Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tai Ga)
    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.
    Thats because you wouldnt see the effects. Put yourself in a racists shoes.. what would be more demoralising and make you question internally your views:

    1) 5 years of free expression to get your views across via platforming, videos and propaganda and seeing little support

    2) Being censored and marginalised, not given the opportunity to speak and seeing your support fall a tiny amount or stay the same as 1.

    Pretty easy to rationalise why your views are failing with number 2 and it certainly wont be "because most people think my views suck"
    Offline

    13
    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.
    Meanwhile without freedom of speech these things would still be the norm.

    hmm.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    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.
    If someone like Hitler tried to become a politician people just wouldn't vote for him, beauty of democracy.
    How Hitler is relevant in a discussion on the hate speech law in the UK is beyond me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    If someone like Hitler tried to become a politician people just wouldn't vote for him, beauty of democracy.
    How Hitler is relevant in a discussion on the hate speech law in the UK is beyond me.
    I don't think you understand demagoguery. Hitler and many far-right leaders rise to popularity precisely by expressing and normalising hate speech in the public sphere.

    I noticed you're an ex-Muslim. Great, so am I! Now do you think we ought to allow radical preachers to express hate-speech demonising ex-Muslims, the LGBTQ+ community, etc in the public sphere?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    I don't think you understand demagoguery. Hitler and many far-right leaders rise to popularity precisely by expressing and normalising hate speech in the public sphere.
    It is just speech, lets punish them if it becomes violence. I doubt some far right leader will take over the UK and introduce race segregation. Allowing such people to speak is good because it allows for a conversation, how else can we combat genuine bigotry? Policing speech isn't the solution.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    If someone like Hitler tried to become a politician people just wouldn't vote for him, beauty of democracy.
    How Hitler is relevant in a discussion on the hate speech law in the UK is beyond me.
    Are you so sure about that? After all, he DID receive 37% of votes (worrying), and other rulers who expressed intention to do harm to people they didn't like have been elected before.

    And it's not just about stopping people like that from becoming elected leaders, it's also about preventing the attacks on the minority groups who they incite hatred against.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    It is just speech, lets punish them if it becomes violence. I doubt some far right leader will take over the UK and introduce race segregation. Allowing such people to speak is good because it allows for a conversation, how else can we combat genuine bigotry? Policing speech isn't the solution.
    They all say that

    I think you've misunderstood the original intent to allow freedom of speech. Liberal philosophers' main argument to allow free speech was the argument from truth; freedom of speech for the sake of abusing is not necessarily a good thing, and we don't need to allow explicit bigotry in order to combat it. It's not "just speech" when such speech has real-life consequences.

    But let's cut to the chase: you want people to be able to express their honest opinions on Islam without being prosecuted for it. Well, we can do that under current law! By all means criticise the teachings of Islam, but I'd suggest you do it via an appropriate medium i.e. written text online, university debates, etc in order to avoid pissing off people in public. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can shout Islamophobic statements on the street to any Muslims walking by.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Are you so sure about that? After all, he DID receive 37% of votes (worrying), and other rulers who expressed intention to do harm to people they didn't like have been elected before.

    And it's not just about stopping people like that from becoming elected leaders, it's also about preventing the attacks on the minority groups who they incite hatred against.
    Perhaps we should start by silencing any black lives matter groups. Or are we only going to silence those who have views

    (Original post by blah3210)
    They all say that

    I think you've misunderstood the original intent to allow freedom of speech. Liberal philosophers' main argument was the argument from truth; freedom of speech in itself is not necessarily a good thing, and we don't need to allow explicit bigotry in order to combat it.
    Unfortunately I do not take liberal philosophers' words as gospel. I do not think that freedom of speech is a good thing in itself, but I see it as a fundamental right. We shouldn't be combating speech is what I am saying, actions yes. I do not agree that we should mollycoddle people, if you don't agree with something then walk away from it. I am not endorsing harassment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    Perhaps we should start by silencing any black lives matter groups. Or are we only going to silence those who have views.
    Those BLM activists calling for violence and dehumanising certain groups should be subject to hate speech laws. By the way, I noticed that you did not answer blah3210's question about radical preachers.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    Unfortunately I do not take liberal philosophers' words as gospel. I do not think that freedom of speech is a good thing in itself, but I see it as a fundamental right. We shouldn't be combating speech is what I am saying, actions yes. I do not agree that we should mollycoddle people, if you don't agree with something then walk away from it. I am not endorsing harassment.
    Well, then you need to provide good arguments that the philosophers haven't already considered. WHY should absolute freedom of speech be a fundamental right? Why should racist speech be allowed when according to numerous studies, even the mere anticipation of racism triggers stress responses that are detrimental to one's physical and mental health?

