Should hate speech be protected as free speech?

[HeyYou]

There will always be folks with an opposing veiwpoint, regardless of what the issue is. If you stood on a street corner, and loudly announced the grass is green, someone would be along to disagree with you. You can count on it.

 

Really doesn't matter what you legislate. Folks will still pretty much say what they want. Whether it is true or not. Whether it is illegal or not. If it is part of their core beliefs, you aren't going to change their minds, and you aren't going to shut them up. The more savvy folks will simply ignore them. After all, what good is the 'prophet' that no one listens to?

[Lisnpuppy]

 

You do not combat lies and ignorance (and I am not including things like libel and such..which is different) with muzzling those who say it. You combat it with education and intelligent debate. You can not legislate the truth. You can not hope to muzzle speech, even stupid, ignorant or hateful speech and retain your own freedom and right to speak and be free. To wish this to be is a dangerous and slippery slope.

 

(snip)

 

"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race."

I mostly agree with your post, but the parts I emboldened sound like wishful thinking to me. Intelligent debate... sure that's what people do here, in this section of the forums, but many people tend to disregard facts in favor of their own emotional outlook on specific issues. Just like you said earlier in your post, "you'll not convince them otherwise no matter the science presented."

 

Here is an example. Where I live we have laws which state that holocaust denial is a crime. These laws are, clearly, a restriction on freedom of speech. I'm not saying they are perfect, but if they were to be abolished, I do not believe for a second that "intelligent debate" would be enough to fight off the false idea that, in the end, the holocaust didn't happen. Now maybe in countries like the United States or the UK this doesn't really matter, but in some countries in continental Europe, such laws work as safeguards. I seriously wouldn't want that dam to be opened. The abuse wouldn't "die in a day."

 

Just because I can not necessarily change their opinion does not mean we should muzzle folks and take away their rights. Again as I said...one day someone will be in power that thinks your beliefs are the incorrect ones. If there is not a safeguard of protection for all people then it will be YOU who loses their rights.

 

This is why it is paramount to protect these things. Also remember that the first amendment is really (as are most of the Bill of Rights in the United States) set up as protection for the people against the government. It is not protection of speech between one individual against another. It is so the government can not oppress you when you say things they find (or want to find) objectionable.

[Aonghus]

There's a more insidious danger in all of this, it's part of what Orwell was warning about in 1984. Control speech, and you control thought. Control thought and you control the person. I think we can all agree that would be a bad thing, or should I say "double plus ungood?"

[roquefort]

There's a more insidious danger in all of this, it's part of what Orwell was warning about in 1984. Control speech, and you control thought. Control thought and you control the person. I think we can all agree that would be a bad thing, or should I say "double plus ungood?"

 

Orwell was no absolutist about non-censorship though. In a proposed preface to Animal Farm, he wrote in part;

 

"There always must be, or at any rate there always will be, some degree of censorship, so long as organised societies endure. But freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg [sic] said, is ‘freedom for the other fellow’. The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: ‘I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilisation means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way." (my emphasis).

 

That last part (bolded) is where the disagreement over freedom of speech lies, I think. People have differing views as to what "harms the community in some quite unmistakable way". For example, if hate speech leads to serious rioting and civil unrest, it must be very tempting for authorities to censor it as an easier option than policing the perceived consequences of tolerating it.

Edited August 31, 2013 by roquefort

[NemesisTheWarlock]

For the Americans (or interested parties) amongst you, at what point does the right to express that we should fight for freedom and justice become "hate speech"? And, just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, who should decide? I think that's what Orwell was getting at to some extent, that there was no way to be definitive on the matter. He was, after all, one of Britain's best propagandists and certainly agreed that those who expressed sympathies for the Nazi ideology during the second world war should be criminalised.

Do we, in the modern day, faced with religious extremism, start to monitor and criminalise those who preach to their congregations? I think that those who drafted the 1st Amendment recognised the can of worms drawing a line would open and opted to protect ALL freedom of expression as the only sensible conclusion.

[HeyYou]

That's just it though. Limiting speech in ANY fashion is simply a step down a road to total censorship. Think I am exaggerating? Paranoid? Take a breif look into history, and see that any government, when given an inch, takes a lightyear. At this point, everyone is so worried about 'offending' someone minority group, even the language has changed.

 

So far, the government has protected someones right to flat out LIE. But, say something against gays? Hate Speech. You are now a criminal.......

 

But then, our government MUST give the appearance of 'doing something' to make sure they do their best to get the votes of those various minority groups. Please note, that does NOT imply that what they do actually has to make sense, or even be effective in and manner whatsoever. Its all in the appearance.....

[Lisnpuppy]

For the Americans (or interested parties) amongst you, at what point does the right to express that we should fight for freedom and justice become "hate speech"? And, just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, who should decide? I think that's what Orwell was getting at to some extent, that there was no way to be definitive on the matter. He was, after all, one of Britain's best propagandists and certainly agreed that those who expressed sympathies for the Nazi ideology during the second world war should be criminalised.

