The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Is it time "hate speech" were included in our freedom or speech?

Scroll to see replies

Speech should be as free as possible as in apart from obvious things like yelling bomb in an airport or threatening somebody.

"Hate speech" Jeez what a bs vacuous insidious term.
Original post by JordanL_
People can't be trusted with true free speech. Last time anyone had that they decided the Jews caused all the problems in the world. They destroyed their shops and then voted in a government that tried to systematically exterminate them. People are too stupid for free speech, it's dangerous.


Feel free to check out some countries that dont have free speech. I hear North Korea or Saudi Arabia are nice this time of year. Ta ra Jordan
Original post by Betelgeuse-
Feel free to check out some countries that dont have free speech. I hear North Korea or Saudi Arabia are nice this time of year. Ta ra Jordan


Or, you know, the UK where hate speech is illegal...
Original post by Tai Ga
freedom of speech does not warrant speech devoid of consequences. People who spew hate speech are barred from public speaking because people don't like and don't want to hear what they want to say. No one is infringing on your human rights by reducing the number of platforms in which you can freely air your drivel. Your human rights are being stamped on when your imprisoned for saying what you want to say imo.


Well whats the problem then? Why barr someone when nobody is going to turn up?

Check mate
Reply 84
Avatar for Tai Ga
Tai Ga
18
Original post by Betelgeuse-
Well whats the problem then? Why barr someone when nobody is going to turn up?

Check mate


To lessen the potential spread of radical ideas and ignorance? Wot do you mean check mate? :s-smilie:
Original post by Plagioclase
Because most human beings are not psychopaths and therefore care about what other people have to say. Some people are strong enough to take verbal abuse and hatred but we have a duty as a caring society to protect those who don't. And I am not talking about people being triggered by minor things on the internet, I am talking about genuine hatred that incites discrimination, malignancy and fear against people. Words have consequences so if extreme enough, it should be treated in a similar manner to how physical violence is treated.


bs

No one has a right not to feel a certain chemical reaction to someone else's words. That's neurological fascism, that you're not allowed to say something that produces a certain chemical reaction in the brain. ****ing hell!

We don't have a social duty to protect people from their own reactions. If they want to be protected little children and not venture into the real world they can choose to only listen to opinions they like. It's called taking personal responsibility for your own emotional frailty; frailty is a trait which is your responsibility not some strangers on the internet, and nor is it a legitimate concern of state power.

Yes words have consequences. When a word leads to violence, we shouldpunish the violence.
Original post by Tai Ga
To lessen the potential spread of radical ideas and ignorance? Wot do you mean check mate? :s-smilie:


How would radical ideas spread if nobody is listening or wants to listen? Thats what you said...

Yes censoring ideas and expression is how we enlighten ourselves

It means "ZING" it means the flaw in your thinking i just identified is "SO WOKE"
Original post by banterboy
bs

No one has a right not to feel a certain chemical reaction to someone else's words. That's neurological fascism, that you're not allowed to say something that produces a certain chemical reaction in the brain. ****ing hell!.


Oh grow up, seriously. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the meaning of kindness but fortunately most of society does so psychopathic views like yours will be left behind.
Original post by F.Nietzsche
Speech that offends is hate speech, I find that ridiculous.

I would say it is a basic human right because I believe that you should be able to say whatever you like, I mean words are just words. Agree to disagree. :h:


They weren't just words when Hitler convinced many people that the Jews were evil and secretly running their countries. And this isn't just in extreme situations, as Hitler is far from the only example.
Original post by Plagioclase
Oh grow up, seriously. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the meaning of kindness but fortunately most of society does so psychopathic views like yours will be left behind.


Translation:

I disagree but don't have an argument so im gonna call my opponent "psychopath" because demonising challengers to my beliefs make me feel safe, and defending my views is stressful. If he is labelled with a boo boo word what he says can't be valid....right..?

lol. triggered much.

btw, you are literally advocating that "kindness" should be state enforced. Think about the serious implications of that for a while, if you are able to contemplate other points of view that is.
I can only hope attitudes and lack of understanding free speech itt are a common reoccuring thing seen in every generation that most young people struggle with in their teens because if not, we may have a pretty grim future
Reply 91
Avatar for Tai Ga
Tai Ga
18
Original post by Betelgeuse-
How would radical ideas spread if nobody is listening or wants to listen? Thats what you said...

Yes censoring ideas and expression is how we enlighten ourselves

It means "ZING" it means the flaw in your thinking i just identified is "SO WOKE"


well obviously there's a select niche of people who habour similar views. My mistake, i didn't literally mean every individual member of the human race is tolerant, just the vast majority. Regardless, some people are very easy to influence, so reducing the risk of a future Hitler is always welcomed.

