Is there a rule against Hate Speech?

[AgnosticBoy]

Is there a rule against hate speech, like when someone calls for or justifies the killing of an innocent class of people? Because that's what we have going on in one discussion, and I want to know if that is allowed here.

[otseng]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]

There is no explicit rule against hate speech.

What is the thread?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]

There is no explicit rule against hate speech.

What is the thread?

These statements justifying deliberate attacks on innocent Israeli civilians (babies and women, included):

No, because when justice is denied you, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to get it. If that's killing people, hostages, ransoms, families, it does not matter.

I'm going to drop the idea that everyone has a right to fight for their existence however they must, and that if backed into a corner they may strike innocents. Though I believe it is right (it is considered to be right in every other case, and I've cited cases) I can't prove it logically. And I don't need it.

At the least, I think these would be inflammatory, especially to Jews. Consistent with the radicalization material that Hamas would put out.

[otseng]

These statements justifying deliberate attacks on innocent Israeli civilians (babies and women, included):

Since it's discussing a current topic and arguing from a particular side, I will allow it. The poster does support minority views, but I don't think he's inciting violence in general.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to otseng in post #4]
Just to provide further context, I should say that I did try the debate route. I figured I should at least give someone with an extreme view the chance to justify their point using logic and verifiable evidence. That's the only way I would accept such a view. But through that process, I found that their view was based on nothing more than a personal standard/opinion.

When someone jumps to an extreme position of that nature based on opinion and also does so despite there being alternatives (which i argued for using examples, like the actions of Gandhi or just going after military targets), then you gotta question if such a person is just being hateful.

If someone was calling for or justifying the genocide (the implications of "justice" by any means) of LGBT people or African Americans, then I'm sure there would be more fuss here. You didn't say that it wasn't hate speech so I suppose such speech is allowed.

In the future, if you are interested in crafting guidelines to prevent hate speech, then shoot me a PM or let me know here.

[Purple Knight]

These statements justifying deliberate attacks on innocent Israeli civilians (babies and women, included):

Since it's discussing a current topic and arguing from a particular side, I will allow it. The poster does support minority views, but I don't think he's inciting violence in general.

I'm not saying anyone should commit violence or asking them to do it. But I am saying violence, when you are denied justice, is morally permissible. If that counts as incitement then I guess it fits the bill.

[AgnosticBoy]

These statements justifying deliberate attacks on innocent Israeli civilians (babies and women, included):

Since it's discussing a current topic and arguing from a particular side, I will allow it. The poster does support minority views, but I don't think he's inciting violence in general.

I'm not saying anyone should commit violence or asking them to do it. But I am saying violence, when you are denied justice, is morally permissible. If that counts as incitement then I guess it fits the bill.

I never accused anyone of calling for violence. I only brought that up because it is part of hate speech.

In your particular case it involves approving of violence on those (babies and other innocent civilians) that are not involved in denying someone justice. That's no different than how Hamas defines their "justice".

[Wootah]

Personally I think as long as a person is civil then we should be free speech absolutists.