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

Scroll to see replies

Well, in the case of people being barred from speaking in universities, that would be the relevant body in the university. You ought to have a right to say whatever you want in my view, however hateful or ignorant, but you don't have a right to speak to an audience on someone else's property.

I agree. It's the same with people who complain with being censored by Twitter. Twitter is a private company and is perfectly entitled to decide what it does and doesn't want to be posted using its server.

Reply 61

Eigo_Jin

Hate speech is not black and white as some perceive, so it's hard to determine what is and what isn't. What commonly happens is people scream hate speech when someone expresses an opinion that they find offensive.
My opinion is that almost nothing should be barred because words doesn't harm someone physically; and people are always going to be the victim of being silenced.

Reply 62

Grand High Witch

Original post by WBZ144

There is very little difference between saying things like "go out and petrol bomb shops owned by Muslims and beat them on the streets" and saying "Muslims cannot be trusted because they are all taught to lie and are secretly plotting to take over Western countries". Neither are merely criticisms of a religion and the latter example still incites violence because it dehumanised an entire religious groups, as was the case with the Jews in the 1930s/40s.

Do you apply that logic consistently though? Because if you did then religious texts would be banned for the similar language they contain against particular groups of people.

Reply 63

sleepysnooze

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.

you are literally such a little dictator, aren't you?

Reply 64

The Epicurean

I don't think people really understand what freedom of speech entails. Freedom of speech does not give one the freedom to shout abuse at people on the street, or to walk up to a random religious person on the street and start criticising their religion. That is harassment and our current laws already deal with this.

Freedom of speech entitles one to express their views and opinions as long as they use the appropriate medium. An academic setting such as a university, a newspaper, a debate forum etc... are all appropriate mediums which one can use. If one is easily offended, they can choose not to read an article or to not view a debate thread on a forum. Participating in such activities is a free choice. Unlike harassment, one chooses to come into contact with the views being expressed in such mediums, and they should expect their views to be challenged and maybe even to be offended. If the correct medium is being used, freedom of speech should not be limited.

Original post by JordanL_

Except the Nazi's did not permit freedom of speech but rather speech and writing was heavily censored. So what you are proposing is to give the government to have the power the Nazi's had, to decide what can and cannot be said?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 65

troubadour.

Original post by Plagioclase

No, absolutely not. I do agree that there have been issues with censorship in universities but to go to the other extreme and allow all speech regardless of how hateful it is would be a terrible idea.

Two questions (whose significance may not be apparent), if you don't mind:

1) Do you support a system of universal suffrage which makes it as easy as possible for eligible voters to vote (i.e. doesn't impose tests, property requirements, or other measures besides age and residence to determine who should be enfranchised)?
2) Do you credit the argument that the current mechanism by which we elect MPs should be kept because it limits the influence of 'hateful' political parties?

Laws against hate speech exist for a reason, to protect people's right to feel safe.

I think you might be confusing hate speech with harassment.

Also, I have to say, this 'right to feel safe' (in the sense that you mean, i.e. wanting to feel safe from speech at the expense of someone's right to that speech) finds no mention in the Enlightenment writings from which you presumably derive the concept of rights (I'm assuming that you mean natural rights rather than legal ones here, since you've implied that people have this right regardless of the law) in the first place.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 66

troubadour.

Original post by 999tigger

What do you think the legitimate purpose of inciting religious and racial hatred is?
The government (elected by the people) decide which things are considered to be crimes and put them into law.

Wht would you wnat to go round inciting religious and racial hatred? What's in it for you?

I hope you can see the obvious fault in this. Majority rule is a fine idea in principle, provided there are defined constitutional rights and limits to the government's power. Having a system that is based simply on majority rule would not only allow a tyranny of the majority over minorities, but would also make it possible for a government to abolish the democratic system that elected it to begin with, thereby removing the rights of the majority as well. In other words, it would permit an easy transition to despotism, and it's clear why almost no democratic country in the world uses such a system.

