Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?
>They keep listening to the hate speech
The definition of "hate speech" is unclear and a made-up word to make people feel bad for being angry -> Two Minutes Hate
>>The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred toward politically expedient enemies
It depends on context. The legal test is called the "Imminent Lawless Action" Test in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#Brandenbur...
Buddy, do a little bit of googling before you say plainly incorrect stuff like this. [1] [2]
Just because there’s not a single definition of a word does not mean the meaning of the word is unclear.
I think everyone on the planet could identify the vast majority of hate speech from the age of like 11. They say the edgiest stuff, after all.
Even if you agree with hate speech, you can still identify it.
Also like… all words are made-up
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
So, from the opposite direction, I have the same issue as the other commentator but with the divergent use of the word "woke" by those mostly on the right (and sarcastically by those on the left) — if the person hearing/reading it doesn't know what to expect, it's not a useful word.
Therefore, while I know what I mean by "hate speech" (demonising/dehumanising a group), I tend to avoid using the term as it doesn't successfully replicate my thoughts into the heads of other people.
If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong? If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal and I will call the police or defend myself. If they pay somebody else to act on their opinion and cause me harm then again it becomes illegal. But to expect the law to punish someone just because they said 'I want to kill you'? That IMO is barbaric and completely ridiculous.
In practice, the law not taking this seriously is how a lot of women in abusive relationships die
Yes agreed, and its also the reason we have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.
Things can be said in anger, and not really meant. In fact I would wager out of all the death threats made in the entire world, the vast majority are said in anger and not meant to be followed through on. This is why we dont lock people up for just saying things. There needs to be other motives and evidence behind it to show intent.
Unfortunately yes this means we have situations where people are not believed and go on to receieve harm. Humanity has decided as a society that this is less harmful than locking far too many innocent people up by mistake. I do not have an opinion on whether this is right or wrong, but it is what exists for us and created by us.
If you have a better idea for a more fair justice system then go advocate for it, but the whole history of humanity hasnt found one yet.
You are incorrect, at least in California
https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/criminal-threats-califor...
Not quite
From your link: "the prosecutor must prove that the threats placed the victim in reasonable fear and that the fear was sustained"
You cant just be prosecuted for saying something. You always need to back it up and prove it was a real threat where harm was a real possibility or the victim was in sustained genuine fear of their life.
While I appreciate your free speech maximalism, I can't help but feel you're shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
My feeling is that someone should be allowed to say that they hate me, and that they'd like to kill me. All the same, if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.
I'm fact I'm glad that they're allowed to express themselves like this because then I know who not to stand near cliff edges with.
For real though I think a lot (but not all) of opposition to things like hate speech is really an opposition to the feeling being expressed, rather than the expression itself. I'd prefer someone didn't have hatred in their heart, but once they do I prefer that they're open about it.
(You might say that that will only encourage others to become hateful, I don't necessarily agree, but it's a fair concern.)
> if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.
This is the sticky issue which nobody is able to solve though. How do you prove someone will actually attemt to do it? Currently the legal system requires more than them just saying it to prosecute. There needs to be more motive, or evidence of actual persistent stalking or harm.
What do you think makes the difference between an idle threat and an actual intention of harm?
On the other hand, it may not be necessary. When I say the law can try to prevent my murder, I don't necessarily mean to deprive my would-be murder of liberty or privacy (since those should be protected in the absence of proven guilt). If you put the prevention on the other side, and offer e.g. a police escort or enforced blocks on communication media then maybe you can discourage/prevent my murder without answering difficult questions like intent.
You might well say, "I shouldn't have to do any of that, they should have to not murder", or "that's all fine but who's going to pay". I have a most marvellous answer to those, but is comment is too small to contain it.
> You might well say...
Well indeed I do say who is going to pay. If we had a society where you could get your own police escort or phone block just by saying that someone threatened you, I feel that service would be open to abuse and would end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot.
> I have a most marvellous answer to those
Please retort your answer, I am intrigued :)