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

Do we really have free speech? And when does free speech become hate speech? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Definition of free speech: 'the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.'

    Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights says that we all have the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. However, how true is this? I've always found this hard to understand, since although some people claim we have free speech, it is known that if we have a controversial opinion (e.g. Racist, homophobic etc) it can be labelled as 'hate speech' and therefore be censored. If we truly had free speech - surely this wouldn't happen. The line between free speech and hate speech is becoming incredibly fuzzy. I'd like to ask for your opinion:
    Do we really have free speech? And when does free speech become hate speech?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Title should say 'Do we'. Apologies
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BuddingRetard)
    Definition of free speech: 'the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.'

    Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights says that we all have the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. However, how true is this? I've always found this hard to understand, since although some people claim we have free speech, it is known that if we have a controversial opinion (e.g. Racist, homophobic etc) it can be labelled as 'hate speech' and therefore be censored. If we truly had free speech - surely this wouldn't happen. The line between free speech and hate speech is becoming incredibly fuzzy. I'd like to ask for your opinion:
    Do we really have free speech? And when does free speech become hate speech?
    Free speech turns into hate speech if it can harm somebody by inciting violence.

    e.g if a radical 'Muslim' cleric incites violence against a group that is hate speech not free speech.

    If a right wing group, e.g. EDL incites violence against Muslims, that is hate speech not free speech.

    Spreading your political or religious views peacefully is free speech.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    In the UK we don't truly have free speech as, like you point out, the government has the power to censor certain ideas. Actually, the UK seems to be retreating in terms of the types of speech permitted, with the government seeking to ban encryption and restricting freedoms of the press.

    When it comes to hate speech specifically, I'm not convinced that making it illegal to express certain ideas, no matter how unpalatable they might be, is the appropriate reaction. The conversations move underground and we have no idea what's being said, which leaves us unprepared.

    There is also a very large social pressure from the left at the moment to silence ideas that are believed to be socially harmful, but this is often done out of confusion. There have been many examples recently of intellectuals being de-platformed because people have reacted emotionally to their work. Charles Murray is a notable example, who was de-platformed (and subjected to violence) because his groundbreaking book The Bell Curve identified IQ as being hereditary, and people object to this as an idea, whether or not it is backed by the evidence, and whether or not it is the accepted view among psychologists.

    It's a difficult time for advocates of free speech.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    We really have free speech but lets enjoy it while it lasts. We got lil snowflakes who can't stand to hear an opinion different than theirs and start to call anyone who tries to argue with them a sexist, bigot, Islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic etc.
    Free speech is considered hate speech when it calls for the annihilation or inciting violence against a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, or political views.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    We have the right to free speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other individuals as recognised by the Declaration of Human Rights. The laws against hate speech should be about protecting individuals, not ideologies.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Alright I'm going to say it...

    In most situations there is no such thing as hate speech, only differences of opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMR2017)
    Free speech turns into hate speech if it can harm somebody by inciting violence.

    e.g if a radical 'Muslim' cleric incites violence against a group that is hate speech not free speech.

    If a right wing group, e.g. EDL incites violence against Muslims, that is hate speech not free speech.

    Spreading your political or religious views peacefully is free speech.
    I see what you mean. However, if someone has an extremely racist and derogatory view, that they spread peacefully (through newspapers/other media) - would you regard that as hate speech? And if that view was to be censored, would you support the censorship, or would you see the act of censoring it as against the idea of free speech?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BuddingRetard)
    I see what you mean. However, if someone has an extremely racist and derogatory view, that they spread peacefully (through newspapers/other media) - would you regard that as hate speech? And if that view was to be censored, would you support the censorship, or would you see the act of censoring it as against the idea of free speech?
    It depends on the context. Most of the time, extremely racist views often excite people to violence. Could you provide a hypothetical scenario?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by waleed99)
    We really have free speech but lets enjoy it while it lasts. We got lil snowflakes who can't stand to hear an opinion different than theirs and start to call anyone who tries to argue with them a sexist, bigot, Islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic etc.
    Free speech is considered hate speech when it calls for the annihilation or inciting violence against a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, or political views.
    The idea of inciting violence is one I find interesting. Don't you think that any view/belief could incite violence if it's supporters believe in it strongly enough? I don't know, maybe I'm completely wrong, but I'm just curious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMR2017)
    It depends on the context. Most of the time, extremely racist views often excite people to violence. Could you provide a hypothetical scenario?
    Scenario: The Sun posts a controversial article, saying that 'black people are less evolved than white people, are dirty etc.' or another article that says that 'All immigrants from [particular country] are lazy scrounges/stealing benefits'
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BuddingRetard)
    Scenario: The Sun posts a controversial article, saying that 'black people are less evolved than white people, are dirty etc.' or another article that says that 'All immigrants from [particular country] are lazy scrounges/stealing benefits'
    It seems this is already allowed in the UK. However, despite the distastefulness of these views and also lack of truth, they should be allowed to be published on the ground of freedom of speech.

