The Student Room Group

Hate speech vs Freedom of speech... Are they the same thing?

My discussion is whether or not what people call hate speech should just be free speech and not something to start firing people and making illegal to do. My view is that any speech that imposes other people's speech and/or incite violence against
a group or individual is wrong but what i see most people deem as "hate speech" ok to say; I don't agree with how hate speech rules and laws have been put in place. Your thoughts?
"Hate speech" is just some meaningless buzzword that the liberal left use to push their cultural Marxist agenda.
People bare getting offended over everything once in school I voiced my opinion regarding sexism and this one grill looked at me and said "you're white though so it doesn't count" like wtf she was more whiter than me and I'm not European my ancestors didn't colonise anything actually HER ANCESTORS COLONISED MY ANCESTORS REEEEEEEEEE IM TRIGGERED!!!!!
Reply 3
Avatar for danjnich
danjnich
7
Original post by Dot.Cotton
"Hate speech" is just some meaningless buzzword that the liberal left use to push their cultural Marxist agenda.


"Cultural Marxism" is a complete nonsensical phrase in the way you're using it. And from an actual Marxist perspective, liberal's aren't on the left. Either that or you're a troll
Reply 4
Avatar for Leighamc
Leighamc
5
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence. Say whatever you want, don't cry when people don't like it. That works both ways; you shouldn't cry if people punish you for making a nazi salute outside of the Reichstag (topical), as you should be adult enough to think through the consequences of your freedom of speech. Additionally, don't be surprised if people aren't thrilled about your liberal ideas, as they're still political opinions, not fact.
Reply 5
Avatar for Asolare
Asolare
20
Freedom of speech means freedom to say what you like, including anything you interpret as 'hateful'. Hateful is so incredibly subjective that the mere notion of 'hate speech' is laughable, but let alone the fact that we now have people being visited by the police because they said a nasty thing online and got offended is beyond the pale.

If one is offended by what someone else has said then one needs to get the **** over it and move on.
Original post by Dot.Cotton
"Hate speech" is just some meaningless buzzword that the liberal left use to push their cultural Marxist agenda.


I think I am probably one of those liberal lefties, but what is this Marxist agenda everyone keeps talking about. I had a read of the Wikipeadia page on Marxism and it was all mumbo jumbo to me. Is it some sort of insult?

If you want freedom of speech, feel free to live in the US.
Original post by Asolare
Freedom of speech means freedom to say what you like, including anything you interpret as 'hateful'. Hateful is so incredibly subjective that the mere notion of 'hate speech' is laughable, but let alone the fact that we now have people being visited by the police because they said a nasty thing online and got offended is beyond the pale.

If one is offended by what someone else has said then one needs to get the **** over it and move on.


No, it doesn't. It comes with limitations as is, there's obvious examples about using it to defame others or cause public commotions, but in relation to this - that you can't use it to remove the rights of others, which is what abridging hate speech is about. You can hold whatever opinions you like, but you cannot, for instance, promote violence against a group of people, and in doing so infringe on their right to life, liberty and security of person (article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights)
Original post by 10equals2
Left-wing politics = free speech.
Anything else = hate speech.


Original post by Dot.Cotton
"Hate speech" is just some meaningless buzzword that the liberal left use to push their cultural Marxist agenda.


********.

Hate speech is pretty well defined and has been around since 1986 with the introduction of the Public Order Act. It isn't some new SJW, 'cultural Marxist', invention.
Not really a leftie

I think the general jist of it is just

don't be a **** to others

ty

if your criticism is constructive however, speak away.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
No, it doesn't. It comes with limitations as is, there's obvious examples about using it to defame others or cause public commotions, but in relation to this - that you can't use it to remove the rights of others, which is what abridging hate speech is about. You can hold whatever opinions you like, but you cannot, for instance, promote violence against a group of people, and in doing so infringe on their right to life, liberty and security of person (article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights)


Do you understand what the definition of 'freedom' is? Freedom is absolutely no restriction on something, including speech. It gets very irritating when typical extreme-left nutters try to redefine the scope of freedom to mean 'yeah you're free to say it as long as you're not offending anyone else :smile:'. Insulting someone etc. is not 'removing the rights' of anyone; you cannot use your words to remove anyone's rights. You can absolutely promote violence against certain people if you wish to because your words did not cause the violence, the individuals chose to be violent themselves. If I say to a friend "stab that man I dare ya" and he does, I am not responsible because my words did not cause the stabbing, my friend's rational choice to stab the man is what did.

