Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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"
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    22
    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!
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Absolutely yes! Truth > feelings, if people can't cope with it then that's their problem and it should never become a legal issue. The thought police need to be disbanded ASAP, otherwise the modern world's just going to crumble. Progress relies on unrestricted speech, where do you think we'd be now if Galileo hadn't spoken out about the incorrectness of the religious geocentric model of the universe, and others hadn't spoken out about their "blasphemous" and/or "insulting" ideas? We'd still be in the dark ages!
    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.
    Offline

    21
    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.
    Completely agree


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Yes, but words can trigger action.
    Then punish the action, not the words.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Double post.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    Btw I would like to read more about your Buddhism thing, pass me a link if you will
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...ntro.budd.html

    http://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ri...ss?language=en

    Don't worry, the chapters are really short. I recommend reading the intro as well. Sorry, I probably sound like one of those evangelical Christians or Jehova Witnesses right now!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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