Merged Discussions of Hate Speech and the First Amendment

[marplots]

Then why don't we alter the world to outlaw Nazi/White Supremacist speech entirely? I would think the collective moral judgement is that such speech is morally repugnant.

It's the limited choice landscape again. While I think it is entirely possible to prosecute or try to eliminate certain classes of speech (as has been done with, say child pornography), there is a tension between "oughts" here with no clear winner.

I want to speak freely on sensitive matters. I want to be able to shock sometimes. Choosing to go more toward the censure side means I am agreeing that preventing/prosecuting hate speech has a higher moral value than not. But more than this, the higher moral good should be both clear, obvious and actionable. I don't think, in this case it is.

For example. We could pick the most terrible moral lapse we can imagine, wish whole-heartedly along with all our fellows that such a moral outrage should be guarded against - and still, still, a man might think all about it, dwell on it, and maybe someday act toward this horror. In other words, if I have no ready, workable method to achieve a stronger moral fabric in my society, I'm screwed. Screwed, but freed from the obligation to do anything about it.

So, two reasons. 1) Is it really, clearly, identifiable and actionable? 2) Can it be usefully/practically addressed without ruining other ideas I hold dear?

 

[xjx388]

Yes. Seems to work out fine in Europe.

Since we are gutting the 1st Amendment, should we also ban "religions" like Christian Identity?

And, since we pretty much all agree that gay-bashing is a bad thing, should we outlaw anti-gay speech and religions?

 

[Tony Stark]

I think you are wrong about that too. I, for one, thought that was an especially stupid thing to say.

Certainly it doesn't matter enough to the vast majority of his followers to drop their support.

 

[Tony Stark]

Since we are gutting the 1st Amendment, should we also ban "religions" like Christian Identity?

And, since we pretty much all agree that gay-bashing is a bad thing, should we outlaw anti-gay speech and religions?

I see no reason to ban religion.

But anti-gay hate speech, sure if enough people agree.

 

[xjx388]

It's the limited choice landscape again. While I think it is entirely possible to prosecute or try to eliminate certain classes of speech (as has been done with, say child pornography),

That's a bit different in that actual children are harmed in the production of child pornography. It's more than speech. For example "virtual" child porn is legal.

there is a tension between "oughts" here with no clear winner.

I want to speak freely on sensitive matters. I want to be able to shock sometimes. Choosing to go more toward the censure side means I am agreeing that preventing/prosecuting hate speech has a higher moral value than not. But more than this, the higher moral good should be both clear, obvious and actionable. I don't think, in this case it is.

For example. We could pick the most terrible moral lapse we can imagine, wish whole-heartedly along with all our fellows that such a moral outrage should be guarded against - and still, still, a man might think all about it, dwell on it, and maybe someday act toward this horror. In other words, if I have no ready, workable method to achieve a stronger moral fabric in my society, I'm screwed. Screwed, but freed from the obligation to do anything about it.

So, two reasons. 1) Is it really, clearly, identifiable and actionable? 2) Can it be usefully/practically addressed without ruining other ideas I hold dear?

Well, that's the whole crux of the argument. How many of our most cherished ideas of freedom are we willing to sacrifice to enforce a particular moral viewpoint?

 

[xjx388]

I see no reason to ban religion.

Then there's the loophole. Westboro Baptist Church and their ilk can continue to spew hatred because it's religious speech. White Nationalists/KKK/NN, will simply adopt a model similar to Christian Identity.

But anti-gay hate speech, sure if enough people agree.

When does it become Tyranny of the Majority?

 

[Tony Stark]

Then there's the loophole. Westboro Baptist Church and their ilk can continue to spew hatred because it's religious speech. White Nationalists/KKK/NN, will simply adopt a model similar to Christian Identity.

Religion isn't illegal in places like Germany where there are laws against hate speech. Somehow they manage.

When does it become Tyranny of the Majority?

When the laws hurt people that aren't disgusting bigots.

 

[Beerina]

I see no reason to ban religion.

But anti-gay hate speech, sure if enough people agree.

Not too many decades ago, "enough people" would have "agreed" to ban pro-gay speech. We wouldn't be here at this state if that was allowed to happen.

It was bad enough they had critical mass they could threaten to boycott corporations until recently (when that power is now wielded by the other side.)

