Humanism and addressing hate speech

I encouraged fellow atheists and humanists to comment on the blogs and discussion groups they may belong to which are open to posting all kinds of material. Specifically, when someone posts an anti-atheist theme, consider setting the record straight.

For example, I am on Linkedin and sometimes a person posts how atheists are the cause of all dictators and communists/statists/fascists and that atheists are shameful. I don’t let this go and call it what it is: Hate speech. Then I explain what hate speech is, that while free to speak, it is wrongheaded and without merit.

In this case, I presented that while “All communists may be atheists, all atheists are not anywhere near communists just as all murderers are human but all humans are not murderers…or rapists, or thieves or anything else that harms innocent people.”

I don’t do it simply for that one person but for the onlookers and other members of the site and whoever might read it.

I encourage others to join in this type of effort.




"I don’t do it simply for that one person but for the onlookers and other members of the site and whoever might read it."
What a kindred spirit? Confront the bullshit in chat room and on the YouTube, etc. Call out contrarian's transparent Cons Jobs. Call out "Libertarians" on their disconnected from physical reality fantasy thinking. And so on . . .


That last post smells like spam to me.

Ya. I don’t see much value ever coming from them. On the bright side, if I ever want to open a lab in my garage or basement, I know who to call.

Imo freedom of speech must include the right to offend. Freedom does not mean licence, so does not include the right to incite violence.

My position is: I have every right to take offence to whatever I like. What I do not have is the right NOT to be offended. I consider banning “hate speech” censorship. Consequently, I am unable to support anti hate speech laws.


“You’re offended? So Fracking what” (Stephen Fry)


I think the 2.32 minute clip below is worth watching:

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.

I am not so concerned about hate speech, as long as it does not advocate violence. Hate speech is pretty easy to identify. But there is speech that concerns me VERY MUCH. Flat out lies, disinformation, propaganda, false narratives designed to influence persons beliefs and actions. This is protected speech. Nevertheless, it is speech that can potentially cause immeasurable harm. And its users seek to present it as truth, so that it may not be easily recognized for what it is.

Private entities can potentially make rules to keep it at bay, but our govt cannot make laws to abridge the rights of deceivers to deceive the public. And as much as I hate lies, I support the 1st Amendment. As long as the liars are not creating a clear and present danger, we cannot rely on Laws being made to abridge the liars right to lie, because that would be (and rightly so) unconstitutional.

I tend to agree Tim.

Unfortunately, Australia does not have a constitutional right to free speech, nor do we have a Bill of Rights. We are the only liberal democracy without one. Funny, I don’t feel especially oppressed. But, we do have anti hate speech laws. I do pot support them.

Our government can do a lot the US Government cannot. I mean it even took away our guns!

One positive thing: a busker needs a(local government permit here. That means the police have carted off some of those really irritating bible thumpers. The case went to the Supreme Court.

The REAL reason? They were interfering with TRADE!

The uploader has not made this video available in my country.

Sorry to learn that Tim. I think it would be entertaining and educational for a foreigner.