The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by 999tigger
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?


The problem here is mainly legislature overreach - criminalising thoughts leads a very dangerous precedent. There are a lot of things uncomfortable that can be said, whether it's a legitimate argument or not, we can't simply base it on feelings alone. Democracies can't function when any potential disagreement becomes criminalised.

If there were a good way to distinguish hate-speech from criticism/disagreement, then it's possible to set up the judicial framework to deal with it.
Reply 41
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:


It's interesting that you use the phrase 'so-called hate speech'. I guess you are alluding to the fact that it is loosely defined and often somebody will be barred from speaking because they have voiced controversial views which have been labelled as hate speech - which, obviously, is wrong.

But surely the conclusion from that should be that hate speech should be more clearly defined, so that the definition can't be manipulated and abused - not that we should just allow people to freely voice hate speech?

Basically I don't see any argument in your OP that supports the conclusion that we should ban hate speech
On topic: Hate speech is part of free speech, allow it.

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.


What shocks me all the time is the way people perceive the Nazis. There were in my opinion two feelings at the forefront of the the Nazi horrors, the first is indifference and willingness to look the other way, but the second is that the people actively committing these acts, genuinely thought they had some sort of justification. They saw themselves as the good guys. It bothers me how people in the UK think Hitler was a cartoon villain because when you perceive him that way, what you're really doing is absolving yourself of any potential to commit evil acts.


I disagree with White guilt or German guilt, these things have been disastrous, but an example of the sort of thing I am referring to in the modern world is when a branch of Sainsbury's refused to stock Kosher foods in an effort to pander to left-wing protesters. They thought they were fighting Israel, what they were actually doing was antisemitic.
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.


This is the point. Hate speech should not be criminalised, this is what freedom of speech is, but nobody is forced to give hateful speakers a platform and there will still be social consequences if they choose to promote hatred. It's ridiculous the level to which the people on the mainstream left think that anything aside from a clunky heavy handed approach will get results.
This is all well and true.

My point though is what snout people who post information which they know (or don't know) is false. For instance I used to go onto 4chan Pol where people post memes which have been faked or doctored- with lots ending on FB (there's a famous one with MPs barely turning up to discuss something like poverty and all turning up to discuss MPs expenses.) - often these are put out by people who are militantly anti government and see this as legitimate.

there are also channels like RT and Press TV that allegedly champion free speech but clearly have an agenda.

Ultimately clearly there is an agenda to be had with every outlet from the BBC to RT.
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.


Completely agree


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by admonit
Yes, but words can trigger action.


Then punish the action, not the words.
Original post by TercioOfParma
Then punish the action, not the words.


Except the words are an action in themselves because they consider whether the intention is to cause racial hatred. If someone attempts to cause trouble then like all inchoate crimes it is consdiered an offence.

Cant see why people are clinging onto their suopposed right to cause trouble and intimation for other people. Why would we anty more of that. Where the upside in hate?
Original post by WBZ144
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.


If you read my statement correctly, you'd see that I said that do not have the right to feel safe because that is a subjective state of mind, which will obviously differ from person to person. Laws against personal harassment have nothing to do with laws against hate speech, they existed prior before any notion of 'hate speech ' was even thought of. Furthermore, there are no laws against verbal abuse generally given the fact that what constitutes verbal abuse is extremely broad: verbal abuse is anything from calling a kid fat to calling a black man a ******. Incitement to violence also has nothing to do with the hate speech laws, it was a very old common law offence, it even has nothing to do with human rights given the fact that it is a common law offence. From all these mistakes on it is quite clear you do not have a sufficiently strong grasp of human rights, even though you claim to believe in them.
If you don't like what people are saying about your religion, correct them.

Trying to silence critics through legal or illegal means may stop the critics, but it effectively proves their criticisms valid.

That being said I don't think any Muslims here who has the capacity to defend their religion from a criticism. All of them seem to inherit their religion rather than learn and live it.
Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN
If you read my statement correctly, you'd see that I said that do not have the right to feel safe because that is a subjective state of mind, which will obviously differ from person to person. Laws against personal harassment have nothing to do with laws against hate speech, they existed prior before any notion of 'hate speech ' was even thought of. Furthermore, there are no laws against verbal abuse generally given the fact that what constitutes verbal abuse is extremely broad: verbal abuse is anything from calling a kid fat to calling a black man a ******. Incitement to violence also has nothing to do with the hate speech laws, it was a very old common law offence, it even has nothing to do with human rights given the fact that it is a common law offence. From all these mistakes on it is quite clear you do not have a sufficiently strong grasp of human rights, even though you claim to believe in them.


