I agree here.
Regards
DL
We need to put the above ‘censorship of hate speech’ in context.
Where ‘hate’ is directed at human features that cannot be changed easily, e.g. race, color, genetic elements, physical deformities, and the likes then such hate related speech, writings and expression MUST be censored and nipped in the bud with heavy penalties.
As for hate related to various human elements that can be changed, e.g. a person’s religion and other subjective issues, and the likes, these need not be censored. Where there are evils and violence are involved, they can be dealt with separately.
At the present, the term ‘hate’ is heavily abused in relation to religion [changeable] where any critique even deserving ones and the slightest criticism of religions are regarded as hate speech and the person and penalized heavily.
I believe people intuitively sensed hate related to human features [e.g. race, color] that cannot be changed easily should be censored and penalized for non-conformance. This is why many Muslims and their apologists are rhetorically conflating Islam which is a religion with a race. Those who critique Islam are condemned as racists.
And what exactly is “hate speech”?
I see nothing to argue against. Thanks for this well reasoned post.
We are all racists/tribal, in a way, but should recognize that just because we tend to favor our own race and tribes, does not mean that the others should be denied their own racism/tribal natures and status equal to ours.
Bring all up instead of putting some down.
Regards
DL
Now we’re talking.
What??
He’s arguing for censorship and “heavy penalties”.
Wasn’t your OP arguing against censorship with statements like this :
Which suggests that Prismatic is allowing evil to grow by supporting censorship.
Did you change your mind?
Now you are for censorship?
No.
Our friend wrote — “Where ‘hate’ is directed at human features that cannot be changed easily, e.g. race, color, genetic elements, physical deformities, and the likes then such hate related speech, writings and expression MUST be censored and nipped in the bud with heavy penalties.”
I read this as his speaking about racism and other discriminations without a just cause.
Do you think we should allow discrimination in speech without a just cause?
Is that not what we call misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism?
I believe in freedom of speech. I do not believe in the freedom to knowingly lie and discriminate without a just cause.
Regards
DL
Okay, so you are for censorship. Any speech not covered by the umbrella of “just cause” ought to be censored.
The concept of “just cause” is vague. Certainly, it means different things to different people. The most important meaning will be the one chosen by the authorities which control the police forces. It’s going to be abused and misused.
Freedom of speech means that people can say things which are misogynist, homophobic or antisemitic. (Or they are perceived as such by the listener, rightly or wrongly.)
No. I am not for censorship.
I am against the type of freedom of speech I named and it would be to a judge to put gag orders on those who would discriminate without a just cause.
If a judge could find a just cause then he should not issue a gag order.
If speech is censored, then the public could not learn what the public/legal standards are that a judge would show.
Let all have free speech, with sanctions where legally appropriate.
Regards
DL
I think I answered this with my last.
Hate is good if well aimed. You mention issues where the aim is off the mark and a judge would make that clear for all the population.
Regards
DL
Somehow you manage to convince yourself that you do not support censorship, although everything you write indicates that you do. I guess the concept of “just cause” makes you feel good about censorship.
Indeed.
I am all in for free speech but not for free lying.
Free lying is presently being allowed. Do you think it should be when it creates victims of our most vulnerable and gullible?
youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg
Regards
DL
How do you know that it is intentional lying rather than being misinformed or ignorant?
The problem with this is you did think some kinds of communication should be stopped, for example racism. But racists do not think they are lying. And neither do most of the theists you hate. They are believers.
What they think is not as important as what they can prove or risk being accused of slander.
Every time someone says something of the Gods, it is a lie.
God is unknowable.
Regards
DL
So you think that everyone who speaks about gods ought to be censored.
Interesting. 
I ask you a general question about how lying would be detected and what to do about human errors. You cherry pick televangelists in response.
I don’t think ‘slander’ is what you mean, but in any case, this is the case right now. You can accuse them of lying or spreading falsehood. They have free speech and so do you. So I am not sure if you mean they should be censored or not.
That is simply not the case. Unless you are arguing that there are no theists.