Do we, in the modern day, faced with religious extremism, start to monitor and criminalise those who preach to their congregations? I think that those who drafted the 1st Amendment recognised the can of worms drawing a line would open and opted to protect ALL freedom of expression as the only sensible conclusion.

Kinda what I been saying this entire thread. :)

[TRoaches]

hate == thought

hate crime == thought crime

[baltasaronmeth]

I just read through an entire month of discussion. First of all, I am amazed how civilized this community is, even when unleashed upon a topic far far away from meshes and cells. Such threads usually turn into a pissing contest after a couple of posts.

 

I seem to live on both sides of the line. First and foremost, I am against any kind of cencorship. The most important reasons have already be listed here: Controlled speech is controlled thought. Who is able to decide, what should be allowed to say and what should be banned. I strongly believe, that everybody should be able to express any thought at any time. On the other hand, I have experienced the other side of the coin already. In our society, words are very important. At school, I have been under constant verbal opposition by those who disliked the way I was different from them. They made sure everybody noticed, how different I was and also spent a lot of time and energy into telling others, that my way of life is bad. Today, such things are called "mobbing", and while I went out of the entire thing strong willed, self assured and more eloquent, than I probably would have been without that, I observed other people collapsing under the pressure. One could say, that not the speech itself was to be dealt with, but the intention and effect. Their speech was damaging my value of life and I had to come up with something to stop that. I ended up starting my own campaigns, had the local authorities (teachers) punish them and developed a relatively strong right hook. Yes, sometimes I did not know what to do, other than punching the guy. That was bad, but I was far from grown up as a kid. Who would have thought?

 

Sometimes it is wise, not to say something, although you would be perfectly fine hearing the words yourself. During my uni years, I was a part-time teacher at a, err, middle school (grades 5-10). I had to constantly watch my language, because a) I was raised with all sorts of curse words and b) teengage slang is so very different from what it was when I was that young. I would constantly either make them laugh like there was no tomorrow or feel strangely offended. I can also understand, that anybody would feel uneasy, if I called him a f@&#!t, n!@#&£, Apple user or something like that, it's all about the specific origin of the reciever of your speech, as well as who you are. We have a Turkish cabaret artist in Germany, who has a fair number of fans because of his Hitler impersonations, Mein Kamp readings and his general attitute of standing on stage, insulting everybody and then claiming, that he cannot be a racist, because he is one of those defamed minorities. Then I know a number of gay people, who keep using the word "f@&#!t" for a certain kind of gay person, claiming, that this certain demographic is responsible for the bad public picture of homosexuality. I also keep black people call each other n!@#&£ all day, but would sure be more or less disgruntled, if I, a white European, would use that word. Of course, if that artist I mentioned says it, it's perfectly fine for the white German audience, because he is Turkish and unable to be a racist because of that. Public perception makes words bad, not the original meaning. But we are not just talking about words here.

 

Hate speech should be treated as what it is: A person or group uses lies or half-truth to defame another person, group, institution or ideology. Hate speech draws wrong conclusions. Hate speech is, by any means, a political device to harm other people and their interests. Therefore, hate speech should have consequences. Since we are not allowed to defend our honour and interests as we would have done a few centuries before, we need a jurisdictional system, that allows us to take any kind of bad action against our life, well-being, peace and honour in front of a jury.

 

This is where another problem begins. While it is perfectly fine in, say, Russia, to be gainst homosexuals, you would be crucified publically for the same words in Germany. While public anti-jewish speeches are fine and probably common in Arabic or Persian countries, you will of course never hear the end of it in Europe or the US, if you even slip a gas joke in front of the wrong audience. On the other hand, those countries have their own taboos. I recently read, that the North Korean leader had his ex executed for creating porn and owning Bibles. I personally think, that Christianity sucks and porn is fun. I don't like the Islam, I don't like the deeper meaning of being a Jew. Can I say that? Most of the time I cannot. Even worse, I will be branded as an Atheist, expelled from any discussion with religious people. Is this already hate-speech? Am I allowed to find the spirituality of the majority of all people on this planet stupid? In public? Can I say, in public, that I support feminism and like watching porn? Most of the time I simply cannot.

 

There is no real definition of hate speech, that would be applicable to a real life scenario. There is no way to identify hate-speech objectively. It is always a question of public perception and resonance. If the common sense is, that you do not eate mayonese with chocolate and anyone rebells against that, then it is just a normal social and socio-political effect. If someone somes along, preaching how eating mayo with chocolate is morally wrong, corrupt and eats your sould, dog and children, it would probably be hate-speech, if our own scale and context would be used to measure the implication of those statements. This needs to be handled without the subjective connotion of emotion, the judge, jury or whatever deciding instance has to be free of sympathy and own feelings.

