Should "hate speech" be criminalized in the U.S.?
 

Should "hate speech" be criminalized and legislated against in the U.S., in spite of the First Amendment? If so, who should define what it is?

It shouldn't be illegal. Democracy must accept even the opinions of its enemies.

What I find tricky is finding a way to distinctly label speech that incites violence/danger (and therefore, what can truly be defined as "violent/dangerous") vs speech that could be labeled hateful, yet isn't putting anyone in harms way.

I generally believe that if it isn't a call to violence or harm, we must allow it to be spoken. We are free to disagree, ignore, or rebuke.

It really is a complicated subject.

Who decides what "hate speech" is, exactly? I mean, what if someday making jokes about a certain race/ethnicity is considered "hate speech"? It's really open to interpretation, it seems.

Could you give examples of what sort of "hate speech" you have in mind? In some European countries, such as Germany and France, publicly denying the Holocaust is considered "hate speech" and it's punishable by law. Is that the type of hate speech you're referring to or other examples? I'm sorry, but the video is nearly 50 minutes long and I'm not gonna watch it in its entirety.

Anyway, I'm not American as everyone knows already. So I will abstain from voting and won't be telling you guys how to run your yard.

I'd say no because there's the slippery slope that even a valid criticism could be called hate speech.

Think the whole 'you're automatically a misogynist for not liking the female Ghostbusters movie' but cranked to 11 and you get actual jail time for voicing your opinion.

I'd say that any country should be open and honest about what it stands for.

If any country claims to uphold freedom of speech, then all speech must be free, no exceptions, no matter how unpopular it is. Claiming freedom of speech, and then surpressing certains forms of speech because its "hateful" or "harming someone" is an act of hypocrisy, lying and cowardice.

No, I don't believe in criminalizing words. Words are an extension of thoughts, and you can't police that, either. Much as many wish that could be done.

I mean, in theory, if I simply said to someone, "I hate you", that would now be a criminal act, under the broadest possible definitions. How could it not? It's literally "hate speech", because you told the person you hate them. Obviously, those in favor would literally want it to mean "Don't be racist/sexist/whatever-ist", but again, "hate speech" doesn't get any more clear than simply saying "I hate you" to someone. And under the broadest application they'd still be punished for it. Which is nuts.

Id say no too because all the easily Triggered SJW's would say everything is hate speech and what not :lol:

Many of them already do.

You voted Yes :tlol:

That was before I thought of what the SJW regime would do if they had that power.

No disrespect to your personal opinion, but why'd you pick yes in the first place? Everybody has a different view of what's right and wrong. What's hate speech to one might be a light hearted joke to another. Taking away the right to say certain things because a couple people get their feelings hurt doesn't sound very nice. Like someone said above, I feel everyone should be able to say what's on their mind as long as it doesn't cause violence or illegal activity.

Also, I want to clarify that I don't agree with people using words with the intent of offending others, and I'm not trying to justify it in my post. I just want everybody to be able to speak their views/opinions/beliefs. The definition of "hate speech" can be very loose so I disagree with it being criminalized.

Besides, if we outlaw "hate speech", how will kids on XBox Live and PSN communicate with each other?

Threatening to defile each other's mothers isn't hate speech unless their moms are non-white. So the little punks should be okay.

I banged your Mom.

D'you hate me yet? :trazz:

Dad? :teek:

"...................LIQUID?!?!" :teek:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...shed_snake.jpg

No. But people who like to spout off in that way need to get it through their thick and presumably somewhat empty skulls that not being arrested/charged for it is where the "right" to do it ends.

Freedom of speech does not grant them a right to not be called out on their behavior. And it doesn't require others to just tolerate your garbage in silence if you're being an ass.

He looks nothing like Sean Connery, FAKE SNAKE!

That's funny for multiple reasons if you're familiar with MGS V. :lol:

I am, I have a very unhealthy obsession with the Metal Gear franchise. :lol:

So. You ALSO constantly repeat things back to people in the form of a question, huh? :lol:

Today a friend asked what she should name her upcoming daughter, and I told her to name it Sniper Wolf. I'm either the Best or Worst friend anyone ever had, depending.

