At what point does free speech become hate speech?

Watch
dinomite
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Is there even a line or any sort of boundary? What about the limits? Are they definite and absolute?
0
reply
JaydorIV
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
when you say "we people should go and kill ....."
1
reply
username3959912
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
When ur speech and u become entitled
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
I really don't like the concept of hate speech. It's too often used as a way of shutting down discussion or even the distribution of unpalatable facts. Something being "hateful" shouldn't be a crime. It's our God-given right to be hateful of things, even other people. It shouldn't matter how offensive or upsetting it is. Deal with it as an adult.

In my book, the only speech that should carry any legal ramifications is defamation (specifically libel and slander against a specific individual or organisation), credible threats (I mean credible, i.e. not simply saying "I'm gonna getcha!" on Twitter), and contempt of court or lying to police. And really only the latter two should be considered criminal, although I could see case for slander/libel being criminal in more severe, exceptional circumstances.
2
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
When a powerful group decide it is hate speech
0
reply
SFASPIRANT
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
When someone gets offended by something. Free speech doesn't exist in this country anymore.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
it becomes hate speech when you use your words to threaten, harass or assault an individual or threaten public safety, otherwise you are free to say whatever hateful things you want; you won't go to prison for it. anyone who's hung around TSR should know this. but yeah, the media throws the term around for click-bait and to make everyone think the world is against them. 'everyone is against you' sells, apparently.
3
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
When speech insults instead of providing a logical argument backed up by sources or commonly known data.

The problem is, both sorts of speech can be easily confused, especially by people who lack education or have a tendency to express emotions before thinking. Try saying something about average values of intelligence within different groups of the human population.
First of all, lots of people will fail to understand what 'on average' means in terms of mathematics, even though they surely learned it at primary school.
0
reply
jojo444
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
It becomes hate speech when you say anything that obstructs the New World Order Agenda.
0
reply
Saif Saleemi
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
it only becomes hate speech when others see it that way ( when they become offended etc)
0
reply
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by PTMalewski)
When speech insults instead of providing a logical argument backed up by sources or commonly known data.

The problem is, both sorts of speech can be easily confused, especially by people who lack education or have a tendency to express emotions before thinking. Try saying something about average values of intelligence within different groups of the human population.
First of all, lots of people will fail to understand what 'on average' means in terms of mathematics, even though they surely learned it at primary school.
"On average" mens very little in terms of mathematics. Ask on any maths paper for an average to be found and you'll get multiple right answers.

And by your definition, do you think what you call hate speech should be punished?
0
reply
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
I think at the point it has power behind it - if you have the power to discriminate based on your speech, or to verbally/physically threaten someone, it becomes hate speech in my view.
1
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Dheorl)
"On average" means very little in terms of mathematics. Ask on any maths paper for an average to be found and you'll get multiple right answers.
I think it is perfectly clear that term 'on average' must refer to some sort of mean or median, and thus the value referred to as average does not apply to every single individual within a group described.
It's just an example, however. My point is that people are too poorly educated to distinguish hate speech from a decent argumentation that supports the point they dislike.


(Original post by Dheorl)
And by your definition, do you think what you call hate speech should be punished?
I think that journalists and politicians should be punished each time when they dare to insult, use eristics, or their speech contains obvious fallacy and doesn't provide sources for the information - for example, I believe that every article in a newspaper should contain references same way as books written for scientific purposes. They should pay fines for each statement in the media or article as such, and eventually temporarily lose the right publish.

Politicians and media say way too much rubbish that is misleading, unproductive and antagonizes different groups of society. Moreover, they're besotting societies through this behavior.
0
reply
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by PTMalewski)
I think it is perfectly clear that term 'on average' must refer to some sort of mean or median, and thus the value referred to as average does not apply to every single individual within a group described.
It's just an example, however. My point is that people are too poorly educated to distinguish hate speech from a decent argumentation that supports the point they dislike.
"Perfectly clear... some sort of". Well that's a wonderful oxymoron. My point is the term "on average" can result in such a different number you really should specify the type of average.

(Original post by PTMalewski)
I think that journalists and politicians should be punished each time when they dare to insult, use eristics, or their speech contains obvious fallacy and doesn't provide sources for the information - for example, I believe that every article in a newspaper should contain references same way as books written for scientific purposes. They should pay fines for each statement in the media or article as such, and eventually temporarily lose the right publish.

Politicians and media say way too much rubbish that is misleading, unproductive and antagonizes different groups of society. Moreover, they're besotting societies through this behavior.
So investigative journalism will basically be a thing of the past? Sounds wonderful...

And what's the point of having politicians if you can't insult them? I'd call a lot of them snobby morons without enough world knowledge to draw a map because it's accurate, but should people not be able to because in someones eyes it would be an insult? So who is going to be this master arbitrator as to what's insulting or not?
0
reply
Fujoshi
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Joleee)
it becomes hate speech when you use your words to threaten, harass or assault an individual or threaten public safety, otherwise you are free to say whatever hateful things you want; you won't go to prison for it. anyone who's hung around TSR should know this. but yeah, the media throws the term around for click-bait and to make everyone think the world is against them. 'everyone is against you' sells, apparently.
Threaten and harass I get but how do you assault someone with words? It's fairly hard to cause bodily harm with low intensity sound waves??

On another note MasterCard recently denied/discontinued offering their services to a YouTuber who they deemed too offensive so either the notion of hate speech as a separate offense needs to be dropped (i.e. current laws around threats/inciting violence should cover most examples surely?) or the government/powers-that-be need to give a concrete definition of what comes under hate speech (i.e. make it so the goalposts can't be potentially moved to silence dissenters etc etc) because the slippery slope is starting to loom large in the horizon...
Not to mention that the last thing anyone wants is for hateful, dangerous people to be driven into underground echo-chambers where their views go unchallenged because it'll be way worse when they come back out into the open >.<
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Dheorl)
"Perfectly clear... some sort of". Well that's a wonderful oxymoron. My point is the term "on average" can result in such a different number you really should specify the type of average.
We're talking on talking so a vocabulary definition should do:
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/...ish/on-average
The perfectly clear part is that any average referring to a group does not refer to an individual. But if you said that a certain group of people is on average less intelligent than other, an individual from this group will consider it a hate speech, even when the statement was proven to be true, and even though the statement says exactly nothing on the individual.

(Original post by Dheorl)
So investigative journalism will basically be a thing of the past? Sounds wonderful...
First of all, investigative journalism is a minority.
Second of all, if you have proofs, there must be a source. If you have proofs, just go with them to the police.


(Original post by Dheorl)
And what's the point of having politicians if you can't insult them?
I didn't say that you cannot insult a politician, I said that politicans and journalists should not be allowed to insult (others). By now a hoast can invite somebody to a TV studio and insult him on air- this is a complete scandal and has nothing to do with a productive debate.

(Original post by Dheorl)
So who is going to be this master arbitrator as to what's insulting or not?
As above, plus you don't have to call anyone an idiot to say effectively the person is an idiot. You can provide arguments- such will be much more informative, productive, and will also include the information.

I also think it is more important to persecute eristics and logical fallacies.

Of course there should be some council of accuracy and ethics in media, consisting of philosophers specialising in logic, theory of argumentation, as well as linguists who should monitor political statements, and articles and push politicians and journalists with fines, and ultimately - the lost of journalist concession, for insults, eristics and notorious fallacies in their statements and articles.

The only productive discussions are those when such are tracked down, and eliminated.
0
reply
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by PTMalewski)
We're talking on talking so a vocabulary definition should do:
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/...ish/on-average
The perfectly clear part is that any average referring to a group does not refer to an individual. But if you said that a certain group of people is on average less intelligent than other, an individual from this group will consider it a hate speech, even when the statement was proven to be true, and even though the statement says exactly nothing on the individual.
If we're talking lazy layman's definitions then why did you start by saying in terms of mathematics? You shouldn't moan about people not understanding something when being so lazy and spreading misconceptions yourself...

And very few people would call that hate speech. What most have a problem with is when it is then suggested that the individual is going to be less intelligent because of the group data, which can cause needless discrimination and should be avoided.

(Original post by PTMalewski)
First of all, investigative journalism is a minority.
Second of all, if you have proofs, there must be a source. If you have proofs, just go with them to the police.
And if your source doesn't want to reveal themselves or is scared to go to the police? Just because something good is struggling, that doesn't mean we should force it out completely.

(Original post by PTMalewski)
I didn't say that you cannot insult a politician, I said that politicans and journalists should not be allowed to insult (others). By now a hoast can invite somebody to a TV studio and insult him on air- this is a complete scandal and has nothing to do with a productive debate.
Why should politicians be held to different standards? I don't see any harm with them calling each other snobby morons. And do you actually have any evidence of such things happening on TV shows? What was the outcome in the current system of people looking out for themselves?

(Original post by PTMalewski)
As above, plus you don't have to call anyone an idiot to say effectively the person is an idiot. You can provide arguments- such will be much more informative, productive, and will also include the information.

I also think it is more important to persecute eristics and logical fallacies.

Of course there should be some council of accuracy and ethics in media, consisting of philosophers specialising in logic, theory of argumentation, as well as linguists who should monitor political statements, and articles and push politicians and journalists with fines, and ultimately - the lost of journalist concession, for insults, eristics and notorious fallacies in their statements and articles.

The only productive discussions are those when such are tracked down, and eliminated.
And who's going to fund this council, it's going to have to be pretty massive to not have a bias and to check such a throughput of data. How are they going to be selected, who's going to be keeping an eye on them, how are they going to account for different interpretations. If they let something through that someone then complains they found insulting who's going to be held accountable.

