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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    Well I guess as a deterrent our current laws don't work very well. There are legal limitations of freedom of speech and threats is the biggie. But a lot of people don't realise that they are committing a crime - especially if they do it online.

    However it does at least mean that if you receive threats you can potentially get somebody prosecuted for it.

    Anyway an empty death threat is still damaging - depending on its wording and the manner in which it is delivered it can genuinely make you fearful in your day-to-day life. Nobody should be afforded the right to make somebody feel like that.

    So yeah in conclusion - offending people is not a crime but threatening people is. 'Hate speech' should be more clearly defined to reflect this and should remain banned as it currently is.
    Perhaps you are equating freedom of speech and harassment. Even in America where freedom of speech is allowed in its entirety, there are laws against harassment.

    Agreed, death threats aren't good and can be damaging.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    100% free speech
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Comedian sums up my thoughts nicely on people being offended

    https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/...8771789467711/


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by banterboy)
    why should somebody; "right" to feel an emotion supersede what should be a basic human right: to share your opinions with others without fearing consequences from either the mob or the state?

    Socrates was executed because conservative folk around him didn't feel like his questions were "safe".
    Because most human beings are not psychopaths and therefore care about what other people have to say. Some people are strong enough to take verbal abuse and hatred but we have a duty as a caring society to protect those who don't. And I am not talking about people being triggered by minor things on the internet, I am talking about genuine hatred that incites discrimination, malignancy and fear against people. Words have consequences so if extreme enough, it should be treated in a similar manner to how physical violence is treated.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Speech should be as free as possible as in apart from obvious things like yelling bomb in an airport or threatening somebody.

    "Hate speech" Jeez what a bs vacuous insidious term.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Feel free to check out some countries that dont have free speech. I hear North Korea or Saudi Arabia are nice this time of year. Ta ra Jordan
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Feel free to check out some countries that dont have free speech. I hear North Korea or Saudi Arabia are nice this time of year. Ta ra Jordan
    Or, you know, the UK where hate speech is illegal...
    Offline

    19
    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.
    Well whats the problem then? Why barr someone when nobody is going to turn up?

    Check mate
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Well whats the problem then? Why barr someone when nobody is going to turn up?

    Check mate
    To lessen the potential spread of radical ideas and ignorance? Wot do you mean check mate?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Because most human beings are not psychopaths and therefore care about what other people have to say. Some people are strong enough to take verbal abuse and hatred but we have a duty as a caring society to protect those who don't. And I am not talking about people being triggered by minor things on the internet, I am talking about genuine hatred that incites discrimination, malignancy and fear against people. Words have consequences so if extreme enough, it should be treated in a similar manner to how physical violence is treated.
    bs

    No one has a right not to feel a certain chemical reaction to someone else's words. That's neurological fascism, that you're not allowed to say something that produces a certain chemical reaction in the brain. ****ing hell!

    We don't have a social duty to protect people from their own reactions. If they want to be protected little children and not venture into the real world they can choose to only listen to opinions they like. It's called taking personal responsibility for your own emotional frailty; frailty is a trait which is your responsibility not some strangers on the internet, and nor is it a legitimate concern of state power.

    Yes words have consequences. When a word leads to violence, we shouldpunish the violence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tai Ga)
    To lessen the potential spread of radical ideas and ignorance? Wot do you mean check mate?
    How would radical ideas spread if nobody is listening or wants to listen? Thats what you said...

    Yes censoring ideas and expression is how we enlighten ourselves

    It means "ZING" it means the flaw in your thinking i just identified is "SO WOKE"
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by banterboy)
    bs

    No one has a right not to feel a certain chemical reaction to someone else's words. That's neurological fascism, that you're not allowed to say something that produces a certain chemical reaction in the brain. ****ing hell!.
    Oh grow up, seriously. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the meaning of kindness but fortunately most of society does so psychopathic views like yours will be left behind.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    Speech that offends is hate speech, I find that ridiculous.

    I would say it is a basic human right because I believe that you should be able to say whatever you like, I mean words are just words. Agree to disagree.
    They weren't just words when Hitler convinced many people that the Jews were evil and secretly running their countries. And this isn't just in extreme situations, as Hitler is far from the only example.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Oh grow up, seriously. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the meaning of kindness but fortunately most of society does so psychopathic views like yours will be left behind.
    Translation:

    I disagree but don't have an argument so im gonna call my opponent "psychopath" because demonising challengers to my beliefs make me feel safe, and defending my views is stressful. If he is labelled with a boo boo word what he says can't be valid....right..?

    lol. triggered much.

    btw, you are literally advocating that "kindness" should be state enforced. Think about the serious implications of that for a while, if you are able to contemplate other points of view that is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I can only hope attitudes and lack of understanding free speech itt are a common reoccuring thing seen in every generation that most young people struggle with in their teens because if not, we may have a pretty grim future
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    How would radical ideas spread if nobody is listening or wants to listen? Thats what you said...

    Yes censoring ideas and expression is how we enlighten ourselves

    It means "ZING" it means the flaw in your thinking i just identified is "SO WOKE"
    well obviously there's a select niche of people who habour similar views. My mistake, i didn't literally mean every individual member of the human race is tolerant, just the vast majority. Regardless, some people are very easy to influence, so reducing the risk of a future Hitler is always welcomed.

    Because racism, homophobia and sexism truly enlighten individuals.

    Right....congrats. You sure got me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tai Ga)
    well obviously there's a select niche of people who habour similar views. My mistake, i didn't literally mean every individual member of the human race is tolerant, just the vast majority. Regardless, some people are very easy to influence, so reducing the risk of a future Hitler is always welcomed.

    Because racism, homophobia and sexism truly enlighten individuals.

    Right....congrats. You sure got me.
    A future hitler would need widespread support.. thats the cool things about democratic voting. If we censor peoples views, how are we gonna know who NOT to elect... ?

    Well they kind of do, otherwise there would not be such widespread condemnation and disgust towards them 3 would there?

    Brushing it under the rug, pretending ignorance does not exist and censoring any evidence of it does not make it go away. It does the opposite
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    They weren't just words when Hitler convinced many people that the Jews were evil and secretly running their countries. And this isn't just in extreme situations, as Hitler is far from the only example.
    And how does mentioning Hitler and his skewed views (to say the least) count as an argument for banning hate speech? With these sorts of leaders they aren't exactly an example of why "hate speech" should be banned, I mean they banned hate speech (or what they considered it to be) too.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    And how does mentioning Hitler and his skewed views (to say the least) count as an argument for banning hate speech? With these sorts of leaders they aren't exactly an example of why "hate speech" should be banned, I mean they banned hate speech (or what they considered it to be) too.
    Are you not aware that his various speeches and writings about Jews would be considered hate speech by any standard? Or that such hate speech (which was advocated by other leaders both in the past and present day in other parts of the world) has led to anger and hatred towards certain groups of people, resulting in in their physical harm.

    Inciting hatred is NEVER "just words".

    Clearly the Weimar Republic's hate speech laws were insufficient.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    A future hitler would need widespread support.. thats the cool things about democratic voting. If we censor peoples views, how are we gonna know who NOT to elect... ?

    Well they kind of do, otherwise there would not be such widespread condemnation and disgust towards them 3 would there?

    Brushing it under the rug, pretending ignorance does not exist and censoring any evidence of it does not make it go away. It does the opposite
    Fair enough with your two initial points, I can agree with those. I suppose that's why political groups like the BNP have so little support because the general public condemns their beliefs.

    I don't think society is necessarily brushing it under the rug, but rather not encouraging it. I can't think of any examples where disallowing homophobes and racists a platform has backfired.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.