    However the press also has a responsibility to be at least truthful, and making such comments would not be so, so the articles may be objectionable because of something else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMR2017)
    It seems this is already allowed in the UK. However, despite the distastefulness of these views and also lack of truth, they should be allowed to be published on the ground of freedom of speech.

    However the press also has a responsibility to be at least truthful, and making such comments would not be so, so the articles may be objectionable because of something else.
    Good response, thanks for your opinion
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No we do not, and hate speech includes speech intended to incite hatred/violence against a particular group (rather subjective)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    We have the right to free speech as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other individuals as recognised by the Declaration of Human Rights. The laws against hate speech should be about protecting individuals, not ideologies.
    If that's true why is a YouTuber facing a year in prison for this video?

    What rights of others has he infringed on?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Free speech is not an absolute right anyway. Who decides what "hate speech" is? Now people are being censored because they disagree with a certain point of view, which is worrying.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    If that's true why is a YouTuber facing a year in prison for this video?

    What rights of others has he infringed on?
    It is not for me to enforce the law.

    Article 1 of the Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

    Article 2 says that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

    Article 3 says that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

    and so on.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    There have been many examples recently of intellectuals being de-platformed because people have reacted emotionally to their work. Charles Murray is a notable example, who was de-platformed (and subjected to violence) because his groundbreaking book The Bell Curve identified IQ as being hereditary, and people object to this as an idea, whether or not it is backed by the evidence, and whether or not it is the accepted view among psychologists.
    Being "de-platformed" is not an infringement on the right to free speech. Just because a certain organisation or company refuses to entertain a person's viewpoint, does not suddenly make that viewpoint illegal. The same rights granted to the person to defend their speech apply equally to the organisation no-platforming them, as such both have a right to disagree with each other.

    While I can't say I always agree with debates being silenced this way, it is not an attack on our freedoms, in fact it's quite the opposite.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    Being "de-platformed" is not an infringement on the right to free speech. Just because a certain organisation or company refuses to entertain a person's viewpoint, does not suddenly make that viewpoint illegal. The same rights granted to the person to defend their speech apply equally to the organisation no-platforming them, as such both have a right to disagree with each other.

    While I can't say I always agree with debates being silenced this way, it is not an attack on our freedoms, in fact it's quite the opposite.
    It's true that deplatforming isn't an infringement on a person's right to free speech, but it does in my opinion speak to a growing attitude that opinions and views can be simply shouted away, based simply on whether one dislikes them. This is not a healthy environment for society and runs contrary to the spirit of allowing ideas to have free expression. Perhaps this wouldn't be much of a problem if we were talking about people producing hate speech, but the victims here are public intellectuals. Not listening to what educated people have to say is likely a recipe for society becoming more stupid and close-minded.

    I can't agree that it makes us more free (i.e., the opposite of an attack on our freedoms) - in a civil and reasonable society a person would simply not attend (or in an extreme case boycott) an event that they disagreed with, but the people who do wish to attend the event and hear what a person has to say would still be able to attend. An event would merely be unsuccessful with low attendance. When a speaker is deplatformed however, the people who wish to attend are surely having their freedom to attend restricted. This isn't a freedom that people have a right to, but a person would nevertheless be freer to have a choice of whether to attend. This is before considering the prolific amount of insults, threats and sometimes violence perpetrated by people who protest these events, which in my opinion contributes to a larger overall stifling of public discourse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anything that is not in line with the NWO agenda is hate speech.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • 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.