    No one is saying we should mollycoddle people. If you disagree and/or are triggered by even normal disagreements, then yes, you should walk away. But WHY should I, as a POC, walk away just to allow some chav the right to abuse me and my family? Why should we have to be inconvenienced for the sake of meaningless, unnecessary and more importantly, harmful speech?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    I noticed you're an ex-Muslim. Great, so am I! Now do you think we ought to allow radical preachers to express hate-speech demonising ex-Muslims, the LGBTQ+ community, etc in the public sphere?
    He probably isn't, a sizeable portion of the people who join the ExMuSOC have never been Muslims. Some join to learn about our experiences and engage in critical discussion of religion. Others join because they have certain anti-Muslim views which they think we endorse and are looking for validation from us because they think it will reinforce that they are right.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Those BLM activists calling for violence and dehumanising certain groups should be subject to hate speech laws. By the way, I noticed that you did not answer blah3210's question about radical preachers.
    He edits what he wrote after I've already replied or after I have clicked reply and I'm writing a response. I didn't re-read his post, so I never saw it.

    (Original post by blah3210)
    I noticed you're an ex-Muslim. Great, so am I! Now do you think we ought to allow radical preachers to express hate-speech demonising ex-Muslims, the LGBTQ+ community, etc in the public sphere?
    Sure. That's the thing, a lot of people say they want freedom of speech but don't want it for views they don't agree with. I am fine with people voicing their opinions whatever they may be.

    (Original post by blah3210)
    But let's cut to the chase: you want people to be able to express their honest opinions on Islam without being prosecuted for it. Well, we can do that under current law! By all means criticise the teachings of Islam, but I'd suggest you do it via an appropriate medium i.e. written text online, university debates, etc in order to avoid pissing off people in public. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can shout Islamophobic statements on the street to any Muslims walking by.
    Of course I want to do that. Well opposers of Islamism and feminism are barred from universities because apparently their words count as hate speech. People would not be able to abuse this law if it didn't exist. And obviously if I wanted to criticise Islam I wouldn't do it to a random muslim passer-by (I find that to be in poor taste). And I hope by pissing people off you meant what I just mentioned and not to avoid hurting a muslim's feelings. Oh god, Islamaphobic.....one of my least favourite words. And I wouldn't harass strangers on the street.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    1) Well, then you need to provide good arguments that the philosophers haven't already considered.
    WHY should absolute freedom of speech be a fundamental right? Why should racist speech be allowed when according to numerous studies, even the mere anticipation of racism triggers stress responses that are detrimental to one's physical and mental health?

    No one is saying we should mollycoddle people. If you disagree and/or are triggered by even normal disagreements, then yes, you should walk away. But WHY should I, as a POC, walk away just to allow some chav the right to abuse me and my family? Why should we have to be inconvenienced for the sake of meaningless, unnecessary and more importantly, harmful speech?
    1) I just said that I don't take their word as gospel...
    2) Well why shouldn't it be? Speech in itself isn't directly hurting someone. Why should anyone keep silent? We shouldn't police speech, because it doesn't really solve anything. Genuine racists will always be around. What has banning hate speech achieved? Freedom of speech is universal, so if you have a problem with something someone said, by all means reply to them. It's not like if someone said something hurtful you must run away and cry...

    We could use the bold bit as an excuse for a lot of things...

    Harassment =/= freedom of speech. I don't know if it was you who I told this to but, even in America where they have freedom of speech (in it's entirety) they have laws against harassment. And I don't think that if freedom of speech (without limitations) was implemented in the UK we'd have a surge of racists...

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    He probably isn't, a sizeable portion of the people who join the ExMuSOC have never been Muslims. Some join to learn about our experiences and engage in critical discussion of religion. Others join because they have certain anti-Muslim views which they think we endorse and are looking for validation from us because they think it will reinforce that they are right.
    She*
    Please continue to assume things about me, I'm enjoying this. Of course only a straight white male would oppose your views. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    Sure. That's the thing, a lot of people say they want freedom of speech but don't want it for views they don't agree with. I am fine with people voicing their opinions whatever they may be.
    So you want to allow preachers to stir up religious hatred that would not only cause significant alarm or distress, but would likely inspire the more gullible fundamentalists to act upon such speech and harm your fellow ex-Muslims? You do realise it's mere speech that can incite conflicts and hatred?

    Of course I want to do that. Well opposers of Islamism and feminism are barred from universities because apparently their words count as hate speech.
    What the universities do is up to them. I'm talking about common law where criticism of Islamism or feminism isn't considered hate speech.

    People would not be able to abuse this law if it didn't exist. And obviously if I wanted to criticise Islam I wouldn't do it to a random muslim passer-by (I find that to be in poor taste). And I hope by pissing people off you meant what I just mentioned and not to avoid hurting a muslim's feelings. Oh god, Islamaphobic.....one of my least favourite words. And I wouldn't harass strangers on the street.
    Yes, that's what I meant. You and I find it to be in poor-taste, but the more dedicated Islamophobes wouldn't care. What you personally wouldn't do is irrelevant; when it comes to legislation, we have to take into account the very real possibility of public inflammatory speech. The line between harassment and hate-speech is very thin, if existent at all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    So you want to allow preachers to stir up religious hatred that would not only cause significant alarm or distress, but would likely inspire the more gullible fundamentalists to act upon such speech and harm your fellow ex-Muslims? You do realise it's mere speech that can incite conflicts and hatred?
    They do it right now...How has banning hate speech stopped any of that? It hasn't stopped harm to ex-muslims. Sure it might not be as overt, but they still preach it. Plus extremists will find anything online...
    If the issue is that people will become extremists (and do violent acts) just because someone said so then we do not have a speech issue, we have an IQ issue.

    What the universities do is up to them. I'm talking about common law where criticism of Islamism or feminism isn't considered hate speech.
    They hide their excuse under law though...

    Yes, that's what I meant. You and I find it to be in poor-taste, but the more dedicated Islamophobes wouldn't care. What you personally wouldn't do is irrelevant; when it comes to legislation, we have to take into account the very real possibility of public inflammatory speech. The line between harassment and hate-speech is very thin, if existent at all.
    We can only speculate how people will act if hate speech was no longer banned. And it's not that I'm pro hate speech, more that there are issues with the ban.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    1) I just said that I don't take their word as gospel...
    Sure. Hence I'm asking you to present your own arguments then. Not that the philosophers haven't already considered these arguments before...

    2) Well why shouldn't it be? Speech in itself isn't directly hurting someone.
    You sure about that? Do you not understand the concept of incitement? Moreover I gave the example of racism being linked to health. I could give numerous other examples ranging from defamation to leaking secrets. It's absurd to say speech doesn't hurt anyone.

    Why should anyone keep silent? We shouldn't police speech, because it doesn't really solve anything.
    But it does. Criminalising things often leads to a decrease in the occurrence of said things. It becomes part of the conventional psyche in society.

    Genuine racists will always be around. What has banning hate speech achieved?
    It has certainly limited their presence in the public, and it has lead to the de-normalisation of racism.

    Freedom of speech is universal, so if you have a problem with something someone said, by all means reply to them. It's not like if someone said something hurtful you must run away and cry...
    Why should I waste my time verbally combatting racists while I'm out and about?


    We could use the bold bit as an excuse for a lot of things...
    Excuse for censorship and/or prosecution? That would depend on the individual cases. The purpose of my example was to refute this silly notion that "speech doesn't hurt anybody".

    Harassment =/= freedom of speech. I don't know if it was you who I told this to but, even in America where they have freedom of speech (in it's entirety)
    No they don't, but I wouldn't compare USA and UK in terms of race relations if I were you!

    they have laws against harassment. And I don't think that if freedom of speech (without limitations) was implemented in the UK we'd have a surge of racists...
    ...that's precisely what we'd have.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    They do it right now...
    Report them where you see them. This isn't an argument against legislation.

    It hasn't stopped harm to ex-muslims. Sure it might not be as overt, but they still preach it. Plus extremists will find anything online...
    Well, there you go RE: online radicalisation, I agree we need to combat it more effectively.

    If the issue is that people will become extremists (and do violent acts) just because someone said so then we do not have a speech issue, we have an IQ issue.
    Gullible people will always be around. I don't think we can do much about that unfortunately, hence the need to make extremist material not-as-accessible.

    They hide their excuse under law though...
    Not saying you're lying but can you give an example?

    We can only speculate how people will act if hate speech was no longer banned. And it's not that I'm pro hate speech, more that there are issues with the ban.
    It's not a speculation. It's just how law works. I'm sorry, but I'd rather deny absolute free speech than face the very substantial consequences of hate-speech.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    He probably isn't, a sizeable portion of the people who join the ExMuSOC have never been Muslims. Some join to learn about our experiences and engage in critical discussion of religion. Others join because they have certain anti-Muslim views which they think we endorse and are looking for validation from us because they think it will reinforce that they are right.
    No she's a legitimate ex-mus but yeah, the likes of QE2 are just sad! It's one of the reasons I don't go there anymore, it's just an anti-theist, Dawkins-esque circle-jerk.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    Sure. Hence I'm asking you to present your own arguments then. Not that the philosophers haven't already considered these arguments before...
    I said their words aren't gospel, not that their logic is flawed. Of course they've considered it. I just don't go saying philosopher X said Y therefore Z is bad. Freedom of speech is universal so it's fair, but when we one or more persons decide which type of speech is or isn't allowed then that isn't equal...

