Should hate speech be protected as free speech?

[HeyYou]

Political Correctness is the curse of all fee societies. I rather like George Carlin, simply BECAUSE he was completely honest. He did not pull punches, he did not worry about hurting anyones feelings.

 

I think Simon Phoenix (Demolition Man) said it best: The world has become a brady-bunch, pussy-whipped verion of itself. :D

[NemesisTheWarlock]

 

Unfortunately here in Britain we don't have the benefit of the First Amendment and our ability to freely express our opinions is under serious assault. There is a youngster currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for a throw away comment he posted on Facebook regarding last years riots. As Ice T said back in the 90's, what we have here is "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say"

We do have Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, sadly no one seems to take a blind bit of notice of it.

 

Unfortunately so Jim. How many times are we told by the media that said convention is actually a hindrance to our freedom? Worse I think is the prevelance of media talking heads telling us "Of course we need freedom of speech, but there are some things that shouldn't be said!"

Look at what happened to Frankie Boyle. Exercising free speech is becoming like admitting to taking drugs.

[JimboUK]

 

 

Unfortunately here in Britain we don't have the benefit of the First Amendment and our ability to freely express our opinions is under serious assault. There is a youngster currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for a throw away comment he posted on Facebook regarding last years riots. As Ice T said back in the 90's, what we have here is "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say"

We do have Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, sadly no one seems to take a blind bit of notice of it.

 

Unfortunately so Jim. How many times are we told by the media that said convention is actually a hindrance to our freedom? Worse I think is the prevelance of media talking heads telling us "Of course we need freedom of speech, but there are some things that shouldn't be said!"

Look at what happened to Frankie Boyle. Exercising free speech is becoming like admitting to taking drugs.

 

 

If only people could see it's not the act that's the problem, it's the abuse of it. It's become a criminal rights act that does nothing to protect ordinary people from agents of the state. It's also increasingly used by public bodies as an excuse for inaction, much like "elf and safety" legislation it's become the default excuse for not doing their jobs. This is a great example of how idiotic things have become http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/comedy/comedy-news/10249686/Im-proud-to-be-a-Paki-how-can-that-be-racism.html

[Hardwaremaster]

 

 

 

Unfortunately here in Britain we don't have the benefit of the First Amendment and our ability to freely express our opinions is under serious assault. There is a youngster currently serving a 4 year prison sentence for a throw away comment he posted on Facebook regarding last years riots. As Ice T said back in the 90's, what we have here is "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say"

We do have Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, sadly no one seems to take a blind bit of notice of it.

Unfortunately so Jim. How many times are we told by the media that said convention is actually a hindrance to our freedom? Worse I think is the prevelance of media talking heads telling us "Of course we need freedom of speech, but there are some things that shouldn't be said!" Look at what happened to Frankie Boyle. Exercising free speech is becoming like admitting to taking drugs.

 

If only people could see it's not the act that's the problem, it's abuse of it. It's become a criminal rights act that nothing to protect ordinary people from agents of the state. It's also increasingly used by public bodies as an excuse for inaction, much like "elf and safety" legislation it's become the default excuse for not doing their jobs. This is a great example of how idiotic things have become http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/comedy/comedy-news/10249686/Im-proud-to-be-a-Paki-how-can-that-be-racism.html

 

Yeah. It looks like what I previously posted, only the United Kingdom Edition. I thought the United States was the only doing this Imbecilic Rationalization so we could avoid Emotional Damage. You have my sincere condolences and apologies that this is currently going on, I am, wondering when and who actually started this mess because I don't ever remember it being like this before. I still can't even believe Sensitivity Training is really a thing now, how, do you even go about training someone to become sensitive? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy004.gif

 

Its almost like everyone has become oversensitive, overnight, as Nemesis said it is becoming a Thought Crime.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[LordPariah]

I understand the desire for people to shout down those who denigrate the being or actions of others, but I also see the need for such people to out themselves for their ideals and the promote discussion on what exactly is hatred, ignorance stereotyping.

