Freedom of Speech / Hate Speech

To me, freedom of speech seems like an essential part of society. If we restrict the freedom of those we dislike, our freedom could be next. Let's be honest, shall we, when we address this issue. If we restrict hate speech, it will happen because of the majority of moderates. These moderates have no problem stopping those who they believe are clearly wrong from speaking as they wish to speak. If that is the case, it seems like a legitimate assumption to make that we could be next - as most views on communism are hardly favorable.

Speech is not fundamentally oppressive as far as I can see, but it be abusive. Still, speech is something that should be protected. Where do we draw the line? Can someone call another person a "fucking christian" in public or a "fucking [insert racial slur here]" or not? Isn't stopping someone from saying such a thing oppressive while them saying such a thing is not - but simply rude? Most people agree that slurs and non-logical argument are not the best ways at defeating opposition. Still, it is essential that people are outspoken that they disagree with certain oppressive ideologies, such as how the left demeans capitalists.

Please respond logically. No "we must crush fascism/destroy the bigots" arguments. People hold illogical views because they lack the intelligence to see they are illogical or have been influenced by society to hold them. No one rationally decides to believe something that is false. They are victims. The reason we oppose them is not that they are evil people who deserved punishment but because their ideology is dangerous and it is neccessary to use violence.

Thoughts?

Banning hate speech is essentially saying to those who might be victims are too weak to live with freedom. I thought we were going to empower these people, and make them equal, not keep them away from the world. It is also saying to the perpetrators that we can't defeat them intellectually or prove them wrong, and instead we have to prohibit their ideas. We can do better than that in fighting fascism. Instead of banning a point of view--prove it wrong!

BBBG: As I interpreted it, he was referring to the DoP post-revolution.

Who says we should "ban" hate speech? I don't think anybody is suggestion we petition the state to make laws about it, merely that we fight the bigots whenever they pop up so that they cannot organize.

There is no rational justification for seperating "hate speech" and other speech. Well, none other than the fact that it's irrational to say, for example, "all blacks are inferior to whites." However, if we ban all irrational speech, much will be banned, including most religious preaching.

The only circumstances in which I would censor hate speech would be in cases of public obscenity (but only in the same way I'd restrict obscenity for any other purpose), and incitement to violence. In the latter case, I would have those who communicate in such a way as to organise or lead violent crimes against one group or another prosecuted. I feel this would be justified in the same way we justify prosecuting conspiracy to commit offences, save that it would not be required to prove that direct operational participation existed.

Why? And what exactly constitutes "obcenity"?

No government has the right to determine that something is "too dirty" or "too immoral" for me to see.

If you don't like obcenity, don't look at it. Personaly, I'm a big fan! :)

That would be covered under conspiracy.

^What he said.

I strongly dissagree with this. If a group of people are attacking a minority (like what most hate speech is) they usually wont be as strong to be able to stand up to this greater force. Also what if there houses get vandalized or they get jumped by a large group because of what an ignorant person said. They have no way to standup to this, they cannot prove the others wrong if no one is willing to listen to them.

This topic is one of those thin lines that start to blur when a controversal act happends. But, as earlier mentioned i think it comes down to if the speech will advocate harm or oppression on another individual or group.

"Public Speech" and "Academic Speech" are two different spheres I believe.

It should be illegal to run into a building, and yell "Fire!" Because that's misleading, and dangerous to the public.

I'd hesitate to draw very strong lines though. That always leads to trouble.

Well, it's tricky of course, but I tend to take the view that I'd rather people be free and deal with the fallout of that, than people be oppressed, in whatever way, and deal with the consequences of that. No, people shouldn't be allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, but if someone wants to write an article on how much they hate minorty X that is their right. However, it is then the responsibility of the society and individuals to do everything in their power prove the foolishness of this person, in a very public forum. It is only through such a process that we can hope that have any chance of "defeating" such ideas.

Saying you wish to have a just society while saying you want to deny the people of speech rights of others maks you a true hypocrite.

It is up to the people to confront those who say extremely despiccable things in public such as the use of racial slurs,etc. We can't expect a government to do this for us.

well im very pro freedom of speech because i would count on the poeple to decide for themselves what they tolerate.
if a neo-nazi would start spewing his filth i would not doubt he would have an angry mob chasing him down within minutes.
and if that mob hangs him then its even better.