Sure, it's not like the focus of my LLM isn't international human rights law :lol:

Where did I say that there are any laws against verbal abuse? It is when the verbal abuse is caused by bigotry towards a certain race, religion, sexuality and other protected characteristics that it falls under hate speech laws. It is made clear in the ICCPR that freedom of expression is subject to limitations if it conflicts with public safety.

If you were at greater risk of being verbally abused due to one of those characteristics, clearly you are not safe. Verbal abuse often leads to more violent crimes and if you were the one who would be subjected to this on a daily basis without hate speech laws, you wouldn't be so adamant on abolishing them.

I think that you will find that incitement of hatred, violence and verbal harassment on the basis of a person's race, religion, sexuality, etc do fall under hate speech laws too, it's specified under multiple legislation. So for you to claim that they have nothing to do with hate speech laws show that you are the one who is out with human rights.
Double post.
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 guess there is no legitimate purpose for violent speech, although I do not think it should be banned. I do not agree that any type of speech should be banned.
Well, the people that are voted into government aren't the smartest people are they? At the end of the day they are just people that the majority have chosen to represent them (don't even get me started on the problem with this system).

But that's the thing, I think people should be able to say whatever they wish. I guess I'm tired of the censorship from the progressive (regressive) left.
Original post by F.Nietzsche
I guess there is no legitimate purpose for violent speech, although I do not think it should be banned. I do not agree that any type of speech should be banned.
Well, the people that are voted into government aren't the smartest people are they? At the end of the day they are just people that the majority have chosen to represent them (don't even get me started on the problem with this system).

But that's the thing, I think people should be able to say whatever they wish. I guess I'm tired of the censorship from the progressive (regressive) left.


They have the mandate though and its everyone else that votes for them, so you get the government you deserve

Well fine you can go out and protect peoples rights to incote others to hatred and discrimination. Well done you. Cant see that will affect anyone or cause any upset at all.
Original post by sleepysnooze
yes - why shouldn't we have the right to hate, or express hate? why shouldn't people have the right to their emotions?
for example: I hate the government. **** the government. am I allowed to say that? yes? so why can't I say that about anybody or anyone?


Oh you can say that to someone as long as they are a straight white male. :smile:

Original post by JCal
Truth is heavily subjective. Some people think the truth is that all of Islam is responsible for terrorism, and therefore could encourage unjust violence/stigmatisation (even more than that which already exists) for muslims. Of course, this is not the truth, as terrorists come in many forms, but with completely free speech the jeopardy of the people's safety is infinitely possible.

I do however agree that we need to make some modern world progress, though not through letting anyone say anything. You have to filter out the impurities to make gold.


Please tell me someone else can see the hypocrisy. So what speech is gold then? Because I thought the truth is relative. Or is gold speech where you do not offend anyone? What would be the use of speaking if you had to constantly make sure no-one is offended. Oh why did Darwin write that book on evolution, he has upset so many religious folk.
Original post by WBZ144
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.


How does someone's race, sexuality or religion affect their ability to empathise to a situation?
Original post by abc:)
It's interesting that you use the phrase 'so-called hate speech'. I guess you are alluding to the fact that it is loosely defined and often somebody will be barred from speaking because they have voiced controversial views which have been labelled as hate speech - which, obviously, is wrong.

But surely the conclusion from that should be that hate speech should be more clearly defined, so that the definition can't be manipulated and abused - not that we should just allow people to freely voice hate speech?

Basically I don't see any argument in your OP that supports the conclusion that we should ban hate speech


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*
Reply 57
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.


Kinell
Original post by F.Nietzsche
But what is hate speech and who decides what falls under this category?


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.

That said, there is a problem with universities too readily stopping talks etc. The problem is that the censorious perpetually-offended crowd is so much louder than everyone else. I don't really see that changing, myself.
Original post by F.Nietzsche
How does someone's race, sexuality or religion affect their ability to empathise to a situation?


If the person does not possess characteristics which mean that there is an increased likelihood that they would be bullied over them, they can choose not to try to empathise and it is easy for them to do so.

Bottom line is that verbal abuse for no reason other than the fact that someone is disabled or a different race, religion and so on is bullying, it is harmful and it infringes on the rights of others to safety. If such a fundamental right is being breached then it should take precedent over the right of bigots to bully people who they don't like, as long as it isn't physical.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply