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

What is the difference between 'free speech' and 'racial hatred'? watch

  • View Poll Results: What is the difference between 'free speech' and 'racial hatred'?
    We should be able to say what we want, when we want.
    33
    41.25%
    There is a line. Some things should only be disscused in private not public.
    35
    43.75%
    Nobody gets an opinion.
    5
    6.25%
    I don't care.
    7
    8.75%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are alot of these 'burn holy books, burn poppies' debates and, to be frank I wanted to know, out of interest, what people think the difference between the two are.

    'freedom of speech' and 'inciting racial hatred/freedom of expression' seem to get mixed into the other. I just want to highlight: "In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

    Why do people do things in retaliation to others and why is it people blame the minority over the majority. A recent example of this was the Pastor Terry Jones story which resulted in the death of UN members by extremists. The two extremes battle amongst eachother and the between are caught in the crossfire.

    Is this therefore similar to say the BNP, a legal political party or even Nazism?

    The point of this is to see what people think is and isn't okay regarding freedom of speech and expression. Please can we not get too heated.

    (Sorry about re-posting. The first doesn't seem to cooperate with my laptop...)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think maybe there's a difference between stating your opinion, which some people may find offensive, and saying something with the intention of offending people. Often you know some people will be offended by your views, and if that wasn't allowed then we simply wouldn't be able to say anything at all. But that's not quite the same as saying something because it will offend people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political correctness.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I think maybe there's a difference between stating your opinion, which some people may find offensive, and saying something with the intention of offending people. Often you know some people will be offended by your views, and if that wasn't allowed then we simply wouldn't be able to say anything at all. But that's not quite the same as saying something because it will offend people.
    On the other hand... how can you tell the difference between people doing it deliberately to offend people and people who simply hold the views? And why should the government prevent the the offensive people from offending people?

    If I declare I hate Juice in the middle of a crowded square then Juice Lovers are going to get offended. Some Juice Lovers might think that I did it deliberately to offend them but I merely hate Juice and all it stands for. Should I be prevented for declaring my hatred of Juice? In fact, if I hate Juice, surely I would want to offend Juice Lovers and that's why I went to the crowded square to declare my hatred for Juice? Should the government intervene to prevent my hatred of Juice from offending Juice Lovers? Slap me with a restraining order against Juice Lovers?

    I don't believe 'The Right to Not Be Offended' is a thing the Government has any moral authority enforcing. Society itself manages much better, placing taboos on topics and disregarding the speakers. It is much better to simply not give these people a platform than to legislate against them. Also, just because the vast majority of sovereign nations restrict the freedom of expression doesn't mean you or I have to agree with the vast majority of nations.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pooo)
    Personally, I've been in a good few fights with white people over racial insults they have thrown at my asian friends. And what really scared me was that my coloured (am I allowed to say that?) friends seem to accept it/think it was acceptable.
    If only my friends were like you!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think there's an easy difference to tell to be honest.

    And I use Islam as an example here, because it is one of the most common debates.

    Should I say, 'Emperically speaking Mohammed is such and such, and due to their scripture I find Islam abhorrent' then I feel I should be free to say that.
    Should I say, 'Mohammed is a dirty such and such, and all Muzzies are filthy this that and the other and should bog off' then I should not.

    Equally

    If a Muslims says, 'My religion says I shan't like gay people, or adulterers and so on and so on' then this is fine
    If a Muslim says, 'The West is full of filthy immoral Kuffars and must change by the violent will of Allah' then that is not ok.

    There is a reasonable line between hateful insult and legitimate criticsm. Personally I would see no such laws over speech inciting hatred, I would advocate true free speech, except in the cases of libel and defemation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    On the other hand... how can you tell the difference between people doing it deliberately to offend people and people who simply hold the views?
    Sometimes its blatantly obvious though. A BNP politician burning a Koran, some protesters openly burning poppies on armistice day, a pastor publicising the burn a Koran day, all of these were done in such a manner publicly to cause offence. If people kick off then some of the blame should be apportioned to the people who cause the offence, as that is why they committed these acts, to provoke.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I feel we should be able to say what we want, when we want. I think total freedom of speech/expression is essential to a democracy, even if it could be used by certain groups to incite racial hatred. People listening to those groups have a choice of whether or not to feel offended/incited by their words and have the ability to think about why they should feel offended/incited. Personally, I don't feel there is good reason to feel offended by words/expression.

    However, I think the only exception to total freedom of expression should be where the target is affected physically. For example, I would be against physically hurting a Jew/Muslim/Hindu to express hatred for them, but I would be OK with someone burning their holy books to express their hatred.

    Where the target was physically affected, there is good reason for the expression to be limited, as the target has no choice whether or not to feel pain.
    Where the target was not physically affected (e.g. burning holy books), they had a choice of whether or not to feel offended by the expression.


    "Why do people do things in retaliation to others?"
    If we're talking about doing things in retaliation to offence which isn't physical, I feel it's due to their prides feeling hurt. In my opinion, that's not a good enough reason to feel offended/limit the freedom of expression of someone else.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Bloody icis

    Nah I see Freedom Speech as "We should be able to say what we want, when we want" :cool:
    But not if we're wearing a balaclava with a bobble on eh?

    What's all this I hear about France taking the military initiative against Gbagbo? I assume his followers didn't have Mirage jets or veal crates.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by CODKING)
    But not if we're wearing a balaclava with a bobble on eh?
    I want to be able to see faces, how do I know it isn't a man under there about to rob me? but as usual those Muslims think we are attacking them.
    What's all this I hear about France taking the military initiative against Gbagbo? I assume his followers didn't have Mirage jets or veal crates.
    No one wanted him in power... we removed him :cool: we were within our right to sort out those evil doers :evil:
    Answers in bold.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Answers in bold.
    If it's cold I will wear my balaclava (okay the bobble looks a bit like a minaret but there’s no Muezzin in there) and I bet the gendarmes won't touch me.

    So Algeria was all about the French responding to the desires of indigenous population then? :naughty:

    Tell the truth now or I'll use my pidgin franglaise on you.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think the only limits on free speech should be when you are actively calling for the death of an individual and maybe violence also.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    the "hate" part.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meteorshower)
    I think the only limits on free speech should be when you are actively calling for the death of an individual and maybe violence also.
    This.

    The only sort of state intervention on free speech should be when it is:

    - Threatening violence.
    - Inciting violence.
    - Is of a harassing nature.

    There should be no legally enforceable right to be offended - it is far too subjective.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by CODKING)
    So Algeria was all about the French responding to the desires of indigenous population then? :naughty:
    Yes it was, it was a 'magnifique' victory for the French people, liberating those Algerian's... from our rule

    Or have I missed a recent event?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Yes it was, it was a 'magnifique' victory for the French people, liberating those Algerian's... from our rule

    Or have I missed a recent event?
    You are being naughty again Teh. Algeria was a dark chapter in French history and rather too convenient to forget. Don't make me play my Waterloo card or Moscow joker!
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by CODKING)
    You are being naughty again Teh. Algeria was a dark chapter in French history and rather too convenient to forget. Don't make me play my Waterloo card or Moscow joker!
    Dark chapter :eek: we liberated them, we said it was time for them to be free and they said no so we went to war to make them independent

    But seriously a lot of French people see it as a victory
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Dark chapter :eek: we liberated them, we said it was time for them to be free and they said no so we went to war to make them independent

    But seriously a lot of French people see it as a victory
    How does that work? :confused:
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    How does that work? :confused:
    I was joking, they actually wanted independence (not us forcing freedom on them), we said no then double backed after we started to lose and declared it a victory... confusing I know but that is how it is seen by a fair few :lol:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaysWho?)
    There are alot of these 'burn holy books, burn poppies' debates and, to be frank I wanted to know, out of interest, what people think the difference between the two are.

    'freedom of speech' and 'inciting racial hatred/freedom of expression' seem to get mixed into the other. I just want to highlight: "In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

    Why do people do things in retaliation to others and why is it people blame the minority over the majority. A recent example of this was the Pastor Terry Jones story which resulted in the death of UN members by extremists. The two extremes battle amongst eachother and the between are caught in the crossfire.

    Is this therefore similar to say the BNP, a legal political party or even Nazism?

    The point of this is to see what people think is and isn't okay regarding freedom of speech and expression. Please can we not get too heated.

    (Sorry about re-posting. The first doesn't seem to cooperate with my laptop...)
    hate speech is a load of politically correct horse ****.

    mill explained what the limits of free speech should be in his essay "on liberty". he basically said that people should be able to do, or say, what they like, so long as what they do or say does not cause any direct harm to anyone else. he noted that by harm the standard should be set quite high, that is to say, because a sensitive person doesn't like rough talk, that does not constitute real harm, real harm is say inciting someone to beat someone else up.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.