There's so many flaws with such a system it would never work, people just need to deal with the fact that others will disagree, sometimes that will cause annoyance or upset, but unless it's actually endangering you in someway, you just need to rise above it.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Dheorl)
If we're talking lazy layman's definitions then why did you start by saying in terms of mathematics? You shouldn't moan about people not understanding something when being so lazy and spreading misconceptions yourself...
What kind of misconception is, that average values don't refer to individuals?

(Original post by Dheorl)
And very few people would call that hate speech. What most have a problem with is when it is then suggested that the individual is going to be less intelligent because of the group data, which can cause needless discrimination and should be avoided.
From my experience with the media and political debates, many journalists and politicians are actually unable to distiguish between average values and individual qualities.

Also there has been a large debate on the gender pay gap, while average differences on features such as physical strength and intelligence suggest that actually it would be strange if there wasn't any pay gap. How big it should be, is another question.


(Original post by Dheorl)
And if your source doesn't want to reveal themselves or is scared to go to the police? Just because something good is struggling, that doesn't mean we should force it out completely.
If the offense is criminal they will have to contact the police somehow at some point.
If an accusation is not backed by evidence or witness, it's just a slander and such can be used to destroy innocents.
Also there is very little cases like that, while most of articles in press in many countries are just propaganda created to damage the political opponents.

(Original post by Dheorl)
Why should politicians be held to different standards?
Because they take responsibility for entire society.
If they're destroying the debate standards, they're destroyng the society.


(Original post by Dheorl)
I don't see any harm with them calling each other snobby morons.
So there won't be any harm either if you let your children to insult each other?

(Original post by Dheorl)
And do you actually have any evidence of such things happening on TV shows?
Programs in which Piers Morgan is a host for example.
Speaking of politicans, I don't pay attention to the British debates, but If you have watched the EP discussions from time to time, you would have known what I mean.
Particularly Verhofstadt is an important and influential person works mainly with eristics instead of reason.



(Original post by Dheorl)
And who's going to fund this council, it's going to have to be pretty massive to not have a bias and to check such a throughput of data.
Not exactly. It would be enough if they investigated only cases there were complaints on, plus one man can easily read all major daily neewspapers and weekly magazines, especially if he has a working day for that.

(Original post by Dheorl)

How are they going to be selected, who's going to be keeping an eye on them, how are they going to account for different interpretations.
I would have them selected by universities. Plus, tracking eristics and basic logical fallacies is pretty easy, and really leaves next to none place for interpretation.

(Original post by Dheorl)
If they let something through that someone then complains they found insulting who's going to be held accountable.
Hire me to invent the system, and I'll polish the details.
Courts also make mistakes from time to time, but the system works in general.

(Original post by Dheorl)
There's so many flaws with such a system it would never work, people just need to deal with the fact that others will disagree, sometimes that will cause annoyance or upset, but unless it's actually endangering you in someway, you just need to rise above it.
There is a difference between tracking eristics and basic fallacies or the lack of evidence and the difference between complex opinions.

Viewpoints on complex matters cannot be solved with formal logic because they're too complex, there's a large risk of making mistakes and therefore different opinions are ok. Plus inductive logic doesn't even give valid arguments.
But eristics tricks and basic fallacies can be easily detected and proven to be what they are.
There are internet forums where users track these mistakes during the discussion, this is also the basics of any philosopher's work.
It's simply irresponsible to let the country be lead by standards below the level that is achievable even in internet communities that have no vital effect on society.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Fujoshi)
Threaten and harass I get but how do you assault someone with words? It's fairly hard to cause bodily harm with low intensity sound waves??

On another note MasterCard recently denied/discontinued offering their services to a YouTuber who they deemed too offensive so either the notion of hate speech as a separate offense needs to be dropped (i.e. current laws around threats/inciting violence should cover most examples surely?) or the government/powers-that-be need to give a concrete definition of what comes under hate speech (i.e. make it so the goalposts can't be potentially moved to silence dissenters etc etc) because the slippery slope is starting to loom large in the horizon...
Not to mention that the last thing anyone wants is for hateful, dangerous people to be driven into underground echo-chambers where their views go unchallenged because it'll be way worse when they come back out into the open >.<
it's called common assault. so the perpetrator intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful force. you can do this through threatening words.

re Mastercard, that's a matter of contract law - not hate speech law. Mastercard is free to set the terms and conditions and if you violate them you are in breach of contract. it's not a breach of human rights law as no one forces anyone to sign a contract - it's an agreement.

if you want to read more about the government's definition of hate crime you can read it here if you're interested.
0
reply
Justbeingmyself
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
When it is not backed up with proper verifiable evidence? In general though, I'm very much pro-free speech in order to understand differing perspectives.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What support do you need with your UCAS application?

I need help researching unis (3)
9.09%
I need help researching courses (2)
6.06%
I need help with filling out the application form (3)
9.09%
I need help with my personal statement (15)
45.45%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (7)
21.21%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (1)
3.03%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (2)
6.06%

Watched Threads

View All