What is hate speech?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by paul514
lmfao do you know all that is included under freedom of speech?
Original post by mrsjenner
lmfao do you know all that is included under freedom of speech?
The clue is the word speech.
We're talking about people talking and writing
We aren't talking about releasing classified government data.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
The clue is the word speech.
We're talking about people talking and writing
We aren't talking about releasing classified government data.
Posted from TSR Mobile
We're talking about people talking and writing
We aren't talking about releasing classified government data.
Posted from TSR Mobile
wtf are you even...
Original post by mrsjenner
wtf are you even...
Evidently not a complete idiot like yourself
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mrsjenner
Speech=press as well. Paul said freedom of speech is just about speech as in speaking. Fool.
Looks like someone wants fascism
Looks like someone wants fascism
I said writing too idiot
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
I think the idiot here is you
literally lol'd at "We're talking about people talking and writing" I can't even...Original post by paul514
Awwwwuh he called me a idiot
you said writing in your later posts, after you said "speech is speech, talking." That bull ****. Don't try it, backpedaling and then namecalling.
You're 59 years old and still playing these games "idiot."
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
I think the idiot here is you literally lol'd at "We're talking about people talking and writing" I can't even...
literally lol'd at "We're talking about people talking and writing" I can't even...You can't even......
Make a point
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mrsjenner
Awwwwuh he called me a idiot
you said writing in your later posts, after you said "speech is speech, talking." That bull ****. Don't try it, backpedaling and then namecalling.
You're 59 years old and still playing these games "idiot."
you said writing in your later posts, after you said "speech is speech, talking." That bull ****. Don't try it, backpedaling and then namecalling.
You're 59 years old and still playing these games "idiot."
Learn to read no wonder you're so stupid, as for insults you started lol
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
Original post by paul514
...
Original post by paul514
Freedom of speech as a right is used synonymously to freedom of expression. You'll see newspapers and whatnot using the freedom of speech excuse to breach others' privacy. That's one of the many, again.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
Are you being serious?
You'd be fine with people being allowed to publish classified information which may severely harm the nation's safety? You'd be fine with powerful people using "freedom of speech" to harass, oppress or slander individuals through the media? You'd be fine with people being allowed to manipulate others who want to keep their privacy? And these are just three of the many, many examples.
What you're advocating is freedom of tyranny, not freedom of speech. Some rights have to be qualified if other rights are to be respected.
You'd be fine with people being allowed to publish classified information which may severely harm the nation's safety? You'd be fine with powerful people using "freedom of speech" to harass, oppress or slander individuals through the media? You'd be fine with people being allowed to manipulate others who want to keep their privacy? And these are just three of the many, many examples.
What you're advocating is freedom of tyranny, not freedom of speech. Some rights have to be qualified if other rights are to be respected.
I *knew* this was coming...
I said "harm". offence =/= harm, let's firstly get that out of the way. freedom of speech is all about speech that doesn't cause a loss of freedom (e.g. harm) - that is an elementary concept that you ought to be aware of by now...
next, "people being allowed to publish classified information which may harm the nation's safety" - that depends on whether it is likely to "harm" individuals. that would need to be interpreted by a court. if a court can interpret information leadin to harm to the nation's individuals as a security concern, then that would obviously constitute potential harm to individuals.
"harassment"? depends on whether it restricts the negative liberty of the individual; if we're talking about yelling or other nuisance acts (which really can relate to property rights here) then that's a form of harm if it involves a harm to the individual's property value and their ability to derive the value of their earned property (in the case of nuisance, at least in clear cases) but if we're talking about sexual harassment, then ****ing no way is that "harm". that is ridiculous. being annoying, also, isn't "harm".
slander? depends on whether it causes the harm to one's earnings and whether it's a lie or not - if it creates a situation whereby an individual cannot raise the funds to allow for the truth to be told in their defence, then that is a harm of earnings, if it causes a loss of money or valuable/earned reputation.
"manipulation to keep privacy"< I don't even know what you're referring to there - you'll need to be more specific
basically, offence or annoyance is not harm - only harm towards the body/property is "harm" is a objective sense. if we're talking about mental/psychological trauma caused by words constituting bodily (brain) harm which requires therapy to correct, then that would require a substantial amount of evidence *and* reasonable conditions satisfied e.g. if the "victim" was easily offended to the point of absurdity then that shouldn't apply seeing as it is more their fault than the expressor's
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
I *knew* this was coming...
I said "harm". offence =/= harm, let's firstly get that out of the way. freedom of speech is all about speech that doesn't cause a loss of freedom (e.g. harm) - that is an elementary concept that you ought to be aware of by now...
I said "harm". offence =/= harm, let's firstly get that out of the way. freedom of speech is all about speech that doesn't cause a loss of freedom (e.g. harm) - that is an elementary concept that you ought to be aware of by now...
I *knew* you didn't know what the right actually is, lol.Freedom of expression: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.As you can see, the right cannot under any circumstances be unqualified, because it results to whatever I said before. (So much for the elementary concept lol...).
