophobia. But for all those people who support Eich and keep saying freedom-of-speech goes both ways even for "unpopular opinions":

How would you define Hate Speech. Do you think it's okay? Do you think Google is right for not allowing Hate Speech on youtube?

I'm only asking because I want to know if these Eich-supporters have a limit somewhere; where speech becomes harmful - from just expressing yourself to inflicting a tangible negative effect on others who do not wish it. While I'm not accusing Eich of hate speech, I believe his donation to an effort to make a law which forces his belief on others - something that has nothing to do with how he lives his own life - is similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

>>In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Am I crazy for thinking that prop8 disparages the love between two men or women that want to get married? Isn't the core of prop8 based on people who cannot accept the LGBT community and want to keep marriage for themselves? Shouldn't society squash this kind of thing out of law?

[waterlesscloud]

You'll note in that wiki article you linked, the Supreme Court has found hate speech restrictions to be unconstitutional.

There's also the case where the ACLU defended the right of neo-nazis to march in a town with a heavy Jewish population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#...

Hate speech is often despicable, but Freedom Of Speech has traditionally been taken very, very, VERY seriously in the US.

Personally, I feel it's a dangerous mistake to start policing hate speech, and I don't want to see it happen. I think the freedom to express whatever position you want on an issue, no matter how reprehensible, is crucial to the ideals of the nation.

If that means fringe groups say awful things, so be it. For me that's infinitely better than the alternative.

[daveqr]

This.

[daveqr]

>Isn't the core of prop8 based on people who cannot accept >the LGBT community and want to keep marriage for >themselves?

Some people might feel that way, but there are arguments against gay marriage that have nothing to do with this. Some people feel gay marriage reduces freedom, some people are against the idea of government involvement in marriage, period (which is actually what I suspect Eich's view is), and some gay people are against gay marriage.

>Shouldn't society squash this kind of thing out of law?

Not just no, but hell no.

[sliverstorm]

Hate speech is actually often? sometimes? protected in the USA.

[sp332]

Am I crazy for thinking that prop8 disparages the love between two men or women that want to get married?

Maybe? California still gave all the legal rights and benefits of marriage to gay couples, it was just called something besides marriage. The only right Prop 8 took away was to the word "marriage".