 

I think that the concept of tolerance is a blanket solution to a real problem we have in society and this problem will not go away by ideologically looking the other way when people act out. There should be standards in society that people and groups like The Westbourgh Baptist Church and the ku klux klan have been actively degrading, that are being duplicated by those who, today remain in the shadows, germinating discontent and anger to a level that brings these hate crimes into being.

 

I think that there are those who benefit greatly by hate and hate mongering and in order for everybody to understand the difference between sheer hatred and systemic ignorance, there should be open debate on every bodies individual beliefs. I think that the hold of many of the charismatic have on their initiates can be eroded if these people are given a chance to air their opinions

 

Both hatred and ignorance are dangerous and I'm not sure that either of these can be eradicated, but I think hatred is more a conscious choice than ignorance. I think the best way to repair the damage ignorance does to a human society is discussion. I think that the only real hold that many leaders of hate groups have on their newest members is the sense of repression of opinions and ideals that saturates the most radical groups. I think as long as there is an open and honest avenue to air grievances, either real or imagined, that we can lessen the attraction of these hate groups to many who ultimately end up there.

Watch this and then decide:

[Rennn]

I think people are missing something huge in this debate.

There's a difference between opinions and lies.

 

Saying, "I hate fags, I wish they would die." is hateful and idiotic, but it's protected by freedom of speech. It's an opinion, and no matter how ridiculous an opinion is, people should be free to voice it.

 

Saying, "Gays are 55% more likely to be murderers, because they have a gene that stops morality." should not be protected by freedom of speech, because it's not an opinion. It's a lie. Biology disproves it. It doesn't voice the speakers personal views, it's a false and disprovable statistic.

 

In short, opinions should always be protected. However, lies about factual information should not be supported.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Rennn

[JimboUK]

What if someone believes "Gays are 55% more likely to be murderers, because they have a gene that stops morality."? if they believe it they're not lying, they're just wrong. Anyway if telling lies were a crime we'd all have been in front of the judge at some point in our lives, we've all done it at one time or another. The worlds politicians would never be out of jail, they're full of it.

[HeyYou]

There is legal precedent for lying being considered 'protected speech' as well. Read up on "stolen valor".

[Lisnpuppy]

“Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech” – Benjamin Franklin

 

 

What once was thought to be the truth has come to pass to be not true. Galileo stated that the Earth moved around the sun and the moon around it. The Church knew this was not the truth and silenced him.

 

We once knew the truth was that the Earth was flat and you would sail off the edge of the map.

 

Many believe that the truth is found in religious texts. You'll not convince them otherwise no matter the science presented.

 

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.

 

I think people are missing something huge in this debate.

There's a difference between opinions and lies.

 

Saying, "I hate fags, I wish they would die." is hateful and idiotic, but it's protected by freedom of speech. It's an opinion, and no matter how ridiculous an opinion is, people should be free to voice it.

 

Saying, "Gays are 55% more likely to be murderers, because they have a gene that stops morality." should not be protected by freedom of speech, because it's not an opinion. It's a lie. Biology disproves it. It doesn't voice the speakers personal views, it's a false and disprovable statistic.

 

In short, opinions should always be protected. However, lies about factual information should not be supported.

 

I am sure Renn that there are many folks and many scientist that would show you "factual evidence" to the contrary. Until recently genetics was not even known to us so the people had "facts" that homosexuals did all these things and more. So those that spoke out against that "fact" should have been silenced? Those who wished to study to find out more would have been shut up and shut away? If that had happened then where would the gay community now find itself?

 

The truth is relative and facts change. Look at science over the last 100 years. At any time one could have argued that what we now find to be "true" (or the best working theory) was not and vice verse. There would be no change and no discovery of new facts if someone was not allowed to say something that was not considered true.

 

As horrid and as reprehensible as some speech may be to NOT protect it only leads to your own rights being taken away. It only leads to those that say such things to go underground and become more insidious in the process. Then one day someone who has "facts" at their beck and call will come and muzzle YOU from speaking your mind. This is why it is so important to support freedom of all speech.

 

"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." -Charles Bradlaugh

[Mandamus]

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."

Edited August 23, 2013 by Mandamus