Because racism, homophobia and sexism truly enlighten individuals.

Right....congrats. You sure got me.
Original post by Tai Ga
well obviously there's a select niche of people who habour similar views. My mistake, i didn't literally mean every individual member of the human race is tolerant, just the vast majority. Regardless, some people are very easy to influence, so reducing the risk of a future Hitler is always welcomed.

Because racism, homophobia and sexism truly enlighten individuals.

Right....congrats. You sure got me.


A future hitler would need widespread support.. thats the cool things about democratic voting. If we censor peoples views, how are we gonna know who NOT to elect... ?

Well they kind of do, otherwise there would not be such widespread condemnation and disgust towards them 3 would there?

Brushing it under the rug, pretending ignorance does not exist and censoring any evidence of it does not make it go away. It does the opposite
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by WBZ144
They weren't just words when Hitler convinced many people that the Jews were evil and secretly running their countries. And this isn't just in extreme situations, as Hitler is far from the only example.


And how does mentioning Hitler and his skewed views (to say the least) count as an argument for banning hate speech? With these sorts of leaders they aren't exactly an example of why "hate speech" should be banned, I mean they banned hate speech (or what they considered it to be) too.
Original post by F.Nietzsche
And how does mentioning Hitler and his skewed views (to say the least) count as an argument for banning hate speech? With these sorts of leaders they aren't exactly an example of why "hate speech" should be banned, I mean they banned hate speech (or what they considered it to be) too.


Are you not aware that his various speeches and writings about Jews would be considered hate speech by any standard? Or that such hate speech (which was advocated by other leaders both in the past and present day in other parts of the world) has led to anger and hatred towards certain groups of people, resulting in in their physical harm.

Inciting hatred is NEVER "just words".

Clearly the Weimar Republic's hate speech laws were insufficient.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 95
Avatar for Tai Ga
Tai Ga
18
Original post by Betelgeuse-
A future hitler would need widespread support.. thats the cool things about democratic voting. If we censor peoples views, how are we gonna know who NOT to elect... ?

Well they kind of do, otherwise there would not be such widespread condemnation and disgust towards them 3 would there?

Brushing it under the rug, pretending ignorance does not exist and censoring any evidence of it does not make it go away. It does the opposite


Fair enough with your two initial points, I can agree with those. I suppose that's why political groups like the BNP have so little support because the general public condemns their beliefs.

I don't think society is necessarily brushing it under the rug, but rather not encouraging it. I can't think of any examples where disallowing homophobes and racists a platform has backfired.
Original post by Tai Ga
Fair enough with your two initial points, I can agree with those. I suppose that's why political groups like the BNP have so little support because the general public condemns their beliefs.

I don't think society is necessarily brushing it under the rug, but rather not encouraging it. I can't think of any examples where disallowing homophobes and racists a platform has backfired.


Thats because you wouldnt see the effects. Put yourself in a racists shoes.. what would be more demoralising and make you question internally your views:

1) 5 years of free expression to get your views across via platforming, videos and propaganda and seeing little support

2) Being censored and marginalised, not given the opportunity to speak and seeing your support fall a tiny amount or stay the same as 1.

Pretty easy to rationalise why your views are failing with number 2 and it certainly wont be "because most people think my views suck"
Original post by Tai Ga
well obviously there's a select niche of people who habour similar views. My mistake, i didn't literally mean every individual member of the human race is tolerant, just the vast majority. Regardless, some people are very easy to influence, so reducing the risk of a future Hitler is always welcomed.

Because racism, homophobia and sexism truly enlighten individuals.

Right....congrats. You sure got me.


Meanwhile without freedom of speech these things would still be the norm.

hmm.
Original post by WBZ144
Are you not aware that his various speeches and writings about Jews would be considered hate speech by any standard? Or that such hate speech (which was advocated by other leaders both in the past and present day in other parts of the world) has led to anger and hatred towards certain groups of people, resulting in in their physical harm.

Inciting hatred is NEVER "just words".

Clearly the Weimar Republic's hate speech laws were insufficient.


If someone like Hitler tried to become a politician people just wouldn't vote for him, beauty of democracy.
How Hitler is relevant in a discussion on the hate speech law in the UK is beyond me.
Original post by F.Nietzsche
If someone like Hitler tried to become a politician people just wouldn't vote for him, beauty of democracy.
How Hitler is relevant in a discussion on the hate speech law in the UK is beyond me.


I don't think you understand demagoguery. Hitler and many far-right leaders rise to popularity precisely by expressing and normalising hate speech in the public sphere.

I noticed you're an ex-Muslim. Great, so am I! Now do you think we ought to allow radical preachers to express hate-speech demonising ex-Muslims, the LGBTQ+ community, etc in the public sphere?
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you