Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Ah don't worry about that. The verse I quoted prevents people using the loophole from saying things like "kill all of X" because such speech isn't protected by the verse and therefore by the equality act. It permits everything except for the encouragement of violence. By "truth" the verse is referring to what you perceive to be true, in other words as long as you're not lying then it's acceptable. Someone could say "all muslims are terrorists" and because they think it's true, they're still protected by the law. They could even go as far as saying things like "all X are sh*theads," they'd still be protected. While traditional Buddhist sects frown on abusive speech, my sect doesn't. Atumic Buddhism is really relaxed on "right speech" because attaining Nibbanna isn't the main goal. I wouldn't recommend taking that risk though because my sect is more of a micro-sect.
    Well, we're smarter than to follow ancient texts.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JCal)
    I think you're confusing us with the USA. Over there, you can pretty much say what you like under one of the amendments. However, in this country, speech is indeed quite limited (and for good reason, I'll add). "Freedom of speech" is limited depending on the country's laws.
    I am moving to the US then
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Ah don't worry about that. The verse I quoted prevents people using the loophole from saying things like "kill all of X" because such speech isn't protected by the verse and therefore by the equality act. It permits everything except for the encouragement of violence. By "truth" the verse is referring to what you perceive to be true, in other words as long as you're not lying then it's acceptable. Someone could say "all muslims are terrorists" and because they think it's true, they're still protected by the law. They could even go as far as saying things like "all X are sh*theads," they'd still be protected. While traditional Buddhist sects frown on abusive speech, my sect doesn't. Atumic Buddhism is really relaxed on "right speech" because attaining Nibbanna isn't the main goal. I wouldn't recommend taking that risk though because my sect is more of a micro-sect.
    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?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    Well, we're smarter than to follow ancient texts.
    Oh don't get the wrong idea here, I'm as much an atheist as you are. The reason I'm also a Buddhist is because none of the Dhamma is mandatory and to be honest only about 20% of it's spiritual garbage. The rest is just common sense and common decency. Obviously rational people ignore that 20%, but the rest is cool.

    (Original post by oShahpo)
    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?
    Nah, that's not going to work. Like, if I were to pack tonnes of carrots into a barrel and then someone asked me where I'd put all the carrots and I responded "they're all in that barrel," then that'd be fine. But suppose however that one of the carrots fell over the side of the barrel when I wasn't looking and landed in a spot where I couldn't see it. In that case I'd be a criminal! Or like, if I saw a bunch of rotten carrots and I said "urrguurrrr, these carrots are halfway to being a pile of mush!" Suppose one of them wasn't rotten but it was concealed from view, I'd end up being hauled off to jail for insulting a flipping carrot! :lol:

    IMO it should be more like allowing all speech except the encouragement of violence in public areas and in private areas the organisation/person who owns that area should be able to set their own rules, so long as it complies with the law. So like, cinemas would have a "don't shout 'fire' unless there's really a fire" rule, stuff like that. Whereas in public places people would be able to say things like "I hate X, X is dumb" without fear of persecution.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Oh don't get the wrong idea here, I'm as much an atheist as you are. The reason I'm also a Buddhist is because none of the Dhamma is mandatory and to be honest only about 20% of it's spiritual garbage. The rest is just common sense and common decency. Obviously rational people ignore that 20%, but the rest is cool.



    Nah, that's not going to work. Like, if I were to pack tonnes of carrots into a barrel and then someone asked me where I'd put all the carrots and I responded "they're all in that barrel," then that'd be fine. But suppose however that one of the carrots fell over the side of the barrel when I wasn't looking and landed in a spot where I couldn't see it. In that case I'd be a criminal! Or like, if I saw a bunch of rotten carrots and I said "urrguurrrr, these carrots are halfway to being a pile of mush!" Suppose one of them wasn't rotten but it was concealed from view, I'd end up being hauled off to jail for insulting a flipping carrot! :lol:

    IMO it should be more like allowing all speech except the encouragement of violence in public areas and in private areas the organisation/person who owns that area should be able to set their own rules, so long as it complies with the law. So like, cinemas would have a "don't shout 'fire' unless there's really a fire" rule, stuff like that. Whereas in public places people would be able to say things like "I hate X, X is dumb" without fear of persecution.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I see chaos.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Oh don't get the wrong idea here, I'm as much an atheist as you are. The reason I'm also a Buddhist is because none of the Dhamma is mandatory and to be honest only about 20% of it's spiritual garbage. The rest is just common sense and common decency. Obviously rational people ignore that 20%, but the rest is cool.



    Nah, that's not going to work. Like, if I were to pack tonnes of carrots into a barrel and then someone asked me where I'd put all the carrots and I responded "they're all in that barrel," then that'd be fine. But suppose however that one of the carrots fell over the side of the barrel when I wasn't looking and landed in a spot where I couldn't see it. In that case I'd be a criminal! Or like, if I saw a bunch of rotten carrots and I said "urrguurrrr, these carrots are halfway to being a pile of mush!" Suppose one of them wasn't rotten but it was concealed from view, I'd end up being hauled off to jail for insulting a flipping carrot! :lol:

    IMO it should be more like allowing all speech except the encouragement of violence in public areas and in private areas the organisation/person who owns that area should be able to set their own rules, so long as it complies with the law. So like, cinemas would have a "don't shout 'fire' unless there's really a fire" rule, stuff like that. Whereas in public places people would be able to say things like "I hate X, X is dumb" without fear of persecution.
    Btw I would like to read more about your Buddhism thing, pass me a link if you will
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Hate speech should be protected by free speech.

    You should be able to say anything.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Words != Action
    Yes, but words can trigger action.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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!
    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?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 26, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.