Type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.
I don't think that hate speech as defined above should be decriminalized. However, I have serious concerns about the definition of "hate speech" being misapplied to forms of speech which ought to be protected as free speech under the 1st. amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For example, is a Christian pastor telling his congregation that homosexuality is a sin hate speech? Not in my wildest dreams it isn't. That is free speech and exercise of religion, protected by the 1st, amendment. However, there are those liberal factions which would claim that it is in fact hate speech and therefore ought to be banned.
Yes, well what you are talking about isn't hate speech if you have logical argument for what you are saying. But if you came on the radio and started saying "I hate homos, I hate those f^gs! I hate them and they should rot in hell"...if you only say those things, it's just "hate".
A pastor saying homsexuality is wrong and trying to state the reasons why is not "hate". There is a difference s_cianci. What is being debated is whether Canadian law should legalize hate speech again.
I know it's not hate and yes, there is a difference. But a lot of steadfast liberals try to paint it with that brush, pretending that there is no difference. That's the only thing that concerns me about outlawing "hate speech". So no, "hate speech" should not be legalized, but it's necessary to exercise extreme discretion when deciding what is legal and what isn't.
Linear Mode
