They have the right to preach ideas that differ from the constitution. They have the right to criticize the constitution. I believe people should have their rights, and speak against rights as well (obviously I'll disagree with them though).

If it offends someone? If it affects someone equality?

The government should protect people from coercion, not hurt feelings.

And why not from hurt feelings? Especially if such hurt feelings are not on an individual scale, but a mass organization perpetuating them? Modern history is littered with such examples. They exist everywhere, in India, South Africa, Malaysia.

The government should protect people from coercion, not hurt feelings.

There are differences between criticism and insulting. Critizing religion would be an analysis of religious texts. Insulting would be the anti Islam film we have seen.

The reason Christians get so much flack for parts of the bible that aren't taught is because Christians often claim to believe every word of the bible to be fact, even if they don't act like it. It's a way to show how nutty religion is.

But then, must you avoid making fun of the violent, untaught, parts of the bible merely because someone might be offended?

There's a difference between making fun of and critiquing it. There's a difference between private discussions which insult and criticize the text, and publicly putting up campaigns and views for the purpose of degrading something.

What ratio of truth and insult would be acceptable? Would it be okay to be insulting if what you said is true? Or should we be forced not to use insults at all when discussion such matter? Should you be allowed to have a TV show in which you refer to the bible as the "mother ****ing bible" where you toss various bibles over your shoulder? Should you be allowed to create videos making fun of various versus in the bible and post them on the internet? We must then take into consideration the fact that everyone is different and will express their opinions differently. Some people may take a more "respectful" approach to debating religion, whereas others freely insult it as they debate, undermining the intelligence of those they're debating with.

As mentioned, many nations have successfully allowed a balance between free speech and hate speech. It's not perfect, but such a compromise panders to both parties. As mentioned in other threads, freedom is not an absolute, it is not something we can have without depriving someone else of it. We value the freedom of speech, yet others value their freedom to remain unsoiled. No one is going to have their cake and eat it; freedom is not something people can have the whole of; it is excludable. Giving it all to the person who desires freedom of speech skewers the balance.

By the time government steps in, the people will already be on their way to abolishing racism. However, I must state that it's more than just hate speech that causes problems, it's culture. Culture is what has to change, and I believe culture will change before the government decides to step in.

Culture takes a long time to change. Even today we still have pockets of culture that espouse racism; surveys have showed that across the age groups, the relationship between acceptance of inter racial marriage and age is inverse; cultural mindsets are deeply ingrained. Even the Nazi party and far right had support till the 60s in Germany and Austria; without government stamping down and outlawing such parties, they would have been far more power.

When racist people speak out, it isn't the fact they're offending anyone that should be scary, it's the fact they might sway others to act racist that's fearsome. But we live in an age where such speech is heavily looked down upon. We live in a society where people naturally stand up for others.

No we don't. Passerby effect still intrigues psychologist. The recent video of people walking casually by a knocked down girl in China beg to differ.

I believe one of the biggest discriminatory problems in the US today is against homosexuals. It's still considered a controversial topic, so much of what's said isn't considered "hate speech". Someday, it likely will be deemed as such. But by the time the words spoken against gays today is considered "hate speech", it will already be widely accepted.

It is hate speech. Whatever extreme views that evangelicals spew out, such as Robert Patson, that discriminate against gays, and taint them with hate and disgust as unequal creatures in God's eyes is hate speech.

The government could help vanquish all this hate speech against homosexuals by outlawing said hate speeches. But that's not going to happen until after the hate speeches die down, and after homosexuality moves past being a controversial topic, to a regular part of our lives. If the government really wanted to help suffocate all the hate speeches spoken against homosexuals, they could legalize gay marriage. After gays are allowed to get married and they don't destroy the world, people will move on and less will be focused on speaking out against homosexuality.

That's what many government groups are aiming for; legalising gay marriage. But hate speech slows this process down by clouding people with false impressions and information. Hate speech can be a tool that paints people in demonic colours, turning public opinion against their freedom. Hate speech always exist and will exist; there is no ''point'' to consider where they will die off. What is dying off, or dying down? If we go by your yardstick, there is no definable point where hate speech is at a minimum level to outlaw. Furthermore, hate speech hampers the whole process. It is fine to criticize gay marriage and all, but not to spread false hate myths that all gays are such and such, like the **** Malaysian government allowing hate speech against gays, and even sponsoring groups to teach how to spot gays which further perpetuates hate.

