Is 'Hate Speech' A Part Of 'Freedom Of Speech'?

We already lost the freedom of speech, So there is no need to ban it.

Do you think, the government listen to the people's reaction? I doubt it. For example, Some of the states in India, is having worst power tariff. when the government implemented it, people were against it. But nothing happened.

Speech should not cause any violations, If it cause, it has to be banned.

aarthivgWe already lost the freedom of speech, So there is no need to ban it.

I disagree. When did we lost freedom of speech ?
The day when I standup against the system and next day I will be assassinated, it's when you can say freedom of speech is lost.

People are really dumbnuts, When price hikes they start the movement without educating themselves with world market & impact of it on country's economy.

The_Big_KThere is no parameter to determine what's a 'hate speech' because it ultimately boils down to the usage of words to express the thoughts.

Do you think ban on 'hate speech' is basically a ban on 'freedom of speech'?

Scratching the past; most of the speeches during pre-independence were literally hate speeches mixed with motivations & emotions. The only thing was that in those speeches the targeted people weren't cursed.
While this new generation kids are using ghetto slangs in facebook & twitter expressing their views against the system. But they will hardly step outside the room to support the movement, punks !

There is a thin line between between freedom of speech & hate speech.
But whatever it is, speech shouldn't encourage violence.

#Pretty_Complex_Debate

So basically, a hate speech without slags and swear words should be acceptable, is that right?

can't say so Mr K the general definition which i give for HATE SPEECHES is the tendency of using once vocabulary to instigate a sense of anger and insecurity to the listener

the insecurity drives FEAR, this will bring about a decline in effective thought process in any man, that makes a man a puppet in the hands of the speaker.

jeffrey samuel... the general definition which i give for HATE SPEECHES is the tendency of using once vocabulary to instigate a sense of anger and insecurity to the listener

The definition is the problem. It's impossible to define it objectively.

In fact, it's almost impossible to give an example that wouldn't cause someone to accuse me of being inflammatory. But let me recount an example that was very big news a number of years ago. It was in the news #-Link-Snipped-#, #-Link-Snipped-#, #-Link-Snipped-#, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Water Buffalo Incident</a> and other places.

A college student was trying to study but some people outside were making a lot of noise. He leaned out the window and shouted "Shut up, you water buffalo."

Why did he shout that? "Water buffalo" is a rough translation of the Hebrew word "behay-mah," which in his Jewish upbringing was commonly used as a rebuff to mean "thoughtless person" or ''fool."

What did the black women he was shouting at think he meant? They thought water buffalo were indigenous to Africa (as it turns out, they're not) so he must have been making a racial slur. They called the campus police. He was accused of hate speech and officially charged with "racial harassment."


The epitaph "hate speech" is often thrown at people which the thrower disagrees with. The use of the phrase, in my observations, is often the wrong. And it's alarming to now learn that India is doing the throwing.

that is true trying to define a completely abstract thing with respect to real world entities is almost impossible

Hate speech IS a part of freedom of speech, even you can use slangs or threat somebody,in that event you have to be ready for the consequences allowing law to take action againts you