Hate speech = Free speech
Scroll to see replies
Idea of consequence-less free speech is stupid anyway. It’s only in America where they think of that as a basic human right when really it’s just a stupid privilege
Original post by SHallowvale
Why should we accept racist, sexist and homophobic speech, even in an otherwise free and open environment?
Because it is immoral to threaten people with jail, and worse if they simply use their mouth. It is completely unjust to take somebodies freedom away for a relatively harmless, non-violent crime.
Moreover, once the public allows the state to ban things the state 'doesn't like', they usually never stop, slowly but surely eating up the autonomy of individuals, making our 'free and open environment' the very opposite under a false crusade.
And finally, even if you choose to ignore all that, the best way to challenge bigotry is to challenge it through open dialogue, not let it fester in a vacuum. By allowing racism, sexism etc. to be confronted, you open up the possibility of changing that person view or at least informing the general public about why that view is wrong e.g. The West Bro Baptist Church is the most hated organization alongside the KKK in America primarily due to free speech laws.
Original post by Axiomasher
I don't think it would be right for a group of neo-Nazis to be free to gather around a little old black lady at a bus stop and chant racist slurs at her until her bus came. So, no, I'm not in favour of simplistic 'free speech'.
Ah you've pulled the ol' Nazi bustop hypothetical again.
How would legislation prevent such a thing, more so that social consequences, rejection or repudiation?
Because there are other legal forms of offensive speech that don't come under hate speech laws. It's legal to mock a person's religion and some would find it equally offensive to mocking their race/gender etc.
Original post by Napp
Would you kindly define "justified" here?
Getting shunned by society = Justified
Legal ramifications = Unjustified
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Because it is immoral to threaten people with jail, and worse if they simply use their mouth. It is completely unjust to take somebodies freedom away for a relatively harmless, non-violent crime.
Moreover, once the public allows the state to ban things the state 'doesn't like', they usually never stop, slowly but surely eating up the autonomy of individuals, making our 'free and open environment' the very opposite under a false crusade.
And finally, even if you choose to ignore all that, the best way to challenge bigotry is to challenge it through open dialogue, not let it fester in a vacuum. By allowing racism, sexism etc. to be confronted, you open up the possibility of changing that person view or at least informing the general public about why that view is wrong e.g. The West Bro Baptist Church is the most hated organization alongside the KKK in America primarily due to free speech laws.
Moreover, once the public allows the state to ban things the state 'doesn't like', they usually never stop, slowly but surely eating up the autonomy of individuals, making our 'free and open environment' the very opposite under a false crusade.
And finally, even if you choose to ignore all that, the best way to challenge bigotry is to challenge it through open dialogue, not let it fester in a vacuum. By allowing racism, sexism etc. to be confronted, you open up the possibility of changing that person view or at least informing the general public about why that view is wrong e.g. The West Bro Baptist Church is the most hated organization alongside the KKK in America primarily due to free speech laws.
I hadn't said anything about jailing people.
While you open up the possibility of changing people's minds, you also allow people to bully and harass others and spread these toxic ideas further.
I'm not even against allowing people to discuss racist, sexist or homophobic topics, provided they, as you say, actually have an open dialogue and engage with others. This is probably going to happen anyway regardless of whether it is banned or not, but banning it will at least act as a deterrent for the people who simply want to preach.
I don't think much is to be gained from allowing, say, some ******* at a secondary school the right to shout homophobic stuff at someone who is gay.
If this thread is really about the sentencing of Tommy Robinson, that was for Contempt of Court and nothing whatever to do with freedom of speech.
If the thread is not an attempt to dogwhistle hard right supporters, then a serious response to it is that freedom of speech has limits. In a country where violence can ensue between racial groups, deliberate attempts to provoke that with inflammatory speech are so undesirable that it is fair to impose legal limits on the extent to which some things can be said in public contexts.
If the thread is not an attempt to dogwhistle hard right supporters, then a serious response to it is that freedom of speech has limits. In a country where violence can ensue between racial groups, deliberate attempts to provoke that with inflammatory speech are so undesirable that it is fair to impose legal limits on the extent to which some things can be said in public contexts.
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Ah you've pulled the ol' Nazi bustop hypothetical again.
How would legislation prevent such a thing, more so that social consequences, rejection or repudiation?
How would legislation prevent such a thing, more so that social consequences, rejection or repudiation?
Laws punish those who commit offences and inhibit (by degree) those who might otherwise do so. Little old black ladies additionally benefit from the knowledge that, regardless of whether or not their immediate neighbours might protest at neo-Nazi racism, wider society as embodied in the State will not just protest but will investigate and hold to account.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Free speech is not free from consequences.
If you say something that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, don't complain about the consequences.
If you say something that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, don't complain about the consequences.
Like has been said, depends entirely on what those consequences are.
I'm for freedom of speech in the sense that the government should not have the right to censor it simply because some people find it offensive or it is inimical in some way to its interests, or those of some group. Not in the sense that threats of or incitement to physical violence should go without consequences, but that is only because the latter is itself criminal in nature. However, I am a libertarian and don't really acknowledge the government as a source of rights; just an enforcer at a derivative level, at best. So I find these discussions on whether "hate speech" is allowable or not rather besides the point.
(edited 5 years ago)
I'm legally allowed to draw a picture of Jesus in bed with Muhammad exercising my right to free speech, despite it being wholly offensive.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
If this thread is really about the sentencing of Tommy Robinson, that was for Contempt of Court and nothing whatever to do with freedom of speech.
If the thread is not an attempt to dogwhistle hard right supporters, then a serious response to it is that freedom of speech has limits. In a country where violence can ensue between racial groups, deliberate attempts to provoke that with inflammatory speech are so undesirable that it is fair to impose legal limits on the extent to which some things can be said in public contexts.
If the thread is not an attempt to dogwhistle hard right supporters, then a serious response to it is that freedom of speech has limits. In a country where violence can ensue between racial groups, deliberate attempts to provoke that with inflammatory speech are so undesirable that it is fair to impose legal limits on the extent to which some things can be said in public contexts.
nope - I haven't really followed what happened with Tommy - idrc tbh
Original post by Axiomasher
I don't think it would be right for a group of neo-Nazis to be free to gather around a little old black lady at a bus stop and chant racist slurs at her until her bus came. So, no, I'm not in favour of simplistic 'free speech'.
That would be illegal under harassment laws pretty much irregardless of what the group are shouting, so isn't really a great example...
I agree with freedom of speech to an extent that doesn't provoke others and as long as the one your directing it to is willing to understand and knows your having a peaceful debate....
Aelin.
Aelin.
Not sure if you'll respond, since you probably regard me as a homophobe now, but where do you personally draw the line on freedom of speech? In these threads, you always cite to the law to embarass other people who know very little about it without ever actually saying anything or giving an opinion. What do YOU consider to not be free speech? (speech that is worthy of prosecution).
Point is there are no clear limits between what is fine to say and what is not - and I don't mean this soley from a legal standard.
Original post by Dheorl
That would be illegal under harassment laws pretty much irregardless of what the group are shouting, so isn't really a great example...
Who said anything about shouting?
Original post by Axiomasher
Who said anything about shouting?
I'm sorry, "chanting", same point still stands.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