Hate speech does not remove anyone's rights at all and people really need to get a grip and stop acting so offended because someone said a mean thing about them. Censoring people's words is one step closer towards 'thought crime'.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
No, it doesn't. It comes with limitations as is, there's obvious examples about using it to defame others or cause public commotions, but in relation to this - that you can't use it to remove the rights of others, which is what abridging hate speech is about. You can hold whatever opinions you like, but you cannot, for instance, promote violence against a group of people, and in doing so infringe on their right to life, liberty and security of person (article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights)


The whole point of freedom of speech is having the, you guessed it, freedom to speak your mind; irrespective of the opinions of others. Speech cannot, in and of itself, remove the rights of another person. What you are referring to is a call to action, which can, of course, deprive somebody of their rights. This is an important clarification, in that it demonstrates a limbo between action and speech, and thus, cases involving it cannot be considered to be truly applicable to the issue of pure speech. You can see the distinction in the case of Anjem Choudary, who, despite the abhorrence of his views, was never convicted of an offence for his rhetoric, but for his activities to support ISIS. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/06/anjem-choudary-jailed-for-five-years-and-six-months-for-urging-support-of-isis

The issue with hate speech is two-fold. Firstly, it is entirely subjective what can be deemed 'hateful'. What I may find hateful is likely to be quite different from what another person finds to be hateful; this is an inconsistency which undermines the concept significantly. Secondly, hate speech as a legal offence undermines a core tenant of our democracy: equality before the law. To criminalise speech of a certain type, against a certain group, elevates the victimised community to a status not enjoyed by another. This is hardly desirable, and can only breed further animosity between groups.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by AryanGh
Not really a leftie

I think the general jist of it is just

don't be a **** to others

ty

if your criticism is constructive however, speak away.


And who are you, or any other power, to deem what is or is not constructive? Their ought not to be any restrictions on speech, irrespective of how abhorrent it may be in the opinion of one person or another. The Supreme Court of the United States nicely defended this in Snyder v. Phelps, where they affirmed that all speech in public places, even that deemed "outrageous", is protected under the First Amendment. (The amendment affirming the freedom of speech, for those unaware.)
Original post by Asolare
Do you understand what the definition of 'freedom' is? Freedom is absolutely no restriction on something, including speech. It gets very irritating when typical extreme-left nutters try to redefine the scope of freedom to mean 'yeah you're free to say it as long as you're not offending anyone else :smile:'. Insulting someone etc. is not 'removing the rights' of anyone; you cannot use your words to remove anyone's rights. You can absolutely promote violence against certain people if you wish to because your words did not cause the violence, the individuals chose to be violent themselves. If I say to a friend "stab that man I dare ya" and he does, I am not responsible because my words did not cause the stabbing, my friend's rational choice to stab the man is what did.

Hate speech does not remove anyone's rights at all and people really need to get a grip and stop acting so offended because someone said a mean thing about them. Censoring people's words is one step closer towards 'thought crime'.