    You sure about that? Do you not understand the concept of incitement? Moreover I gave the example of racism being linked to health. I could give numerous other examples ranging from defamation to leaking secrets. It's absurd to say speech doesn't hurt anyone.
    When the violence does (if it does that is) happen then lets deal with that. Leaking secrets isn't freedom of speech now is it. Freedom of speech doesn't mean your words don't have consequences.

    But it does. Criminalising things often leads to a decrease in the occurrence of said things. It becomes part of the conventional psyche in society.
    Really? Really though? Really? One word. Drugs.

    It has certainly limited their presence in the public, and it has lead to the de-normalisation of racism.
    Any person worth listening to can see why racism is wrong, if people become racists because Keith from Sunderland thinks that blacks are the root of all evil then I'm worried.

    Why should I waste my time verbally combatting racists while I'm out and about?
    And if someone is verbally abusive to you today while you're out, what would you do? Call the police? Most people ignore people like that and go on with their lives.


    Excuse for censorship and/or prosecution? That would depend on the individual cases. The purpose of my example was to refute this silly notion that "speech doesn't hurt anybody".
    People will say hurtful things regardless of what the law has to say, you just have to move on.

    No they don't, but I wouldn't compare USA and UK in terms of race relations if I were you!
    They have institutional racism, I forgot whoops...:rolleyes:

    ...that's precisely what we'd have.
    Speculation.

    (Original post by blah3210)
    Report them where you see them. This isn't an argument against legislation.
    Yup it is, if a law is failing to prevent what it set out to do, then it should be revised...

    Well, there you go RE: online radicalisation, I agree we need to combat it more effectively.
    That isn't easy or exactly possible...

    Gullible people will always be around. I don't think we can do much about that unfortunately, hence the need to make extremist material not-as-accessible.
    We must educate the gullible people then.

    Not saying you're lying but can you give an example?
    Oh wait I'm wrong. They're not hiding under laws (I would prefer that), they want the university to be a safe space... *facepalm*
    http://www.independent.co.uk/student...-a6818896.html

    It's not a speculation. It's just how law works. I'm sorry, but I'd rather deny absolute free speech than face the very substantial consequences of hate-speech.
    It is speculation, seeing as we can't predict the future accurately yet.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    I said their words aren't gospel, not that their logic is flawed. Of course they've considered it. I just don't go saying philosopher X said Y therefore Z is bad. Freedom of speech is universal so it's fair, but when we one or more persons decide which type of speech is or isn't allowed then that isn't equal...
    Well, we actually have a few selected people who decide what is and isn't allowed: policymakers and judges! The emboldened bit literally doesn't follow.

    When the violence does (if it does that is) happen then lets deal with that.
    I'd rather deal with the first step and prevent violence.

    Leaking secrets isn't freedom of speech now is it.
    Yes it is. You don't get to decide what is or isn't free-speech.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean your words don't have consequences.
    That's what I'm saying!

    Really? Really though? Really? One word. Drugs.
    I did say often Drugs are interesting, I'm actually in favour of legalisation of drugs like weed since it they're not that harmful. But picking one example doesn't discredit the general principle of deterrence in law.

    Any person worth listening to can see why racism is wrong, if people become racists because Keith from Sunderland thinks that blacks are the root of all evil then I'm worried.
    I think you give people far too much credit. You're forgetting that Keith from Sunderland being able to shout slurs in the name of free-speech would normalise said speech.

    And if someone is verbally abusive to you today while you're out, what would you do? Call the police? Most people ignore people like that and go on with their lives.
    I think it's highly disingenuous to compare hate speech and racial abuse to other forms of verbally offensive marks. If I were being racially abused, say, on public transport, I'd record a video as evidence and report the incident.


    They have institutional racism, I forgot whoops...:rolleyes:
    Nahhh, I'm sure black people in America are just genetically more prone to crime, more prone to getting shot, etc :rolleyes:

    Speculation.
    Someone needs to learn criminology 101!

    Yup it is, if a law is failing to prevent what it set out to do, then it should be revised...
    But we just established it's not "as overt", so clearly it's working. Should be abolish criminal laws based on the fact that they don't prevent crimes 100%?

    That isn't easy or exactly possible...
    We can make radical extremists material more inaccessible on social media, and I'm sure we'll make progress in this area.

    We must educate the gullible people then.
    We do that already.

    Oh wait I'm wrong. They're not hiding under laws (I would prefer that), they want the university to be a safe space... *facepalm*
    http://www.independent.co.uk/student...-a6818896.html
    The silly SJWs do go too far sometimes don't they :rofl:

    It is speculation, seeing as we can't predict the future accurately yet.
    That's incorrect. Human legislators and sociologists are surprisingly good at predicting human behavior.
 
 
 
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
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.