At least Sniper Wolf is miles better then Abcde

If I'm ever able to get my birth certificate amended, I think I'm gonna go whole hog; just change my handle to "Big Boss" and just make everyone deal with it. :tcool:

When are they finally going to make Metal Gear 3? So many spinoffs since 2... :)

Part 4 was "Part 3", you heathen. :lol:

Try and keep up, we're saving the world (by taking it over with nukes), here!
--------

EDIT: I just noticed you said "Metal Gear 3" and not "Metal Gear SOLID 3." But my joke is still funny.

Metal Gear Solid 1 is "Metal Gear 3". :trazz: Between MGS and Street Fighter, Japanese people must be almost as bad at math as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. :lol: :trazz:

.... Dated references AND topical political humor? Dennis Miller would be pissing himself right now.

Exactly on all accounts.

No.
Aside from the cases, when it's directly insights violence, it's hard to define what "hate speech" is, and as soon as someone will try to do that it will lead to the censorship and abuse of power. Especially with authoritarian leadership.

Mmm Metal Gear.

Says who? Everyone considered Street Fighter Alpha to be "Street Fighter 3" until they went and made Street Fighter 3.

Same with, after Grand Theft Auto 3, we had Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and San Andreas. Those games weren't spinoffs, or extensions of 3... they were new games. Then one day, poof, Grand Theft Auto 4 comes out.

Kojima says.

For one thing, it directly continues the story out from Metal Gear 2. Although it retcons the ending to say that Big Boss told Snake he was his father, which doesn't actually happen onscreen in MG2.

Furthermore, MGS was internally known as "Metal Gear 3" very early in the development, but they figured people would be dissuaded from playing it if they'd never played MG 1 or 2. Also, the jump from 2D sprites to 3D polygons gave them the loose idea for the "Solid" name, in lieu of calling it "Part 3" of anything.

It's mostly marketing. But indeed, officially, MGS is "Metal Gear 3". Kojima-san and others have gone into this many times.

It's a dead brand now, anyway, so it's not like it matters. Like sure, they could technically set a game in between MG2 and MGS1, but seeing how Snake was retired and mushing dogs in Alaska most of that time, there'd be very little of importance to cover.

And they shouldn't keep it going without Kojima, anyway.

If only we got remakes of Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake on the Fox Engine instead of Survive (yuck). Although, MGS already redid a lot from MG2

What about this game?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-USA-REV-A.jpg

Metal Gear 1.5? Or Metal Gear 2.5?

Non-canon sequel to Metal Gear 1

Is it really contradicted by anything afterward? I've always wondered.

Yes, very.

Well, there are no mentions of Snake's Revenge plot in MG2 or any other installment. Plus both games takes place 3 years after the first game and have several contradictions with each other, like in MG2, Snake is retired while in SR he's still in FOXHOUND

Metal Gear Ghost Babel is also non-canon

That was the next big plan, before the infamous falling out with Konami. Kojima had talked openly about rebuilding MG1 and 2 on the Fox engine - possibly as one game that takes place over a few years - so the entire series would be consistent, visually and gameplay-wise (more or less).

He dragged his feet on it a bit, because he said he'd have to re-write the entire story to compensate for some story discrepancies that had crept in over the years (such as the aforementioned "I am your father" moment between Snake and Big Boss; oft-referenced in MGS1, but never actually happened in-game). And of course, halfway through MGS V he and Konami had their infamous "F*ck you/F*ck you too" moment. So it'll never happen. :ohwell:

I'm halfway through MGS V on my "full series in story order" playthrough, and I gotta say... playing Metal Gear 1 after this one is gonna be a total mindf*ck. :trazz: Going from the biggest game in the series to the smallest, the most advanced to the most primitive... yeah, that's gonna be weird. :lol:

Wasn't Kojima making some weird game with Norman Reedus that fell apart?

Silent Hills, yeah. But they're working on Death Stranding now.