Who defines free speech?

This subject came up in my Politics class. Who defines the differences between hate speech and free speech? What allows them the ability to limit it? If someone is allowed the power to limit it how far is too far?

I am a boarder line Libertarian. I believe that free speech is given by our "Creator" and that it is a inalienable right. Then the question comes to mind when does it become hate speech? I don't believe that anyone can define hate speech because it depends on another persons views on what hate really is defined by. Also I believe no man has the power to remove this right because it was given by our "Creator" therefor cannot be removed by any one.

 

free speech is an policy wherein all speech is allowed, even hate speech.
if a government silences hate speech then they cannot claim to have free speech.


i dont understand what you mean but the difference between them.
it is not like speech just goes from being free speech to hate speech if it is too mean. hate speech is allowed within free speech. if you dont have free speech, it is likely that unsupportive hate speech would be silenced.

your belief in a creator is not relevant to society and, therefore, the rules views he inspires in you dont appear relevant either. they are not good points to base arguments upon. but this is just my opinion.

 

When I speak of creator I don't mean a literal god. I am speaking of Nature,Jesus,Allah who ever you believe in. Creation is relevant to everybody. Also I am agnostic so don't try to bring the "God" into this subject, you just the band wagon when you tried to turn this Creator into a literal being.

 

You can not have free speech if you limit hate speech. As horrible as it is, free speech is necessary for a free world. People must be allowed to broadcast their hate messages even if they are terrible.

 

I agree even if you wanted to limit hate speech. That would give them also power to limit other speech.

 

I read about the goverment actually trying to censor the internet, I believe that its gone too far when it reaches that point because the internet isn't just America its everywhere

 

Right. Limiting it at all would suddenly allow the government to limit anti-government hate speech which would end terribly.

 

Speech is speech, no matter what is being talked about. I am a firm believer that people should be able to say anything they want, regardless of how others react to it or view you because of it. Whether or not people get offended is not in control of the one talking, but of the one taking offense.

In other words, they're just words. Anyone who gets offended by what others say really needs to grow up.

 

Who defines free speech?

I do.

Who defines the differences between hate speech and free speech?

I do, as an individual. We can't draw a line between acceptable speech and hate speech because of difference of opinion.