Original post by sleepysnooze
next, "people being allowed to publish classified information which may harm the nation's safety" - that depends on whether it is likely to "harm" individuals. that would need to be interpreted by a court. if a court can interpret information leadin to harm to the nation's individuals as a security concern, then that would obviously constitute potential harm to individuals.
I'm not referring to the courts. I'm referring to people knowing stuff they shouldn't and then releasing them to the press. This may include defence strategies, weapons and whatnot.
You said you wanted an absolutely unqualified freedom of speech rights - well, that cannot happen.
Original post by sleepysnooze
"harassment"? depends on whether it restricts the negative liberty of the individual; if we're talking about yelling or other nuisance acts (which really can relate to property rights here) then that's a form of harm if it involves a harm to the individual's property value and their ability to derive the value of their earned property (in the case of nuisance, at least in clear cases) but if we're talking about sexual harassment, then ****ing no way is that "harm". that is ridiculous. being annoying, also, isn't "harm".
slander? depends on whether it causes the harm to one's earnings and whether it's a lie or not - if it creates a situation whereby an individual cannot raise the funds to allow for the truth to be told in their defence, then that is a harm of earnings, if it causes a loss of money or valuable/earned reputation.
"manipulation to keep privacy"< I don't even know what you're referring to there - you'll need to be more specific
basically, offence or annoyance is not harm - only harm towards the body/property is "harm" is a objective sense. if we're talking about mental/psychological trauma caused by words constituting bodily (brain) harm which requires therapy to correct, then that would require a substantial amount of evidence *and* reasonable conditions satisfied e.g. if the "victim" was easily offended to the point of absurdity then that shouldn't apply seeing as it is more their fault than the expressor's
slander? depends on whether it causes the harm to one's earnings and whether it's a lie or not - if it creates a situation whereby an individual cannot raise the funds to allow for the truth to be told in their defence, then that is a harm of earnings, if it causes a loss of money or valuable/earned reputation.
"manipulation to keep privacy"< I don't even know what you're referring to there - you'll need to be more specific
basically, offence or annoyance is not harm - only harm towards the body/property is "harm" is a objective sense. if we're talking about mental/psychological trauma caused by words constituting bodily (brain) harm which requires therapy to correct, then that would require a substantial amount of evidence *and* reasonable conditions satisfied e.g. if the "victim" was easily offended to the point of absurdity then that shouldn't apply seeing as it is more their fault than the expressor's
You wot? You think having your privacy breached against your will or releasing info that can potentially harm someone (even by your definition) is not enough to qualify governmental interference?
So, governments must only intervene when someone suffers bodily harm?
In the same way, I think people should be allowed weapons and police should not interfere unless someone has been shot. Sounds absolutely logical, eh?
Again, you said you wanted absolutely unqualified freedom of speech - well, now you've added some qualifications. The contradictions only prove my point.
Original post by *Stefan*
I *knew* you didn't know what the right actually is, lol.Freedom of expression: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.As you can see, the right cannot under any circumstances be unqualified, because it results to whatever I said before. (So much for the elementary concept lol...).
you're quoting law, not legitimate philosophy. law is usually bastardised philosophy/practical ethics and states violate freedom of speech constantly - why should I take this as authoritative? in fact, just from skimming your mass of text I notice that it allows for negating free speech for "national security", "public safety", "protection of reputation" etc - what does national security even mean specifically? it can literally mean anything. next, people aren't entitled to a good reputation. is hitler entitled to a protection of reputation, for instance?
yes, you're referring to "weapons" so obviously that's going to potentially lead to harm in a literal sense if, for instance, this debriefing allows terrorists to get dangerous weapons which they are likely to use...
the only qualification I recognise to be consistent with the nature of liberty is not causing "harm" seeing as harm infringes liberty.
depends what you're talking about - if we're talking about contracts where somebody has a contractual entitlement to privacy then that would be protected. but if we're talking about, let's say, the spreading of the truth about somebody which becomes public, then how is that "harm"? is that a violation of the liberty of contract? what liberty is infringed that can be justified? people knowing things I don't want them to know, without some kind of promise involved where people are contractually obliged to not spread around something they promised not to, isn't a violation of freedon, and then it's arbitrary to suggest that this violates a right when it is merely an inconvenience. information isn't property.
no I said "harm" as in harm to the body or property...
why shouldn't people be allowed weapons (assuming you're not talking about WMDs)? if there is evidence that some individual will use them for criminal purposes then that is the time to confiscate such weapons, but not just straight off the bat. that's not proportional at all.
what contradictions?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
you're quoting law, not legitimate philosophy. law is usually bastardised philosophy/practical ethics and states violate freedom of speech constantly - why should I take this as authoritative? in fact, just from skimming your mass of text I notice that it allows for negating free speech for "national security", "public safety", "protection of reputation" etc - what does national security even mean specifically? it can literally mean anything. next, people aren't entitled to a good reputation. is hitler entitled to a protection of reputation, for instance?