 

[marplots]

Well, that's the whole crux of the argument. How many of our most cherished ideas of freedom are we willing to sacrifice to enforce a particular moral viewpoint?

"Sacrifice" seems too strong a word. It's more like we are trying to carve a path through the moral jungle that gives us the best mix - there's a lot of feedback, pushback, and walk-backs on offer. It doesn't seem to me to be all or none.

In fact, it's damn hard to tell where things will end up without waiting decades. I can definitely point out differences from, say, 1980, but things that would change were largely invisible to me at the time. For example, with AIDS I thought for a time that homosexuality was going to fall off dramatically. I was very wrong for many reasons then, but I have no reason to think I'm not wrong now too.

 

[Tony Stark]

Not too many decades ago, "enough people" would have "agreed" to ban pro-gay speech. We wouldn't be here at this state if that was allowed to happen.

It was bad enough they had critical mass they could threaten to boycott corporations until recently (when that power is now wielded by the other side.)

There is a clear difference between hate speech and speaking in favor of an opressed minority.

 

[xjx388]

Religion isn't illegal in places like Germany where there are laws against hate speech. Somehow they manage.

I think you need to read up on religious freedom in Germany.

When the laws hurt people that aren't disgusting bigots.

Now we just have to all agree on who the disgusting bigots are.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think you need to read up on religious freedom in Germany.

Enlighten me.

 

[Garrison]

Yes. Seems to work out fine in Europe.

When 'free speech' is used as a cover to spread hatred, to intimidate bully and flat spread lies that has to have consequences. Treating the 1st Amendment as if came down from Mount Sinai has probably contributed to the current toxic atmosphere in US politics not helped.

 

[Garrison]

Now we just have to all agree on who the disgusting bigots are.

Since you seem to be having a problem in that regard it would be the guys waving Swastika flags and chanting anti-Semitic slogans. I realize the charming tiki torches might have distracted you in the same way they did Trump, but yeah those are the disgusting bigots you're looking for.

 

[Loss Leader]

What about first amendment and hate speech?

What of the spirit of that expression which goes something like "I may not agree with what you say but I agree you have the right to say it or will defend you right to say it."

This is associated with Youtube's new program of monitoring content, as an example of censorship.

Recognizing that the first amendment may not apply in some places like a privately owned workplace.

Since you recognize that YouTube isn't governed by the First Amendment regarding hate speech, what is this thread about?

 

[Beerina]

There is a clear difference between hate speech and speaking in favor of an opressed minority.

Whoosh!

 

[xjx388]

Enlighten me.

It isn't relevant to this thread but before you compare German religious freedom to US 1st Amendment rights you should at least know what's up.

The fundamental problem is that you seem to be willing to rewrite the 1st Amendment to suit your worldview which goes against everything the US Constitution stands for.

"Because I'm right and you're wrong," is about the most anti-American thing you can say, in my opinion, when it comes to making the law and interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Tony Stark]

It isn't relevant to this thread but before you compare German religious freedom to US 1st Amendment rights you should at least know what's up.

The fundamental problem is that you seem to be willing to rewrite the 1st Amendment to suit your worldview which goes against everything the US Constitution stands for.

"Because I'm right and you're wrong," is about the most anti-American thing you can say, in my opinion, when it comes to making the law and interpreting the Constitution.

I don't know if you knew this but the constitution itself includes mechanisms to change it if enough people agree.

 

[xjx388]

Since you seem to be having a problem in that regard it would be the guys waving Swastika flags and chanting anti-Semitic slogans. I realize the charming tiki torches might have distracted you in the same way they did Trump, but yeah those are the disgusting bigots you're looking for.

Oh sure, that one's easy. Just about everybody agrees that Nazis are vile scum. If a law was proposed that outlawed Nazi speech I'm sure you could get a majority of people to agree that it's the right thing to do, First Amendment be damned.

Christians who are anti-homosexual? Those hateful bigots should be banned from saying bad things about homosexuals also, right?

The people who are anti-Muslim and don't want them to immigrate here? Hateful bigots – they must be silenced!

Republicans who want to commit mass murder by taking away healthcare? Hateful bigots – disband the party and silence them.

 

[xjx388]

I don't know if you knew this but the constitution itself includes mechanisms to change it if enough people agree.

I do know that. That's why it's quite reassuring to me that most people are not going to agree to strip the rights we all cherish so much.