Reply 67

username471863

Original post by Grand High Witch

Do you apply that logic consistently though? Because if you did then religious texts would be banned for the similar language they contain against particular groups of people.

You do have a point there, but religion is being somewhat regulated. I do believe that texts like the Qur'an, the Talmud and the OT contain passages which dehumanise non-believers and incite hatred towards them. That being said, they are ancient texts which need to be interpreted in ways which comply with modern-day values in order to be accepted. Religious clerics who preach hateful interpretations of their holy books have been dubbed as hate preachers. There are several instances in which they have been banned from universities, reviled for their views and even arrested for inciting hatred. I agree with this because they are encouraging their supporters to breach the right of the rest of the population to safety

Reply 68

abc:)

Original post by F.Nietzsche

Oh that wasn't an argument in my OP, more just some thoughts so I could start a conversation on this topic.

And why should people not be allowed to freely voice their hate? (Not something I would do) Is that not a basic human right?

How could it be defined more clearly though? There will always be people who will abuse that law...*cough* feminists *cough*

Well, hate speech is not the same as 'voicing your hate'. It is [loosely, imo] defined as 'speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits'.

Now, in terms of offending or insulting, I don't think this should be banned. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a basic human right like you do, but offence and insult literally cannot be defined and pinned down. So you may as well allow it.

Speech that threatens, on the other hand, is A) more easy to pinpoint and B) more dangerous. If it were up to me I would define hate speech as being purely this, and ban it.

Reply 69

math42

I think you should be able to express pretty much any opinion, so long as you are not inciting or threatening violence.

Reply 70

F.Nietzsche

Original post by abc:)

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:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 71

abc:)

Original post by F.Nietzsche

I agree, it is ridiculous for 'offence' to be included in the definition - please bear in mind though that my source wasn't a legal definition, just a general definition. I highly doubt that Hate Speech = Offensive speech is written into law. I would be very surprised if it is.

I really disagree with your second point, words are not just words if they are threatening. An example of threatening hate speech could be sending a death threat to somebody. I certainly would not say that someone has a basic human right to send death threats. Examples like this are the cases which I would ban (and they are banned, thank god!).

Reply 72

F.Nietzsche

Original post by abc:)

Ah I do agree that there is an issue with that I guess, death threats. But death threats are empty most of the time. And even with our current laws do people still receive death threats....? I'm afraid they do. Does banning hate speech do much to protect people then....?

Reply 73

F.Nietzsche

Original post by Hydeman

What are your views on the matter?

Reply 74

banterboy

Original post by Plagioclase

why should somebody; "right" to feel an emotion supersede what should be a basic human right: to share your opinions with others without fearing consequences from either the mob or the state?

Socrates was executed because conservative folk around him didn't feel like his questions were "safe".

Reply 75

abc:)

Original post by F.Nietzsche

Well I guess as a deterrent our current laws don't work very well. There are legal limitations of freedom of speech and threats is the biggie. But a lot of people don't realise that they are committing a crime - especially if they do it online.

However it does at least mean that if you receive threats you can potentially get somebody prosecuted for it.

Anyway an empty death threat is still damaging - depending on its wording and the manner in which it is delivered it can genuinely make you fearful in your day-to-day life. Nobody should be afforded the right to make somebody feel like that.

So yeah in conclusion - offending people is not a crime but threatening people is. 'Hate speech' should be more clearly defined to reflect this and should remain banned as it currently is.

Reply 76

F.Nietzsche

Original post by abc:)

Perhaps you are equating freedom of speech and harassment. Even in America where freedom of speech is allowed in its entirety, there are laws against harassment.

Agreed, death threats aren't good and can be damaging.

100% free speech

Comedian sums up my thoughts nicely on people being offended

https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1238771789467711/

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 79

Plagioclase

Original post by banterboy

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.