Saying and acting are two different things. Saying something hateful or racist isn't the same as actually treating someone as unequal.

Saying something hateful or racist tells something about the person. Lately there was that politician in my country who posted a comment on Facebook basically saying he was glad about a person's(*) death and that such people should all be shot down because they cost us money. After massive criticism he left the party, almost lost his job and has a plaint for racist comment pending. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he should be trialed as if he did something racist to someone, but as an employer I would not have hesitated to fire him for racist comments, and I should be legally able to do so. As well as I should legally be able as a citizen to sue him for that.

(*)A foreigner on the run shot by the police

As mentioned, many nations have successfully allowed a balance between free speech and hate speech.

I hardly call jailing people for facebook comments(commonly done in the UK, an example you used earlier) a successful balance.
Contrary to what you may believe, Freedom of speech does not end where your feelings begin.

Anything can offend, whether it be name calling or opening someone's eyes with painful news that is true.

I am not worried about feelings per se but mass organizations giving them a bad press.

No, they haven't. Laws against hate speech never ended racism - ever. As soon as society starts to warm up to the idea of homosexuality, and people accept the idea that homosexuality isn't all that bad, the government jumps in and creates anti-hate speech laws. They then take credit for ending homophobia when homophobia was already on it's way out. They have made it illegal for people to make hate speeches against gays, which is like pulling a gun out during a debate class and demanding silence.

I didn't mean balance as in achieve an end to racism or homophobia. No where did I say it. I said balance. In Singapore for example, we can more or less say what we want provided it is not inflammatory about race or religion. It's a fair deal in view of our history.

You're saying the government isn't powerful enough to grant homosexuals equal rights, because hate speech hampers the process. However, you believe the government can ban hate speech against homosexuals so that they can move on to creating laws that ensure homosexuals gain the same benefits as heterosexual couples. If the government has the ability to ban hate speech that impedes progress, then the government ALREADY has the ability to progress without anti-hate speech laws.

It isn't contradictory. People have a right to be protected; it's enshrined in the Constitution. It's the law in many countries. But the government doesn't have the power or right to introduce civil unions when more than half the populace is against it. Banning hate speech doesn't impede the progress; I fail to see how stamping out a source of opposition, and a virulent and rabid one at that can actually hinder progress.

The problem isn't hate speech, it's an overbearing government with too much power. Government shouldn't be involved with marriage, but it is, therefore we have these issues since homophobes wrote the laws.

Without government intervention we would still be likely to see the Jim Crow laws. Without intervention, SA wouldn't take the huge step of removing apartheid due to political power being vastly concentrated in the hands of white supremacists.

I hardly call jailing people for facebook comments(commonly done in the UK, an example you used earlier) a successful balance.
Contrary to what you may believe, Freedom of speech does not end where your feelings begin.

One rotten apple doesn't spoil the whole basket. I didn't exactly day that too either.

-from coercion, physical harm, and fraud. If we can be protected from hate speech, we should also be protected from any debate that challenges our views, no matter how accurate the accusations may be.

Debate and hate speech are two very different things. Debate is carefully or at least more reasonably analyzing and criticizing or arguing about something. Hate speech is what the Nazi did.

If more than half the populace is homophobic, the government doesn't have the right to shut them up either.

It doesn't have the power to stop them from debating and believing in it. It has the power to stop people from degrading homosexuals via hate speech.

Government censoring the people because the government screwed up is absurd. The government created the Jim Crow laws.

Because as you said, culture. The deep ingrained feeling that blacks were inferior was widespread and a social norm that was believed by many and not just perpetuated because of the government.

This is why a Democratic-Republic should protect people's rights despite the majority.

Your examples have nothing to do with censorship.

Actually it was ab example to show how government intervention is good at times. Culture and tradition dictate racism; the government put an end to this with the final nail in the coffin.

Read all of your posts
Just wanna say
If you hold your right to free speech so dear, we hold our prophet to be dearer and we will do what ever it takes to shut those Idiots up.
I am amazed that no one has attacked the culprits yet.

Government censoring the people because the government screwed up is absurd. The government created the Jim Crow laws.

Yes, back when people were complete morons and took the ideas from a racist comedian. Seriously, the Jim Crow laws really muffed up America and annihilated like, 100 years of progression in social equality. It really made the US take a few steps back.

/off-topic rant