 

The only fair decision is based on cause and effect: Did A lobby against B to undermine B's interests? Did A lie in the process? Did A use any methods frowned upon by the respective society? Did A break the current local rules regarding competition in the process? Yes? A is to be punished and/or has to pay reperations for B's damage. But hate-speech is more complex. There is no proof, that Christianity is malicious, there is no proof, that Christianity is not malicious. There is no objective way of identifying a religion as an agent of either growth or destruction, no matter how much I dislike the very concept. How far am I allowed to go? Let's say I want to ban Christianity (Kim gave me the idea) and maybe the other religions as well (if we're at it now, why not go for the actual goal?), how far am I allowed to go?

 

For a rather extensive example, I will create an organisation of like-minded people, who have the same goal. I am automatically validated in my thoughts, as there are others comming to the same conclusion. There will be a bureau, flyers, ads in newspapers, the internet and radio. There will be a website and info booths on every major public event. We will have an info hotline, where people, who suspect Christianity to be malicious can ask for help. Maybe somebody feels threatened by a mob of angry Christians and needs to lay low for a few days. I will personally try to catch every chance to go public and inform people about the dangers of monotheism. Is this hate-speech? For some people, even the frequency of the word "Christianity" in an example is hate-speech. Let's go even further: I will sell books, demanding, that the German people (or even international!) rises against Christian oppression, telling them, that the devine cancer needs to eradicated from our society. I list a number of famous Christians, who did bad bad things and inform about how "The Christian" looks like, how he moves, talks, eats and raises his children (Monogamy?! Seriously?!). I will even go a step further, stating, that Christianity is just a Jewish doomsday cult, that got elevated to power by even more power hungry politicians over the past 2000 years. Is this hate speech already? How about we reach out a little further, saying, that chopping off the end of a baby boy's dick was a reason to remove that child from that family and punish the parents. Oh, that's not the Christians? Never mind, we have already established, how they are just a Jewish cult and them Jews, they sure chop of dicks! From that point on, we will refer to all monotheists only as the "genital mutilators" and the final posters will read: "Love your dick? Say NO! to God!"

 

I guess everybody has a certain point, where he would say, that my example contains or consists of hate speech. Some will draw this line earlier, some later. I bet there are those among us, who followed me until the dick chopping happened and I bet that at least one in every crowd would vote for me in a presidential election, if that was my program. I also bet, that there are a few, who will feel uneasy, beacuse I did not clearly state, that one of this is my actual opinion and that everything was just for the sake of an extreme, way out of proportion example. And I will not. There is something called competence, every reader should develop it at some point. Everyone listening to a speech should be able to evaluate the implications and especially the implicatures.

 

To guess even more, I have no real answer to the original question. We cannot have people run around and lie to defame others. We cannot gag people, who run around and speak their mind. We cannot censor and not censor at the same time. We cannot simply force everybody to prove everything scientifically they say or state all the time, that their output is only an uneducated opinion. We cannot leash the human heart. Imagine, one day, when corporate control over our existence reaches orwelian climaxe, when the dystopy of large companies playing with us as you would with puppets, some people stood up, telling others about the dangers of big companies and we would have them gagged and arrested, because their opinions seem a little extreme to us. We would be lost. No chance.

 

Hate speech has to be dealt with. You cannot un-say what has been said. You cannot imprision a thought, no matter how wrong it is. Mentality will return and hit you like a boomerang. Look at Germany: More than half a century of education and we have more real Nazis, who actually believe all that s#*!, than in the Third Reich. 30 years of integration politics and we have more people, who think, that all strangers have to leave the country, than back then, when it all started and it was still common and not frowned upon to publically blame the immigrants for all our problems. Why? People are not satisfied and go and find the next best reason. Blaming aliens is considered bad by the government and the media, so it must be the culprit! They are just trying to hide it from us! Or something like that, I guess, goes around in those heads. We cannot simply lock everybody away, who goes public and tells us, how all those strangers are responsible. The next one will come and pick up, where the last one was imprisoned. It must be true, they even locked him away for that! Bad bad government, working against our good cause! No, we need to deal with them. We need to show alternatives, demonstrate our dismay, dismatle them, lobby against them. Shunning them only makes them stronger in the long run, validating their cause, at least in their heads.

[HeyYou]

As I have said before, it doesn't matter what you say, there is someone out there in the world that will find it offensive. Trying to legislate 'politically correct' speech is simply stupid. I find being politically correct offensive. Shall that be branded as 'hate speech'?

 

Whatever happened to the days when people simply spoke their mind? If you disagreed, you argued your point, if it looked like you were losing, you shot them. (joking.....)

 

I don't particularly care what folks say. If what they have to say is too far off the mark, I simply ignore them. But, today..... in the touchy-feely us of a...... can't be hurtin' anyones feelings, or saying anything that might upset them, even if it IS true....... Ah, stupidity at its best.