The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Here's a nice trade-off:
You're allowed to say anything you want to say, literally anything, but, if you were proven to be wrong, whether mistaken or deliberate, you are to be punished, specially if it's slander. So if you say all X are Y, but one X, just one, was proven not to be Y, you're to be punished for slander or whatever, how about that?
Well, not that extent, as you said it's only a carrot, but for example if you say 'x' is dumb, a thief, a lier, or whatever, where x is an individual, and he proves he isn't then it becomes a crime then. I agree you should be able to say whatever you want, but sometimes telling lies might be dangerous.
Take a practical example, they used to say "all jews are thieves and only care about making money", that's clearly a lie, however, whoever said that should only be convicted of racism if and only if if is proven to be a lie. Same goes for "All X are dumb" or "All Y are terrorists". Same also goes for stuff like rape accusations.
Reply 22
Avatar for h333
h333
16
I see chaos. :redface:
Reply 23
Avatar for Tai Ga
Tai Ga
18
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.
Btw I would like to read more about your Buddhism thing, pass me a link if you will :biggrin:
Reply 25
Avatar for cipi
cipi
2
Original post by Trapz99
Yes. Personally, I think all speech should be allowed unless it directly threatens to kill or physically attack someone (I.e. you shouldn't be allowed to tell people to go kill some guy) or if it exposes someone's address or other private contact details.


Yea agree. Americans have more freedom.
Reply 26
Avatar for cipi
cipi
2
Original post by Trapz99
Yes. Personally, I think all speech should be allowed unless it directly threatens to kill or physically attack someone (I.e. you shouldn't be allowed to tell people to go kill some guy) or if it exposes someone's address or other private contact details.


Yea agree. Americans have more freedom.
Hate speech is very clearly defined in uk law. People mis use it all the time basically to label people they do not agree with.
Original post by F.Nietzsche
Often times people are accused of so called hate speech and are therefore barred from holding a talk at a university perhaps. But what is hate speech and who decides what falls under this category? Personally I think it is a ploy to silence those whose views may upset people...one such example of this would be the criticism of Islam or even Islamism. And surely freedom of speech should apply to all speech...

Please share your thoughts, thanks! :h:


Hate speech should be protected by free speech.

You should be able to say anything.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TercioOfParma
Words != Action

Yes, but words can trigger action.
(edited 7 years ago)
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. Laws against hate speech exist for a reason, to protect people's right to feel safe.


People do not have the right to feel safe. Feelings of safety are purely subjective states of mind. Anything and everything can make a certain person feel unsafe--that doesn't mean we should mitigate or eliminate everything that makes people 'feel' unsafe. It is precisely this kind of weak emotional reasoning that justifies so called 'hate speech' laws. Hate speech laws exist for a reason, but that doesn't mean the reason is a good one.
The problem is that some things are counted as hate speech when they're really not. It should definitely be more narrowly defined than it currently is. Someone being offended by something should not automatically make it hate speech.

I'd agree that threatening to kill or harm a group of people is hate speech, as well as advocating for killing a group of people. But I don't like the way it's been branched out so that any criticism or dislike of something can be regarded as hate speech.
(edited 7 years ago)
It's funny that the people saying that it should be protected are probably the ones who are unlikely to face verbal abuse on the grounds of their race, religion or sexuality while they are trying to go about their daily lives.
Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN
People do not have the right to feel safe. Feelings of safety are purely subjective states of mind. Anything and everything can make a certain person feel unsafe--that doesn't mean we should mitigate or eliminate everything that makes people 'feel' unsafe. It is precisely this kind of weak emotional reasoning that justifies so called 'hate speech' laws. Hate speech laws exist for a reason, but that doesn't mean the reason is a good one.


The right to safety is protected by every general human rights treaty. If you can be verbally abused or harassed when you leave your house, or someone can incite others to do those things to you, clearly you are not safe.
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.
Original post by F.Nietzsche
Often times people are accused of so called hate speech and are therefore barred from holding a talk at a university perhaps. But what is hate speech and who decides what falls under this category? Personally I think it is a ploy to silence those whose views may upset people...one such example of this would be the criticism of Islam or even Islamism. And surely freedom of speech should apply to all speech...

Please share your thoughts, thanks! :h:


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?
Original post by ByEeek
What truth? What truth is there in this world that means we have to incite so much rage within our fellow man that they feel the need to go an kill or harm the people who are the speakers enemy?


If inciting rage was not the speakers intent why hold him responsible if someone allows themselves to be offended to the point of rage? wouldn't it be better to tell the offended party to grow up?
Original post by TercioOfParma
You realise that by suppressing speech you're literally making things more dangerous? If people cannot express themselves it builds up and it becomes action.


It's pretty clear from what you're saying that you've never been a victim of genuine hate speech but nobody should have to endure that. The logic that we should allow people to become verbal punch bags to appease disgusting members of society is absurd. Words are not disconnected from reality and they can ruin lives and furthermore, they can spread hateful ideas. Unfortunately, there are many people in the world who are not gifted with great intellect and are easily influenced. Radical ideas do not just appear spontaneously, they are obtained from others. So there are many reasons why hate speech absolutely cannot be tolerated. I completely agree that suppressing people from expressing hatred can result in it building up and escalating but on the other hand, allowing total freedom of speech is replacing one type of crime with another type of crime and makes it more likely for people to be in a position to escalate in the first place.
I don't think anyone's defined hate speech properly yet. I tend to see hate speech as any kind of hatred or prejudice directed at a demographic on ideological grounds with no reason or rhyme. If I criticized the Black Lives Matter movement for the way they approach the social issue, that should not be deemed hate speech until I am making statements about their blackness being fundamentally inferior.

If I criticized Jews in Israel for seizing "holy lands" that were never theirs, that should not be considered hate-speech or antisemitism until I start discussing how the Jews are planning to take over the world therefore we must purge them. If I criticized a certain subculture within the Muslim community, or Islamic doctrine itself, that shouldn't be considered hate-speech until I'm generalising Muslims as a whole in a prejudicial way.

I might not necessarily hold these views, but freedom of speech allows the dialogue to take place - that's incredibly valuable in any kind of modern society. It should also be reminded that religious freedoms don't mean "not allowed to be criticize" - it simply means "the government won't persecute or discriminate against you for having a belief"
Original post by TercioOfParma

You realise that by suppressing speech you're literally making things more dangerous? If people cannot express themselves it builds up and it becomes action.


So you go and spout your hate speech at my granny. She find it intimidating and distressing. You say its free speech and it stops me taking it further.

What right do you have to do that against someone else?

By making it illegal you are saying its unnaceptable behaviour.
People are allowed to have opinions and you are allowed to have racists views, its just when you start inciting or affecting others that it becomes an issue.

What do you get out of hate speech?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you