I am aware of what freedom means, unlike yasen. There are far more rights and freedoms than just freedom of speech. To ensure a balance between all limitations have to be drawn. Freedom of speech for instance doesn't allow me to defame others (i.e. I can't use freedom of speech as a defence if i were to say [famous celebrity] has inappropriate relations with goats), their rights override my right to speech. Nor can free speech be a defence for saying all [minority group] are inferior and should be killed - their right to life and safety supersedes my right to speech: this is how it must be to protect all rights. When you say inciting violence should be protected under freedom of speech, you are outing yourself as someone who doesn't believe in freedom as a concept, but rather as someone who thinks that they should be free to harass and bully. Freedom to bully and intimidate has never been a freedom, nor will it ever be.
Original post by xBasedChris
The whole point of freedom of speech is having the, you guessed it, freedom to speak your mind; irrespective of the opinions of others. Speech cannot, in and of itself, remove the rights of another person. What you are referring to is a call to action, which can, of course, deprive somebody of their rights.
This is an important clarification, in that it demonstrates a limbo between action and speech, and thus, cases involving it cannot be considered to be truly applicable to the issue of pure speech. You can see the distinction in the case of Anjem Choudary, who, despite the abhorrence of his views, was never convicted of an offence for his rhetoric, but for his activities to support ISIS. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/06/anjem-choudary-jailed-for-five-years-and-six-months-for-urging-support-of-isis


That is true, however when people argue against hate speech and decry that free speech isn't truly free, they tend to be arguing for the right to incite violence (like the other poster explicitly said)


The issue with hate speech is two-fold. Firstly, it is entirely subjective what can be deemed 'hateful'. What I may find hateful is likely to be quite different from what another person finds to be hateful; this is an inconsistency which undermines the concept significantly.


Which is why it focuses around inciting action against groups, and bullying/ harassment, and not "I'm offended by that joke ". The latter is indeed a subjective minefield, but calls for violence and removal of rights are comparatively cut and dry.

Secondly, hate speech as a legal offence undermines a core tenant of our democracy: equality before the law. To criminalise speech of a certain type, against a certain group, elevates the victimised community to a status not enjoyed by another. This is hardly desirable, and can only breed further animosity between groups.

Not really, it ensures the victims right to safety and security is equal to the aggressors.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
That is true, however when people argue against hate speech and decry that free speech isn't truly free, they tend to be arguing for the right to incite violence (like the other poster explicitly said)



Which is why it focuses around inciting action against groups, and bullying/ harassment, and not "I'm offended by that joke ". The latter is indeed a subjective minefield, but calls for violence and removal of rights are comparatively cut and dry.



Not really, it ensures the victims right to safety and security is equal to the aggressors.


Hate-speech is different than the incitement of action. It is viewed as speech hateful towards specific communities or individuals, often on the basis of their mere membership within such a community, or another well-defined characteristic - such as being gay, black, etc.

There is a major distinction between a call for violence and the expression of an opinion deemed hateful towards a group. To deny this is to deny the distinction between speech and action. For example, me saying "Transgender people are mentally ill" would likely be considered hate speech, despite it not being a call for violence or the removal of their rights as people.

Of course hate-speech undermines equality of before the law, how can you think otherwise? If hateful language against one group is punished, and yet such language against another is not, a disparity exists in the equal protection of these groups. Hate speech as a concept tends to cater towards minority communities, not majorities, although this is not the case with women particularly. This is why, throughout the western world, such laws apply to such minorities, and not the infamous 'straight white man'. I will say it again - If hateful rhetoric against one group is criminalised, but not against another, equality before the law has been clearly eroded.

I would also note that speech itself cannot threaten safety or security. Action, perhaps, but that is separate from speech.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Archangel537
My discussion is whether or not what people call hate speech should just be free speech and not something to start firing people and making illegal to do. My view is that any speech that imposes other people's speech and/or incite violence against
a group or individual is wrong but what i see most people deem as "hate speech" ok to say; I don't agree with how hate speech rules and laws have been put in place. Your thoughts?

I think they're different. I'm in favour of freedom of speech as I consider it necessary for progress in society. An example of this would be the policy of freedom of movement; free speech would be being able to criticise uncontrolled immigration in a progressive way, even if the establishment held the opposite view. Hate speech would be demonising immigrants in an inflammatory way and opening a pandoras box of public hatred.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you