The Student Room Group

Protecting free speech is more important then preventing hate speech

Do you agree?
Reply 1
Depends on what you believe is more important, your right send abuse language to people, or the right not to receive abusive language
I absolutely agree.

Free speech exists to protect unpopular opinions and language that isn't socially acceptable.

You can't declare certain forms of speech, apart from CREDIBLE threats of violence or CREDIBLE incitement to violence, illegal. Who decides what's acceptable or not? in our morally relativist society?
Reply 3
Original post by DeanFoley
You can't declare certain forms of speech, apart from CREDIBLE threats of violence or CREDIBLE incitement to violence, illegal.


Thas what the current hate speech laws say

In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 4
Original post by heyhey922
Thas what the current hate speech laws say

In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.


Not true. You can still be charged if people find it abusive/insulting. Only concessions are made to debating and art.
Reply 5
Disagree.
It would be so much better if everyone just kept their hate to themselves.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 6
Yes
Yes. As Evelyn Hall once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.
Reply 8
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky
Reply 9
Hate crime legislation is wrong, substantive justice has no place in a liberal democracy.
awesomeness.
This will slowly evolve into a thread about Islam.
Reply 12
Some speech can be harmful, and I think that's where the line should be. Until and unless you can show it to be harmful to others, all forms of expression should be protected. No other right extends to a right to do harm unto others, why should free expression be different?
I agree. I think the only time when this shouldn't be the case is when hate speech could be considered threatening to a specific person. If we start arresting people for making racist remarks on the internet, where do we draw the line? Do we arrest people for saying they love bacon because some religious groups find bacon offensive? Do we arrest people for saying they don't like Lady Gaga because Lady Gaga fans find it offensive?
Reply 14
Original post by prog2djent
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky


Beat me to it.

I totally agree, and I'm getting tired of so many people trying to silence others. People don't realise that if we allow our freedoms to be whittled away then slowly our lives are going to become more and more dictated by the state - and I stress the dictate.
Laws against incitement to racial or religious hatred violate the fundamental principles under which laws against incitement are just.

Hating people based on race or religion or whatever category you want is not illegal. Whether it is right or not is completely irrelevant. It is not illegal to feel or think a certain way, and it should never be illegal to feel or think a certain way. Even, for example, fancying children is not illegal--it is only in actions that it becomes illegal. This is as it should be.

The law of incitement properly covers inciting someone to commit a crime. You can incite to murder, you can incite to theft. Racial hatred is not a crime, so incitement to racial hatred, that is, incitement something which is not a crime, should not be a crime.
Reply 16
i think freedom of speach should be protected but with everything in life there are limits ... people praising the use of terror and insighting others to commit terror i think should have their mouths shut for them.
i draw the line at freedom of speech when it becomes dangerous to the majority.

Quick Reply