I'm sorry for relying on actual material and not cheap thoughts... lol.
Ah I see, you're one of those rebellious people were the law is at fault for everything and shouldn't always be followed eh? Do you prefer tribal community systems too?
How is Hitler relevant? Like at all? Everyone knows of Hitler - there's no freedom of speech involved.
And again, I never said that freedom of speech should not be protected. I'm simply being mature enough to accept that there must be limits to it.
Original post by sleepysnooze
yes, you're referring to "weapons" so obviously that's going to potentially lead to harm in a literal sense if, for instance, this debriefing allows terrorists to get dangerous weapons which they are likely to use...
So, what you're saying is that there should be limits to freedom of speech, just like the Convention says. Coming to my point?
Original post by sleepysnooze
the only qualification I recognise to be consistent with the nature of liberty is not causing "harm" seeing as harm infringes liberty.
depends what you're talking about - if we're talking about contracts where somebody has a contractual entitlement to privacy then that would be protected. but if we're talking about, let's say, the spreading of the truth about somebody which becomes public, then how is that "harm"? is that a violation of the liberty of contract? what liberty is infringed that can be justified? people knowing things I don't want them to know, without some kind of promise involved where people are contractually obliged to not spread around something they promised not to, isn't a violation of freedon, and then it's arbitrary to suggest that this violates a right when it is merely an inconvenience. information isn't property.
depends what you're talking about - if we're talking about contracts where somebody has a contractual entitlement to privacy then that would be protected. but if we're talking about, let's say, the spreading of the truth about somebody which becomes public, then how is that "harm"? is that a violation of the liberty of contract? what liberty is infringed that can be justified? people knowing things I don't want them to know, without some kind of promise involved where people are contractually obliged to not spread around something they promised not to, isn't a violation of freedon, and then it's arbitrary to suggest that this violates a right when it is merely an inconvenience. information isn't property.
Harm can mean many things. I have a right to privacy. If I want to keep that privacy, it's my right to do so. What you're saying is that, since this is not harmful in a bodily way, people should be allowed limitless freedom of expression.
Thus, you agree that if someone has taken a photo of me swimming naked in my home pool, they're allowed to publish it so everyone can see.
You also agree that if someone knows something about me which I do not want others to know due to its importance, they can go on and say it without repercussions.
And so on. How can you even think that this is logical? My right to life is much more important than your right of freedom of speech, whether you like it or not. Your stance is simply immature - you're thinking so short term and ignore the wider implications of allowing people to say whatever they want without limits.
If the courts cannot interfere with someone's right to speech, those afflicted by such cheap talkers will resolve things differently -and I mean this as a huge negative-. I do not want to live in such a society, and nor do most normal people.
Original post by sleepysnooze
no I said "harm" as in harm to the body or property...
why shouldn't people be allowed weapons (assuming you're not talking about WMDs)? if there is evidence that some individual will use them for criminal purposes then that is the time to confiscate such weapons, but not just straight off the bat. that's not proportional at all.
what contradictions?
why shouldn't people be allowed weapons (assuming you're not talking about WMDs)? if there is evidence that some individual will use them for criminal purposes then that is the time to confiscate such weapons, but not just straight off the bat. that's not proportional at all.
what contradictions?
What makes you think that personal data is not property? You really think property refers to tangible things alone???
These contradictions above. Once you say absolutely unqualified freedom of speech, then you say it should be qualified when harm and property are involved. Well well...
So, guns should be allowed? Because USA has been a great example?
Tell me please, are you a UKIP voter? UKIP voters have such similar mentalities.
This thread is ridiculous
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Someone here mentioned how Hitler is not entitled to a good reputation. We all know this, but it's funny that you mention him because he is an example of an individual who incited hatred towards entire religious groups, ethnicities and so forth using his right to freedom of expression. This is actually a good example of times when free speech should be limited.
Because hate speech exactly that; the incitement of violence or hatred towards a group on the basis of sex, sexuality, ethnicity, religious beliefs and a number of other protected characteristics. Unlimited free speech means that you're infringing the rights of others to safety and security.
Because hate speech exactly that; the incitement of violence or hatred towards a group on the basis of sex, sexuality, ethnicity, religious beliefs and a number of other protected characteristics. Unlimited free speech means that you're infringing the rights of others to safety and security.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2866
Last reply 2 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 4 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
Worried about son who wants to move out, will he be able to afford it?Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 11 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 14 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 18 minutes ago
choosing a medical school (Leicester, St Andrews, Nottingham)Last reply 21 minutes ago
Why do some girls take pleasure in going after other girls boyfriends?Posted 22 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 25 minutes ago
Can someone please mark my AIC essay (my teacher is such an unreliable marker)Last reply 26 minutes ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 26 minutes ago
Best Accommodation for Med Students at University of Plymouth?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
