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
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    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.
    There are always going to be people who refuse to listen to intellectual opinion, it's not a new phenomenon. It might have become a bit more shouty thanks to growing media coverage, but I don't think this is some sign of the end times, just an evolution of an existing problem.

    (Original post by miser)
    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.
    Things are never going to be perfect. At the end of the day, another group could launch a counter-protest to the no-platformers if they wanted, but that almost never happens.

    (Original post by miser)
    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.
    Insults and threatening behaviour should indeed be condemned, though in some cases the speakers being no-platformed have been just as guilty of inciting hate.
    Offline

    15
    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?
    I very much share your opinion on the subject. 'Freedom' should not have limits, especially when these are based on protecting 'feelings'. Censorship is a very dangerous field to enter; where does one draw the limits?
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    There are always going to be people who refuse to listen to intellectual opinion, it's not a new phenomenon. It might have become a bit more shouty thanks to growing media coverage, but I don't think this is some sign of the end times, just an evolution of an existing problem.
    I agree totally with you here. It would be nice if people who don't want to listen didn't try to spoil it for others who do, though.

    (Original post by Dez)
    Things are never going to be perfect. At the end of the day, another group could launch a counter-protest to the no-platformers if they wanted, but that almost never happens.
    Things are never perfect, but I think we should still care if things are better or worse. With de-platforming, it always comes across to me that one side is the outraged shouty type while the other is more calm and balanced. I think calm and balanced is good, but it's not good for protesting.

    (Original post by Dez)
    Insults and threatening behaviour should indeed be condemned, though in some cases the speakers being no-platformed have been just as guilty of inciting hate.
    I'm not as familiar with the instances where people have been inciting hate, but this week it was in the news that Richard Dawkins was de-platformed, allegedly for hateful views previously expressed against Islam, which is unfortunate because he's clearly not a hater (although admittedly not everyone's cup of tea).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hate speech (apart from that which is a direct incitement to violence) is free speech
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    In my experience, most of what's called "hate speech" isn't really hate speech. It's just a term thrown around whenever a person says something politically incorrect or against the grain of current progressive thought.

    Actual hate speech would be saying something like: "Jews are filth, take away their human rights." Something where you are actually preaching hatred towards a people by slandering, belittling and threatening them out of shear ill will.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    In my experience, most of what's called "hate speech" isn't really hate speech. It's just a term thrown around whenever a person says something politically incorrect or against the grain of current progressive thought.

    Actual hate speech would be saying something like: "Jews are filth, take away their human rights." Something where you are actually preaching hatred towards a people by slandering, belittling and threatening them out of shear ill will.
    How about, 'Whites are filth'. This would not be hate speech, because hate speech was a term coined by Zionist Jews to further their agendas.
 
 
 
  • 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.